[split] Wacky Iraq-ee

[Violet]

I support the rational for invading *some* of Iraq. I really have no idea what you could possibly get out of afghanistan though... and if you were going to invade someplace... Saudi has some pretty significant oil fields I here. But don't open them immediately: let the price skyrocket, and make the bloody bank.

It's what every other such company is up to right now, no reason the government shouldn't get involved in it

[downbeatplumb]

[Minimalist]

Iraq was based on false premises ( outright lies, really) no conception of conditions on the ground, and no plan for what to do with the fucking place when we overran it....( we're very good at overrunning countries that can't fight back.) You cannot separate the military from the political because this was merely a political exercise. Besides, Iraq exposed the obvious weakness of American military power. We're only invincible when we're attacking. The rest of the time we are vulnerable to every towel head with an RPG.

"we are STILL in Germany, Japan and Korea..."

Yes, indeed. A whole other question that should be dealt with. I recall watching some sporting event not to long ago where the announcers said...with some oddly misplaced sense of pride..."our broadcast today is going to our armed forces in over 125 countries around the world." I recall thinking, "WTF do we have troops in 125 countries for?"


We could solve all of our budgetary issues by cutting the defense budget in half and we'd still be outspending the rest of the world.

[reverendjeremiah]

[Minimalist]

Gee...not at all like Hollywood where the body goes flying through the air!

[reverendjeremiah]

Gee...not at all like Hollywood where the body goes flying through the air!

Yeah, in order to make a body fly through the air the one shooting the gun would have to fly backwards with as much momentum.

[Autumnlicious]

It's "Never get involved in a land war in Asia."

Probably amended because of places like Afghanistan.

[azharrison]

[reverendjeremiah]

It's "Never get involved in a land war in Asia."

Probably amended because of places like Afghanistan.

I have heard Afghanastan called "the destroyer of nations". Not because they go out and seek to destroy them, but that every nation who has tried to conquer them have wound up destroying themselves in the process.

[Violet]

Where's the lie?

Perhaps in there actually having been no "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Also, it is senseless to go to war out of anger or concern for the world at large... you will notice we don't attack north korea (which actually does have "weapons of mass destruction"). We attacked Iraq for oil, and not necessarily for the government. Anything less is a blatant lie.