This is so delusional and r-slurred it makes John Bolton look like a stable genius in comparison: Now that Nasrallah is dead, a president will be elected and it will solve everything.
The only times that Lebanon has barely functioned as a state is when there was consensus among the Christians, Shi'a, Sunnis, and Druze.
There's only been a few guys stupid enough to think they could "win" and dominate the whole country. They got killed once they seemed to be anywhere near to achieving that.
It's kind of hard to build up a functioning bureaucracy while everyone is cowering in bomb shelters.
People don't like to cooperate with American plans while American bombs are landing on them.
The President of Lebanon has never had the power to fix the country's real problems. In fact the constitution is set up to make sure they can't. You're going to have to keep dealing with Nabih Berri.
They desperately need lots of money. Nobody is going to lend money to them while they're getting bombed and everything will just get immediately destroyed.
I cannot emphasize this enough: Syria and Hezbollah are still capable of killing anyone in Beirut they want to. They may feel entitled to carry out assassinations given what has happened lately.
The only thing I'm wondering is if this is male autism like the "Whiz Kids" of the Vietnam War or vapid female r-sluration where midwit women from rich east coast families have been promoted up through academia and think that means they actually know what the frick they're talking about.
There's a lot of people making decisions about this stuff who apparently have no idea that exactly what they're planning to do has been tried before and it didn't work. Or maybe they know and they just don't give a shit because it's never hurt the job prospects of neocons or R2P tards that they totally failed at everything and just ended up killing lots of people.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
didn't they have a puppet president in afghanistan for a while??
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
No we never did. Which is one of the worst mistakes we made. We had Hamid Karzai in power there and there was this idea that like "omg it wouldn't be democratic we didn't let some incredibly corrupt political process there choose the president"
. And then he would turn around and blame us every time we killed people to keep his regime in power. It was fricking insane.
It's always difficult dealing with these leaders. It was difficult in Korea and Vietnam. But we just let this guy stomp on our balls while our kids were dying for him. I'm sure it's because of all the r-slurred shit in history books that we were taught about how it was so terrible that we "supported" Diem. Note that word "supported", the most vague worthless word in the English language.
The thing certain boomers don't like is that we "supported" Nyugen Van Thieu fleeing to America after he fricked up and ruined his country and several million people paid the price but he wasn't one of them.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context