GibbsFactor Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Sounds easy, but putting a large force into Afghanistan is military suicide. Especially if Iraq is still under Hussein's rule. One quick look at a map of the region and you'll see why it is better to fight there with smaller less conventional forces. ~Bang You just summarized my entire issue with the war! Thanks. Why are we spending on the GWOT like it was the cold war? Did we really need Iraq as a staging ground? Bankrupting our country is not worth going after a few rogue extremist guerrillas. We are not fighting nation led communism. We are fighting nation less crazies. We are not fighting a vast military with technology close to our own. We are fighting radicals with nukes on their backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Absolutely not. Anyone who says otherwise needs to seriously get a clue. I said this before we went to Iraq, and I'm a kook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Knowing what we know now? No, of course not. There aren't any WMDs to be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 lol at the idea that engaging in a costly occupation actually enhances our ability to deal with threats in the middle east. Like oh yeah the Middle East is dangerous, let's invade a country just so we can have more soldiers somewhere in the area. Never mind the fact that we have to establish supply routes in dangerous areas, and that we actually need that many soldiers to control the country so they can't exactly be redeployed. And honestly... this was supposed to have somehow been a reason to contain Iran? It's an awful expensive way to contain a country that was contained prewar, but is now spreading its influence post war. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. (no I didn't vote in the poll, none of the GOPers are viable candidates) Seriously, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, thousands of our soldiers maimed or killed, hundreds of billions of dollars spent. THESE ARE NOT COSTS OF A BOTCHED WAR, THESE ARE THE COSTS OF ANY INVASION. What are the benefits? A contained Iran? A greater presence in the Middle East. Give me a ****ing break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 lol at the idea that engaging in a costly occupation actually enhances our ability to deal with threats in the middle east. Give me a ****ing break. ****READ ME: IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT WHO HAS NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER OF POTENTIALLY VOTING FOR A GOP CANDIDATE, PLEASE DO NOT VOTE IN THE POLL. **** If you voted thats another one, you're as much GOP as Soros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I voted no. I was opposed to the war from the outset. There were legitimate arguments to be made for invasion, but none of them were ever made by the Bush Administration or its apologists. It was framed as instrumental to protect our very way of life because of the threat of WMDs--the specter of mushroom clouds in American cities was raised more than once. It was also framed as a liberation akin to that of European countries in WWII that would flame the embers of freedom that would spread across the Middle East. Of course, neither of these arguments were valid, then or now. However, as a purely strategic military endeavor, it makes a lot of sense. As hokie pointed out, one of our biggest enemies right now is Iran, and Iraq and Afghanistan just happen to border that country on either side. The invasion of Iraq makes sense when one thinks in terms of establishment a permanent "footprint" in that region to keep our enemies as close as we can. I was opposed to the war, but I think we have a responsibility to try to establish some security and stability and hope for the possibility of real political reform. Make no mistake, though, we will be there for a long time to come and that was the plan from the get-go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Ok you got me, why liberal?? Saddam and his regime are dead, Iraq is no longer a direct threat to the US(sarcasm). We won. Why don't we pack up and leave? Your answer and anyone else's should be tied to humanitarian reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 ****READ ME: IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT WHO HAS NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER OF POTENTIALLY VOTING FOR A GOP CANDIDATE, PLEASE DO NOT VOTE IN THE POLL. ****If you voted thats another one, you're as much GOP as Soros. I already said I didn't vote. Read my posts before you respond to them. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.