Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The history of the US military is to go and fight where the leaders of this country feel it is in our best interests. We fought in VN because it was felt that Communism was a threat to our security so we went in.
Well, it wasn't. What we were in was a pit fighting on an incorrect premise. The cry then was to stay the course.
We are fighting in Iraq because George Bush felt it necessary to US interests. We would have firebombed Baghdad like we did Dresden if we felt it had to be, but we did not need to.
Terrorism is a red herring in that it has and had nothing to do with Iraq.
Impeccable integrity? Where is the accountability for creating a war based on false premises? Where is the investigation into this?
No where. This war is a farce, and like VN we can't go and we can't stay.
Ultimately, we will declare victory and leave just like the Brits did when they foolishly tried the same thing after WWI
There IS no Iraq in the natural sense. It is an artificial construct of the Brits, held together by a long line of brutal rulers. We have traditionally backed tyrants throughout the world when we feel it suits us, and we will sell "freedom" whatever that is, if it plays well.
We fought in VN because it was felt that Communism was a threat to our security so we went in.
Communism was not a threat? - Look at Eastern Europe under the Russian influence, the areas around China, and areas in Africa. Look at the issues happening in the Korean pennisula.
Communism may have not been a direct threat to the US, however, it was a real threat/danger to the free world and what we fought in WWII for.
We are fighting in Iraq because George Bush felt it necessary to US interests. We would have firebombed Baghdad like we did Dresden if we felt it had to be, but we did not need to.
Iraq was considered a threat. They proved it in the 80's and 90's.
Maybe their military power was all show, however that was after the fact. They had the third, fourth well equipped army in the world, with Russian technology and European support.
We chose to not attck the Iraq people, rather to attemtp to remove the leadership. This was because the type of leader that Saddam was felt to be; a minority leader that ruled by force instead of the backing of the people.
Terrorism is a red herring in that it has and had nothing to do with Iraq.
Saddam supported terror against the Western world. The after effects on 9/11 was to declare a "war against terror"; authorized by both parties of Congress. Those that create terror, sponsor terror and aid terror shall be consider legitimate targets. (paraphrased)
There IS no Iraq in the natural sense. It is an artificial construct of the Brits, held together by a long line of brutal rulers. We have traditionally backed tyrants throughout the world when we feel it suits us, and we will sell "freedom" whatever that is, if it plays well.
If that is the case, then we can walk away after removing a brutal ruler with no qualms. As I have previously stated, once that happens and civil war breaks out, then genocide will happen and people will be complaining that we let it.
Most of the world is an artifical contruct of some conqueror that attempted to merge a group of people together based on political or geographic ideas.
It all boils down to should we as Americans and "free will" people bury our heads in the sand when other countries dispute their problems and/or ask for help.
Look at the recent Earthquake problem in the SW Pacific last December.
Our help was being refused because of polical impressions; the military logistics that we had available were rejected becuase they were American, no matter what benefit/assistance we were able to provide.
Look at what happened in Europe for WWI and WWII. Isolationism may have help us feel good, however, we still were dragged into the situations, that could have been pro-activlely nipped in the bud if policies of appeasement to agressive nations were not taken.
Why should we have gone into Kuwait; it was supposedly a territory of Iraq and Saddam specifially stated that he was not interested in Saudi. Did the Saudis (who were his Arab borothers) believe him?
Saddam had publicly stated that he wanted to the the next Pan-Arab leader; control of oil and cooperation from other dictators (Libya, Syria/Lebadon, Suddan) along with land grabs by direct or indirct proxies would allow him to accomplish that. Egypt wa scared of him, Jordan was/is a patsy; Neutralize Iran, control Saudi and run roughshod over the other gulf states and within a year or so, his dream could become a reality. Especially if he felt there was no reprecussions from the Western world as if he cared. He would control the oil, therefore the West would grovel for it.
Facebook
Twitter