- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,974
- Reaction score
- 69,055
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
and we're in a very strategically advantagous position in the ME.
under fire?
and we're in a very strategically advantagous position in the ME.
I find it impossibly difficult to believe that we would be in Iraq if its main exports were soybeans instead of oil.
under fire?
We're not in Sudan.
What's your point?
All you have to do is vote and explain why
We are not at war with Iraq. And you failed to provide, in your poll, a legitimate answer to the question you meant to ask, "Why are we at war in Iraq?"
I would surmise that we probably made a strategic decision to gain a foothold in a part of the world, and all the resources and influence that come along with it, that had previously been out of our reach. Increasing our global presence and influence are good goals and a little more important than your grossly simplified choice of "For the oil".
We are not at war with Iraq. And you failed to provide, in your poll, a legitimate answer to the question you meant to ask, "Why are we at war in Iraq?"
I would surmise that we probably made a strategic decision to gain a foothold in a part of the world, and all the resources and influence that come along with it, that had previously been out of our reach. Increasing our global presence and influence are good goals and a little more important than your grossly simplified choice of "For the oil".
We went to war against Iraq though, against the sovereign nation of Iraq. We took on their troops and military, we disposed of their government, we created another government...or tried to, it's not going so well, in its place. We did this because the Iraqi government was supposedly a threat. Now we are at war in Iraq because we ****ed it up so badly and can't get a handle on the situation.
Congress never declared war on Iraq, thus we are not now nor have we ever been at war with them.All you have to do is vote and explain why
We went to war against Iraq though, against the sovereign nation of Iraq. We took on their troops and military, we disposed of their government, we created another government...or tried to, it's not going so well, in its place. We did this because the Iraqi government was supposedly a threat. Now we are at war in Iraq because we ****ed it up so badly and can't get a handle on the situation.
I never said how well we executed the plan. Under Rumsfeld, the war was very poorly prosecuted which has led to the problems we face now. Shock and awe should have been followed quickly with level and burn.
However, we haven't the nerve to do the sensible thing when it comes to war.
In any event, I just gave an opinion on the "why" and not the matters of "how" or "was it worth it".
The sensible thing when it comes to war is to avoid it at all cost. The next sensible thing is not to be the occupying force. We wrote that handbook ourselves. We used it against the British when we kicked their limey asses out.
The sensible thing when it comes to war is to avoid it at all cost.
We created the oppurtunity to draw 40 thousand jihadists into the open so we could kill them and we're in a very strategically advantagous position in the ME.
We're not in Sudan.
That's a very noble and very mealy mouthed sentiment but out of the commune and back in the real world, diplomacy and influence often come from the end of a gun barrel.
Avoiding war at all costs will undoubtabley lead to war. We kicked the British out after a Super power helped us, if it wasnt for some luck at Trenton and Princeton and the help of the French we would have been united with Canada till today.
I don't think that is necessarily true anymore. Avoiding war at all costs is the most sensible, pragmatic, and life respecting choice you can take. If you need to go to war, get drug into it kicking and screaming and fight and claw your way out ASAP. Prolonged war helps no one, it accomplishes nothing other than killing a bunch of humans. And war cannot be first response, it must be the absolute last response.
We probably created most of those "Jihadists" by going into Iraq. I mean if another nation set up an occupying force in America, planting their own government to run us and have their troops patrol our streets at night, enforcing curfews, etc, plenty of us would take up arms and fight back. Believing that this would not hold true for another country is just arrogant. Most of those 40,000 "Jihadists" would have gone about their daily lives without even thinking about harming Americans if we had not invaded their country.
OK, but Iraq exports 6 times more oil than the Sudan does. Besides, I'm not saying that we invade every single country that has oil...I'm just saying that everything else being equal, we are much more likely to go to war with a country that has oil than a country that doesn't.
I think it's too strong to say that we're in Iraq BECAUSE of oil, but I also think it's naive to say that our presence there has nothing to do with oil whatsoever.
Nor are we anywhere near Africa which has way worse problems, more diabolical war lords, more suffering than Iraq did...but we're keeping our distance from that hellhole.
There aren't many countries that don't have oil. Statistically speaking, we invaded them all for the oil.
Doesn't seem to be very advantageous to be a foreign occupying force in a well entrenched and supported populace being shot at consistently and adding to the fire of hatred and aggression towards ourselves. Seems actually counter productive.
Yes, we had help from our friends. But to fight a long way from home, and occupying war is very demoralizing and we knew how to use it against the aggressor. So too does the population of Iraq. We can't be there forever, and if we are it's our own doom we spell. They know it.