- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 16,164
- Reaction score
- 5,060
- Location
- St Thomas, VI
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I'm not arguing that fact. I'm saying if they ask us to stay longer based on a legitmate safety risk we need to weight our decision carefully. Not just cut tail and run 'cause "we never should have been there".
sounds like an old, trite argument. we're not cutting and running......what's left that they can't do themselves?
sounds like an old, trite argument. we're not cutting and running......what's left that they can't do themselves?
I'm not arguing that fact. I'm saying if they ask us to stay longer based on a legitmate safety risk we need to weight our decision carefully. Not just cut tail and run 'cause "we never should have been there".
Well, we know the potential for imploding and falling back into a sectarian civil war is very real. I'm not sure how much such a scenario would directly impact US national security, but it's something to think about.
If we can pay to repair and rebuild and strengthen Germany after they started a war in which they got properly creamed, I see no justification for not making Iraq as safe as possible before we leave the land that we invaded.
After almost a decade in a mistaken war that is bankrupting our country, it is not cutting and running to say we can't continue to be the world's policeman.
That is a likelihood whenever we leave. The only question is how long can we afford to stay. I've heard some talk of an unbearable national debt.
If we can pay to repair and rebuild and strengthen Germany after they started a war in which they got properly creamed, I see no justification for not making Iraq as safe as possible before we leave the land that we invaded.
At this point it's not the Iraq War that's driving the debt, although I agree we should save wherever we can.
The issue is, what would be the potential cost of cutting our losses and leaving right now, with respect to national security, which is a cost that can't always be quantified in financial terms?
Basically none of the options at this point is very attractive. It's either bad, or worse - the key is to figure out which one is bad and which one is worse.
Yes, the difference being Iraq didn't invade other countries, we invaded them. If the new corrupt regime we helped set up their can't stand against its own people after 8 years, it wasn't meant to be.
At this point it's not the Iraq War that's driving the debt, although I agree we should save wherever we can.
The issue is, what would be the potential cost of cutting our losses and leaving right now, with respect to national security, which is a cost that can't always be quantified in financial terms?
Basically none of the options at this point is very attractive. It's either bad, or worse - the key is to figure out which one is bad and which one is worse.
The Iraq war still cost us way more than the funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood that just had to be cut due to our budget woes. By national security do you mean the oil resource in Iraq that we invaded them to control?
Right, we invaded them. If anything, we have a larger obligation to them than we did to Germany.
Well they released us from that obligation when they demanded we leave by Dec 31.
Except we don't. And the largest benefactors of Iraqi oil restructuring and modernizing were/are India and China. Doesn't benefit us at all for China to have access to cheaper methods of producing energy.
Before our invasion and regime change in Iraq, Iraqi oil was Nationalized and Western oil was banned from investment in their oil. Now it is not. That is what it was all about. Under the new regime, and our military protection, Western oil is free and safe to help exploit Iraqi oil. :sun
And if they don't ask us to extend our stay there is no debate. This whole argument hinges upon their recognition of a need and our acceptance of it.
Should have thought about that before we removed the government that was keeping Iraq's enemies at bay with bluffs. They've had 8 years to get their **** together. If they haven't done it by now, they never will, and we simply can't afford to keep protecting the government we set up from their own people.
And how exactly has that happened? Further, how does investment harm the Iraqi's? And what investments have been made, outside of infrastructure improvements? And what stake, if any, does the US own in Iraqi oil?
We've been in Germany since 1945.
The reasons for the war were laid out in Cheney's task force report on energy before we invaded. They said that Iraq could at anytime shut off or reduce oil output which left the West vulnerable to price spikes, and that they were intentionally underdeveloping their oil resources to keep world oil prices higher.
Our invasion/regime change and our continued military protection of the new corrupt regime solved that problem.
The Iraq war still cost us way more than the funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood that just had to be cut due to our budget woes. By national security do you mean the oil resource in Iraq that we invaded them to control?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?