It is just waaay too easy to mess with extremists sometimes. I suppose I should send you a thank you note for making all of this possible since apparently I do nothing and you support me financially.:wave:
Your link mentions nothing about rockets, but I know there was a test today. Iran has Scud-type military missiles, obviously, but nothing capable of lifting a first-generation nuclear weapon and certainly nothing capable of hitting the US. They have also lauched a civilian rocket capable of putting a very light satellite into low orbit. It can't carry a heavy warhead either.
Seriously, how is being over there making us any safer? I've heard the argument that there hasn't been an attack here since. I've heard that its better to fight the terrorists over there than on our own soil. But neither of those arguments seem relevant. Al-Qaeda, responsible for the kooks who attacked US civilians, has been allowed to regroup in Pakistan since 2002. We had them all but mopped up in a few months, but the current administration was and is more interested in complex and costly experiments in the Middle East. All this while China is growing closer to superpower status and while Russia is regaining its footing. Our borders and ports are porous and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan / Afghanistan is as strong as they were in 2001. We are financially instable. I believe we are better able to defend ourselves when we don't overextend ourselves abroad. I don't believe being intimately involved in the internal affairs of hotbed nations is in our best interest. Since tinkering with Iran in the 50s, our interventionism has chased problems with problems. You've bought the company line and somehow feel we are safer because we are in Iraq. Do you equate leaving the Middle East to failure? The goal of building a stable Iraq will cost a fortune many times over, it will take time, and at best will be fragile amidst a knot of varying degrees of unrest. Its you who seems to want to hold hands in the Middle East. You sure seem willing to fund our government's involvement overseas and seem to applaud the effort to intervene in the affairs of other nations. You're starting to sound like a tree hugging hippy. At least you aren't selfish and want to spread the love. Isn't that Christian of you? I believe we need to be dedicated to make the US the best it can be, but I also think we should strive to do it the right way. That doesn't mean we have to be soft. The best men I know are strong but don't impose themselves unless necessary. Every action has a possible unintended consequence and that should not be taken lightly.
Just to be clear on my opinion: The people calling the shots in the US didn't invade Iraq out of paranoia, they just used the 9/11 induced-paranoia of the general US population to include an invasion of Saddam's Iraq in our "War on Terror." Back when the people calling the shots in our country made the decision to invade Iraq, they were well aware of the reality that Saddam's Iraq was just a big of a "threat" to the US as Castro's Cuba was at the same time. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with "erring on the side of caution" regarding an immediate threat. When I talked about "erring on the side of caution," I was just saying that the US should "err on the side of caution" by making sure Iran doesn't acquire nuclear weapons, which doesn't require a freaking war. Side note to you few conspiracy-theory wackos out there: If you think the invasion of Iraq was "erring on the side of caution" just because Iraq was developing WMDs or was supporting al-Qaeda, then you are delusional. If either had been true (which they weren't), then the UN would have authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq, just like the UN authorized 1991's Operation Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's Iraq and 2001's Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan to retaliate again al-Qaeda. The reason we didn't care about the UN authorization for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, was because we knew that we weren't serious about invading Iraq because Iraq was developing WMDs or was supporting al-Qaeda (which the UN was well aware of). Had that been the case, the the war against Iraq would have been no different than 2001's Operation Desert Storm -- it wouldn't have lasted longer than a single calendar year (the war began on March 20, 2003 -- Bush gave his well-known "Mission Accomplished" speech on May 1, 2003 -- and Saddam himself was captured on December 13, 2003).
