The Hunting of the (terrorist) Snark

[Xavier_Onassis]

So, then the arguement about how terrible this war was fought doesn't hold as much validity, since pretty much no war is run as its desgined to.  Too many variables are encountered.  The closest we could say to a well run war was Gulf War I, and the Pre-Saddam component of the current war.  P

===============================
The fact that no war lives up to the pre-war expectations would be the very best reason for not starting a war unless the country starting it is actually threatened. There was no (zero, bupkiss, zilch) threat from Iraq to American citizens living in the US, or even nearly all that were working or traveling abroad.

Starting the war was a huge mistake, and was only possible because Juniorbush and his neocon pals and puppeteers blew up the 9-11 attacks into something that could be avenged and prevented from reoccurring only by removing Saddam, and the fact that the American people were too damn dumb to realize that this was a fraudulent claim.

[Plane]

Quote
We stopped Saddam from his takover of Kuait , but Saddam would have come back and taken it again in the future as soon as he had built himself up to the point he could defy us .

I consider it most likely that Saddam would get into more fights and spend his money on causeing trouble as long as he lasted...
 
......................................................................................
I keep seeing that used as a justification for the invasion, and I still believe it is wrong.

Would you expand on that?

Do you think that the Embargo could have been extended indefinately ?

Do you think that Saddam would have reformed?

[hnumpah]

Claiming some sort of pre-emptive invasion to keep Saddam from misbehaving is a crock. As it was, he was unable to restart his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs due to the embargo. We should have stuck with enforcing that, for as long as it took, while we finished the job with Al Qaeda elsewhere. If it turned out later one that Saddam was working with Al Qaeda, or that he was actually able to restart any of his weapons programs and refused to stop when he got caught at it, then we might have had a valid pretext for an invasion. As it was, we did not. And, I know, some folks claim Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions so and so, and point at that for our justification, but these same people are full of crap if they do not point out the many and various UN resolutions Israel has violated over the years and espouse the same treatment for them.

Now let me ask you a question - why do you suppose we did not completely finish the job in Afghanistan, then put as much time and effort into rebuilding their country as we have in Iraq (which, by the way, was supposed to pay for its own rebuilding with oil revenues).

[BT]

...that he was actually able to restart any of his weapons programs and refused to stop when he got caught at it, then we might have had a valid pretext for an invasion.

Sounds like Iran

[Plane]

Now let me ask you a question - why do you suppose we did not completely finish the job in Afghanistan, then put as much time and effort into rebuilding their country as we have in Iraq (which, by the way, was supposed to pay for its own rebuilding with oil revenues).

In Afganistan the work should not take nearly as much cash , it is a smaller project , so the rebuilding won't take as long.

In Afganistan and Iraq the problem of people sabotageing the effort makes us spend two bucks guarding stuff for every dollar spent building stuff.

Iraq is alredy makeing noises like they will soon be ready for us to leave , the oil revenues are starting to amount to something so the rebuilding can happen mostly without us in the future.

Keeping a garrison in the region might be a good idea , but where? All over Iraq isn't likely, a very small number of bases isn't usefull .

I think a cupple of bases in the south and a big presence in Kurdistan is most likely.

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

The number and location of bases should be entirely up to the Iraqis.

[Plane]

The number and location of bases should be entirely up to the Iraqis.

No , e don't wat them to be where they bother the Iraquis alright  , but we also don't want them to be so uut of the way that they are useless.

[Xavier_Onassis]

How would any base in Iraq be so out of the way so as to be useless? Iraq is not a large country.

Why should Iraqis have any US bases at all if they do not want them?

Should the US be forced to grant bases to other countries? A nation is sovereign over its own territory, or it is a colony.

[Plane]

How would any base in Iraq be so out of the way so as to be useless? Iraq is not a large country.

Why should Iraqis have any US bases at all if they do not want them?

Should the US be forced to grant bases to other countries? A nation is sovereign over its own territory, or it is a colony.

Iraq is pretty big , they only seem small compared to us. Compare it to the advrage Nation.

Bases that are hard to reach or supply we should turn down , also bases that are far from the purpose they are there for.

This will be negotiated , I don't think we are being unreasonable .

I am glad to know that Japan, Korea and most of Europe can be considered Colonys of ours , when do we start harvesting the tribute?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am glad to know that Japan, Korea and most of Europe can be considered Colonys of ours , when do we start harvesting the tribute?

Most of Europe does not have European troops. There has been no real threat to any of Europe since the 1990's, or perhaps since the end of the Berlin Airlift.
========================================

You can buy a Lexus or a Hyundai, a Toyota, a Datsun, A Kia or even a Chevy Aveo. The American people do not get the tribute, but the oligarchy certainly benefits.