Jericho: As if we needed a reason ...
Just when we are talking about getting out of Iraq, Iran has to raise its head and talk tough about a nuke program. This hasn't been enough to stir the voters to go to war with Iran. So, now this comes along.
How many wars can we have at once? How many wars can King George II start before he leaves office? We are all about to find out.
How many wars can we have at once? How many wars can King George II start before he leaves office? We are all about to find out.
posted by Jericho Brown at 5/31/2007 09:25:00 AM
8 Comments:
Make up your mind.
Here we go, folks. :)
Okay, what have I not made my mind up about?
First you had a hard on for the war. Then you seemed to realize it was stupid. Then you were back defending it. Now you are against it again.
Which war are we talking about? In my opinion:
The War in Afghanistan is a war we should have fought and a war that we should build an exit strategy for and a war we need to now end.
The War in Iraq had to happen. Hussein had to be taken out or we needed to give up on the No Fly Zones and allow Hussein to do whatever the fuck he wanted. Did we go to war for the wrong reasons? Sure. We told ourselves it was to stop WMDs - bullshit. We had been at undeclared war for a decade and it was time to end it. We need an exit strategy. We need to end it.
The War on Terror is an much of a joke as The War on Drugs and The War on Poverty. It will end the same way - "Terror" will still exist.
That's three wars. If KGII has his way, we'll be at war with Iran and North Korea and probably Chile before he gets done - while still conducting our current wars. We don't even hide it by calling them "Police Actions" anymore!
Am I clearer now? ;)
So, we needed to go into Afghanistan (a position with which I agree) but even though Osama is still breathing and the Taliban is still a threat, we should pull out?
As for Iraq, we needed to fight a war to achieve the same result a CIA run assassination could have achieved? We absolutely needed to go to war against a shit we had well contained and could have outwaited? Or, better yet, just outlasted long enough to end our dependence on oil and then gotten the fuck out?
Ya know, I hadn't thought of outlasting Hussein. I mean, we have done such a fabulous job of outlasting Castro.
Despite Shrub;s best efforts, I am fairly certain the US will be here after Castro is dead.
True. What I mean is that the embargoes on Cuba were meant to punish Castro and his government in the hopes that he would be overthrown. Didn't work. Castro will be there until the day he dies and we look stupider by the moment.
We've had this discussion before, but allow me to rehash. Hussein agreed to No-Fly zones as part of the peace treaty signed at the end of the first Gulf War. US and British pilots flew mission for the next ten year. Hussein continually violated the no-fly zones. He fired on our people and our people blew the hell out of his planes and vehicles. If one - just one - of those weapons had made contact with our planes, there would have been no war to stop the American people from going to war. But, instead, we fought a silent war for a decade, endangering hundreds of pilots and multi-millions of dollars of equipment.
The American people have totally forgotten about this. If we had abandoned the No-Fly zones, Hussein would have been back in Kuwait and threatening Saudi in no time. If we ignored him, he would have controled most oil production in the region and and we would have been paying $8 a gallon.
When was the last time the CIA took out a world leader? When? The last CIA hit on a world leader was JFK or John Lennon if you belive the conspiracy guys. Other than that, the CIA has never taken out a world leader.
Post a Comment
<< Home