Quote:
Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro
Sloth, you can cut the condescending BS, it does your argument no justice.
Whether or not opening up the Iraq front was a good move strategically is debatable. I can understand and respect arguments that OIF was a mistake. However, that's now water under the bridge, and all the hand-wringing in the world won't change the present situation for the better. It doesn't matter if al-Qaeda was in Iraq in 2003, it matters that they're there now, (and getting beaten pretty handily) and it matters that the Iranians are exerting significant influence in the region.
|
It matters a lot.
It matters because the question of why we went there is at the root of the issue with regard to the military-industrial complex. Look at the people who pushed for it. They all have ties to large military contractors who stood, and have profited immensely from it.
And at what cost?
Is your life worth a couple extra billion $ in Haliburton's coffers? What about Lockheed-Martin? Boeing? Ecetera, ecetera.
As much as I think you're a dope...I'm sorry...I don't want to see your ugly ass mug on the news as a KIA. It's not worth it.
And of issue of importance was the fact that the war on terror is supposed to be against those who have perpetrated attacks against the US. Iraq wasn't in the list. Iran is not in the list. If we want to attack them...attack Saudi Arabia. Yemen. Egypt. Pakistan. Just to name a few. Those are places where al-qaeda is flourishing. Attack Afghanistan by all means because that is where al-qaeda's leadership was. Makes sense right?
Just because we are there doesn't mean we don't look at the mistakes made to get us there so that we can prevent them from occurring again. Yeah we are there. Yeah, we enticed al-qaeda to come there. Yeah it is a quagmire. Yeah, we'll be there long after your enlistment is up. I stated, long ago...in 2002 that going into Iraq would be a mistake and that we'd be there for a minimum of 10 years, if not permanently.
Considering I said that in 2002....maybe it means that I have a bit of perspective on this that is realistic.
What makes sense with Iraq is complete and immediate withdrawl. No good can come of it, and none has to this point. They have made no attempt to form a legitimate coalition government with the different ethnic and religious factions in the nation. They've had their shot, all the 'milestones' have not been met. There is no timetable for them to become independent of our presence, because those who make policy here(hint: not the POTUS, not Congress, rather those who pull the strings, double hint: follow the money, are the ones calling the shots) don't want it because it means that they have to quick suckling at the teat of the US taxpayer for a little while.
Since late 2003, we've been trying to let the take over at least on the surface, and what has come of it? ****, the reconstruction of Japan and establishment of their own working government and system took about 5 years, Germany took around 4....how much longer should we give them? How much money should we spend? How many more lives should we lose? Where does it end? Why is no one looking to do that?
But you don't care because you want to go play with your toys in the sandbox.