But it does irritate me when people say hari-kari. I get that it's used in English a lot, but the original term is Hara-Kiri.

Actually, the proper term is "seppuku". "Harakiri" is a word used by lower classes...

Winning, as von Clausowitz said, is accomplishing policy

Well, of course, if von Clausowitz said it, it must be truth and nothing but the truth, sure...

Roosevelt and Truman won World War II in less time.

We remained in Germany for decades after that — had we withdrawn in 1955, Germany too could've become a failed state — or be run over by USSR.

It might take another 10 years, 20 years, 50 years. You can't blame that on Obama.

Yes, I can. And I am far from being the only one. And I'm not just talking about RethugliKKKans: even Leon Panetta was rather critical of the President over this.

That article seems to undercut your own argument.

That Illiberals at Slate criticize Bush and free markets is no surprise. That they also criticize the premature withdrawal of American forces — that's noteworthy. It is like having your mama tell you, you have an ugly nose — it must be really ugly...

Bush lost the war.

Bush conquered the entire country, replaced its government, captured its previous leader and handed him over to the new government to be hung by the neck. If that is still "losing", I don't know, what "winning" is...

Did you volunteer? Where did you earn your battle stripes?

Oh, this is so special! So only the military must have a say on matters of foreign policy? Is that your argument — or did you just get carried away with your ad hominem a little?

Yeah... Although I have not gone to movies in the last 7 years or so (since renovating a house with home theater in it), I was thinking of going to see this one just to stick to those assholes ("Guardians of Peace").

I was just deliberating with myself, whether I am, perhaps, falling for a sneaky marketing ploy, but now Sony officially pulled the movie release making the answer easy and the question moot.

What did Bush leave Obama? Anarchy, controlled by armed gangs. Now the strongest force is the Islamic State.

Not true at all. Iraq was moving in the right direction, its various groups learning to talk to rather than fight rivals.

Withdrawal was grossly premature. That it was done not as an honest mistake, but for cynical political considerations ("See? I did not close Guantanamo, but I did get us out of Iraq"), makes it all the more disgusting...

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the destruction of his entire army apparatus was wat created the power vacuum that ISIS is now stepping into

No. American forces replaced that — there was no vacuum. The vacuum appeared, when we pulled out.

the Iraqi people thought differently, despite the obvious dangers.

Citation needed.

historically it was the Secretary of State that benefitted the most

"The nice thing about Secretaries of State is that there are so many of them to choose from"

You toppled a government, but you sure as hell didn't "conquer" them.

Of course, we did.

You barely got out of there with your asses intact

There are more people dying from guns in Chicago, than were in Iraq.

and every single justification for going in there in the first place was provably false

Wrong. But off-topic...

And now you've left a giant power vacuum which has destabilized the entire region.

Yes, this — withdrawal of troops for political expedience, rather than because the situation really allowed it — was a mistake, which I consider shameful.

Being in Iraq was such an epic failure

Not at all — we did destroy Saddam Hussein's regime and caused himself to be duly punished. Iraq stopped being a threat to its neighbors and was on its way to becoming a decent country. If only we stuck around for longer...

the world doesn't want any more of your "help"

Your other alternatives are China and Russia. Make your pick...

Politicians set up the next person from their party for votes.

Vice-President is traditionally nominated for the next Presidency by the same pary — unless (like Cheney) he explicitly rejects such plans from the very beginning.

I doubt, Joe Biden will score even so much as a nomination — despite his desires — which will, of course, be even more embarrassing for the Democrats, than him losing the subsequent election.

No, I don't think, Obama sincerely cares about his nominal "Number 2"... It was a marriage of convenience — the man was supposed to "bring foreign policy heft" to the ticket. Ha-ha-ha...

And if it requires 10+ years of US military occupation for a country to recover from "collapse", how is that exactly good for us (or them)?

It is "good" simply because it is better than the alternatives: a) remain under Saddam Hussein; b) be taken over by ISIS (or Iran).

10 years is not that long — had we pulled out from Western Germany in 1955, for example, that country (with plenty of Nazis still inside and USSR's massive armies right across the border) too would've been in deep trouble.

Cuba's got some oppression sure

"Some" oppression? What a wonderful understatement... You have to register with police — and get their permission — just to travel from one town to another...

but it's not like the US is torture-free either.

Yeah, this was the first thing, that struck me upon moving to America 20 years ago. Your ready willingness to equate the petty misdeeds of your country's government with the gross human rights violations of others. To you and yours, McCarthy — who caused a hundred or so people (most of them actual Communists) to lose their jobs — is equivalent to Beria, who killed millions.

What little torture we did use, was applied to enemies — and most of us are duly ashamed of it anyway. The worst, that political opposition has to fear in the US, is an IRS audit. Do you understand, what's going to happen to a Cuban questioning Fidel's competence?

Iraq collapsed. How's that working out for US interests?

Obama pulled us out too soon from the collapsed country. That was a mistake, not the bringing upon the collapse (of Saddam Hussein's regime) itself.

Well, Iraq was pushed to collapse. That did not go so well.

What do you mean? The country was then conquered within months by us. Saddam Hussein himself was then captured, tried publicly, and executed deservingly.

Seeing that happen, Muamar Qaddafi relented too — without costing us another dollar or a drop of blood.

That the current Administration managed to destroy those successes by pulling from Iraq too soon and hunting down Qaddafi on made-up pretexts is a shame, but that does not mean, the original plan was flawed.

I am not sure the push-to-collapse strategy has any successes to its name

The only alternatives to such slow suffocation are: a) military intervention; b) pretending, it is Ok. Which do you prefer?

Yeah, we have them on the ropes!

Yes, exactly. They are as poor as a Socialist economy can be and, had it not been for Russia's support, would've collapsed long ago.

Another 55 years should do the trick for sure!

May as well, for all we should care. No skin off our back. But Fidel is unlikely to last that much longer, and this sort of regimes tend to change dramatically with each new Dear Leader.