We are still militarily occupying the foreign country of Iraq in 2008 (instead of leaving after we conquered them in 2003) because we are pursuing a specific agenda there. Again, like I pointed out earlier, my guess is that what we are doing is trying to create a "friendly" situation with a long term oil-rich state because we are not realistically certain we can keep our military and economy #1 without oil in the short-term. But back to our Presidential candidates. I've seen someone on here talking about how Senator McCain wasn't born with a brilliant mind like Senator Obama or Senator Clinton (which is true -- but he's an old man and the wisdom he acquired via his long life in total service to America is invaluable). Also, Senator McCain is sincere about pursuing what he believes is best for this country and its citizens. Remember, that Senator McCain, despite the fact he is in favor of our agenda in Iraq, did (in one of his famous "maverick" moves against the Republican party) introduce a bill in 2002 that would have raised the federal fuel-efficiency requirement for all US vehicles for the first time in 16 years (22 years now). Under Senator McCain's bill, auto manufacturers would have had 14 years until their total line of vehicles would have been required to average at least 36 miles per gallon in fuel efficiency (a pretty "drastic" requirement). The bill would have saved up to 2.5 million barrels of oil per day (or about a billion barrels of oil per year), roughly what's imported from the Middle East. This was a year after 9/11 and a year before we began our invasion of Iraq. Senator McCain's bill was defeated because he couldn't beat the multi-million dollar campaign against his bill by auto industry and oil industry lobbyists. But it was a realistic step in moving our economy away from being too dependent on oil, despite not being a popular move along McCain's fellow Republicans.
I agree - it may also be a long term plan attempting to de-radicalize the Middle East and make them in general more accepting of Western culture. I think the people going into Iraq knew exactly what they were doing and have a long term plan. I don't think it is a wise plan, especially given the volatility of those in power in Washington. The next administration may very well turn 180 degrees from the ideology of the current administration and embarking on such a long term experiment is foolish, IMO. Not to mention, I don't think it is sound in general and I don't think it is the best way to spread the ideals of freedom. I do like that McCain does what he thinks is right. I just don't like his foreign policy or his prejudiced remarks against Muslims. I think as president McCain will say some stupid stuff that will make diplomacy that much tougher. McCain is better than Bush. Maybe McCain is better than Hillary. I just see McCain getting us further involved overseas which means our financial crisis will continue and contempt around the world won't improve. I'm sure I like his domestic policy better than that of the Democrats.
I'm not going rehash Iraq and the problems. But the agenda on us staying there is, IMO, 1st to stay there long enough so that 3,500 soldiers didn't die in vain. If we leave and the place collapses, those men and women died for nothing like Clinton allowed to happen when we left Somalia. 2nd, IMO, helping Iraq setup a functional democracy of sorts will put pressure on the rest of the area to westernize. That's why Iran is so against Iraq succeeding and doing everything they can to make sure it fails. 3rd, another reason Iran doesn't want it to succeed is, we are never leaving Iraq people. We will have a base of operations there forever now. No more asking Turkey for the right to fly over. Iraq will be a launching point for further military action if needed. The say it's about oil is childish IMO. If we wanted the oil we would already have it for free and wouldn't be paying $100 a barrel for it.
Never happened, read your history better. We have never given North Korea materials to make a weapon. We promised them a light-water power reactor that didn't produce weapons-grade plutonium if they would give up their heavy reactors that did so. That was the deal they broke. Your grasp of military geopolitics is muddled. What exactly is he going to do with that weapon? The survivalist paranoid militia kooks in Montana will love you though. :grin:
Of course those who brought us into Iraq don't want the soldiers to have died for a poorly conceived idea. I don't like this reasoning because it means the soldiers that die now are dying to try and validate the death of their fallen brothers and sisters. Stability will be dependent on the long term presence of US forces, but where will we get the money? You don't want the government to spend money on domestic projects but you want to spend butt loads of money on extensive overseas projects while our economy is tanking? Holy crap, you're worse than a democrat. Ya think? The US is fighting on two of Iran's borders and talking about the merits of invading Iran, of course Iran is uncomfortable. We went into Iraq for dubious reasons, what would prevent us from doing the same in Iran? I'd be uncomfortable if I were an everyday Iranian, especially considering the instability that comes with the US freedom tour, worldwide edition. It's about spreading freedom with the barrel of a gun and doing the right thing? No its about anti-terrorism, the perpetual cause for war. Is this the most effective and efficient way to fight terrorism? I really don't think so. But you're on board and happy to throw your money overseas.
I'm happy to fight terrorist kooks in Iraq and have their focus their than their focus on flying planes into buildings....yes.
