I think Iraq was a next logical step. We had good reasons to invade. To be honest that war was going on for the 12 years between 91 and 03. Additionally it allowed us to place our selves in the middle of the gulf, between the Saudis and Iran, literally placing American troops on both major Iranian boarders.
I believe that Saudi could be handled with stern diplomacy, Yemen is coming around already, Kuwait is our ally, Qatar is our ally, Egypt is our Ally, Jordan is our ally, Pakistan is our ally, Libya has come around some. I think Iraq, Iran and Syria looked to be the next direction to go post Afghanistan. The easiest sell was Iraq because of their own behavior. I do not believe that we should conduct limited war. I think that should we actually conduct ourselves in the manner in which we did during the second world war, we would have had the troops and the money needed to proceed in the Middle East. You are correct that the return of the Russian bear isn't really surprising, what is surprising that they are beginning to come down on the side of the Muslims. They have had their own internal terrorism issues for decades. I'm a grunt and a programmer, certainly no general. The next 10 - 20 years are starting to look really chaotic. As Iraq takes over more of it's own security issues and frees up US troops, I wonder if they just won't end up being redeployed to some place in Eastern Europe, Iran, or even Africa. Something I don't think most of you realize, the Clinton years were the most heavily deployed that the military had been in 30 years. Conflicts other than war, peacekeeping, nation building, raids and so forth were the name of the game. It was coupled with a large scale draw down in forces, reducing the manning numbers to the level that we have today, causing many of the deployment issues we've run into. I don't think Iraq was done right, at least initially (pre-Petraeus). I am of the opinion that we need a draft for those periods of actual conflict; at a minimum. It's constitutional, it could be applied correctly, and I believe it would be good for the nation's backbone and strength. I don't think we've seen the end of war, people always want to saythat when one conflict is wrapping up. I think Obama will want to be a peace keeper of a president, but may be forced into stronger action than he wants by outside influences. I think we're fighting the same war we have been for 70 years. We stabilized Europe, and have been dealing with the rest of the planet since. denstar wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Loathe wrote: >> I've posted it ad naseum, and your own quote says it leaves open the >> possibility. > > I don't personally feel that Iraq was the next logical step after Afghanistan. > > I'm a little surprised that you seem to be saying you thought it was-- > I had thought you were more of the "lets get these assholes, even the > ones who could actually give us a fight (even if only economically)" > type. > Did we go into Iraq to bring democracy and build them up -- or to > fight the gol'dangded terrorists, and protect our contry? I think we > could have literally bought more peace, straight up. Use those ad > agencies on the fucking wannabe terrorists, vs. the American public. > > Give 'em some food, maybe a little chocolate -- make them owe us, like > how it works with the politicians and our strategic allies. > I mean, what century are we in? > > Why didn't we use the goodwill we got for being attacked (even though > we were not innocent (as Ron Paul mentioned, and got booed for!)) to > actually "bring it" to the *real* bad guys? > > I mean... Iraq? That was really #1 on your "these guys could hurt us" > list? Iraq was *the* hotbed of terrorist activity? > > You don't think unlawful pressure was put on people to come up with > justification to further a certain group's agenda? > > > The crap going on in the old USSR is bad, but it makes sense. Logical > progression. > The stuff that went down here, just doesn't track. > (Well, it does, if you're tracking the right stuff, but that "stuff" > would be the shady nature of the current posse in the Oval Office, > which shouldn't be what the USA is about) > > I know you've listed your reasons-- the flyovers, the nose-thumbing, > etc.., but we're a big, bad-ass country. > It hadn't seemed to be slowing us down much, you know? > I was, honestly, more worried about the big players. And now we're a > smaller player than we were. :-( > > You're telling me that you *honestly* think that Iraq was done right? > That the people of America were done right by this Administration? > That you support, not the cause so much, we've covered that, but the > way things went down? It was legit, in your eyes? > > I think that we've agreed that neither of us shed a tear for Saddam > (although I would have rather we killed the son of a bitch with a bowl > of napalm or something, in the heat of battle, vs. how it went down-- > bah.), but there are a LOT of bad people out there, man, and I, > personally, felt that a lot of them had a lot more power to do us harm > than that tired old bastard. > > Hell, I Still do. > > Where's the money coming from to fund these violent nut-jobs? Well, > besides us. *heh* > > So long as I'm all over the place anyway--- that credit card > commercial that says "we're a nation of consumers, and there's nothing > wrong with that"... always fucking cracks me up. > > But I digress. > > Crap, I was hoping you'd say "we should have gone after the Saudis" or > something ballsy, vs. falling back on the (IMO) rather piddly reasons > for putting our children in debt, and at a disadvantage (compared to > where we were). > I thought you'd agreed that we'd gone in bass-ackwards (or, maybe not > gone in (we did kick ass), but how we tried to hold it or whatever)-- > no translators, no moles, no wartime economy. We fire the chiefs with > the nuts* to say what we needed to do to win... > *it took nuts, because (although it was their job do say so) this > administration "gets ya" for not being a "team player" (you know, > like, if you actually cared about the country, or doing the job right. > Or am I off-base there, too?) > > Oh well, I guess the lines are drawn, and folks have to choose sides, > and there is no middle ground. > With us or against us, neh? > > It does keep things exciting, I reckon. It passes the time. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:266208 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
