Bush: "Vietnam offeres lessons for Iraq, we will succeed unless we quit"

[Dr Strangelove]

I told you. He's going to keep us in Iraq until the day he leaves office. His successor will reap the worst fallout of this debacle.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I told you. He's going to keep us in Iraq until the day he leaves office. His successor will reap the worst fallout of this debacle.

I agree. But then, following that logic for historical parallelism, we can predict the following:

2008 - Owing to the war's unpopularity, White House changes parties. New president is a previously-defeated Veep with zero charisma.

2009 - President Gore authorizes secret bombing of officially-neutral Syria.

2012 - Democratic dirty tricks assure the nomination of the GOP candidate the White House wants to run against: Sen. Sam Brownback. Gore reelected, along with his ethically-challenged veep.

2013 - Secretary of State Holbrook wins Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating treaty between Shiites and Sunnis that no one expects to work. American troops leave Iraq.

2013 (cont.) - Meanwhile, vice president Bill Richardson resigns in the wake of corruption allegations; Gore replaces him with a powerful party stalwart who has served in the House for years.

2014 - Gore resigns. Henry Waxman becomes president.

2015 - Islamicists consolidate power; Iraq is finally united under one government

2016 - President Waxman is defeated by a folksy Southern governor no one has heard of.

2017-2020 - President Huckabee proves to be an utter disaster.

2020 - The Democratic candidate for president, routinely dismissed as too extreme for America, too old for the job, and a bit of a joke, runs on a theme of optimism and renewal for America, while openly embracing liberalism. The term "conservative" becomes an insult and a punchline. Traditional GOP voters desert the party, and the Dems win in a landslide.

January 20, 2021 - Hillary Clinton is sworn in as president.

Does that sound about right?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


I agree. But then, following that logic for historical parallelism, we can predict the following:

2008 - Owing to the war's unpopularity, White House changes parties. New president is a previously-defeated Veep with zero charisma.

2009 - President Gore authorizes secret bombing of officially-neutral Syria.

2012 - Democratic dirty tricks assure the nomination of the GOP candidate the White House wants to run against: Sen. Sam Brownback. Gore reelected, along with his ethically-challenged veep.

2013 - Secretary of State Holbrook wins Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating treaty between Shiites and Sunnis that no one expects to work. American troops leave Iraq.

2013 (cont.) - Meanwhile, vice president Bill Richardson resigns in the wake of corruption allegations; Gore replaces him with a powerful party stalwart who has served in the House for years.

2014 - Gore resigns. Henry Waxman becomes president.

2015 - Islamicists consolidate power; Iraq is finally united under one government

2016 - President Waxman is defeated by a folksy Southern governor no one has heard of.

2017-2020 - President Huckabee proves to be an utter disaster.

2020 - The Democratic candidate for president, routinely dismissed as too extreme for America, too old for the job, and a bit of a joke, runs on a theme of optimism and renewal for America, while openly embracing liberalism. The term "conservative" becomes an insult and a punchline. Traditional GOP voters desert the party, and the Dems win in a landslide.

January 20, 2021 - Hillary Clinton is sworn in as president.

Does that sound about right?

[Kuciwalker]

[Dr Strangelove]

By 2045 we can expect a great economic conference in Baghdad to show off the fruits of state sponsored capitalism in Iraq.

[GePap]

The admin. could have done something in Iraq, if they had gone in with 300,000 men from the start. This is not a mission that failed because it coulod never succeed, but one that failed through sheer incompetence and placing ideology before reality. That in my eyes makes it far worse.

[Zkribbler]

The U.S. would have done even better if they'd invaded with 0 troops.