Comment by Mr. Big — August 4, 2006 @ 12:01 pm

Did you read my entire post–one can’t “cut and run” from a mission that has been declare already accomplished.

We, the American people were sold a bill of goods based on how about how the Iraqi people were yearning to be set free from their oppressor Hussein so they could transition to a democratic government (well, in addition to the WMD sham). So we sent our neighbors, spouses, kids and siblings in the form of troops to accomplish that mission. We should have popped the Saddam zit without decimating the country/invading and occupying. Since these warmongers were determined to go in, they should at least have fostered a shadow government beforehand, or had a plan for the post-invasion during the invasion; occupation shouldn’t and wasn’t supposed to be an option. Are you telling me we’re cutting and running from an occupation we we’re supposed to be perpretrating in the first place?

Who are the “barbarians” you speak of? Do you refer to attacks of Shia on Sunni, and vice versa–the Iraqiis we were supposed to be liberating? Stopping that internal strife wasn’t part of the plan we were told. Damn straight we need to leave from a civil war, unfortunately even though its one that this white house enabled. Leave that to a truly international force; we have no moral authority to pick sides after being so wrong, plus our forces aren’t designed for that (more for blitzkreig type quick assaults, not peacekeeping).

Are you referring to foreign fighters who entered Iraq in the wake of Bush’s folly–that make up less than 5% of “insurgents”? Theoretically that’s the job of the new Iraqi regime to quelsh, isn’t it? Or would you have use be Iraqi police interminably. This moronic administration cut off the head of the country without another to replace it, and so several smaller ones popped up seeking control. There was no good reason to fully dismantle the Republican Guard, instead of recruiting them to a new Iraqi army, but here we are. It’s near impossible to train a new army force in a war zone; do we train our forces in Iraq–no. This admin insists on defying military intelligence to train an Iraqi force in Iraq instead of Germany, where perhaps they could mature to become independently capable.

I asked the question. Should liberals not be considered pro-terrorist? Here was one of them who wants to take Saddam out of prison and put him back into power where he can enrich himself again, and build palaces to himself while the Iraqis suffer.

Paragraph 6 from the article: “’Eventually, we need to start pulling people out of there,’ said the Nebraska Republican”

That should be the headline of this article.

“Sen. Hagel Says Troops Should Eventually Come Home”

Okay, military strike on Iran, the Why Not:

Iran has nuclear allies in Pakistan and China. Further, with the degree of debt America owes China, it would be best not to cut off 50% of China’s oil supply. Further, Iran’s relationship with Russia, could further weaken America’s ability to go to war.

This is not even mentioning the fact that most of America’s allies going into Iraq have sworn off further engagements alongside the American military. Even Blair has said he wouldn’t back an American led coalition into Iran.

As yet another reason why invading Iran is a bad idea, consider the rest of the OPEC nations. If you strike into Iran, it will look exactly like you are trying to capture all of the Middle East’s oil. For some very sound economic reasons, nations such as Saudi Arabia wouldn’t like that, their pull in the world is based on being able to control oil prices, and they seriously don’t want to lose that pull.

Further, North Korea, as the last remaining “Axis of Evil” country would take the war to your far eastern allies. Big threat? Not really, but still not something you want to explode in the middle of a third front war.

Even without OPEC declaring sanctions and switching to trading in Euros, the war would be costly. The increased resistance posed by a people who support their government, as well as a more up to date military would wear on your already exhausted armed forces. A draft would end up being called, because as it is recruitment is down, a messy war with another middle eastern nation would kill it. The offshoots of petrol prices going up would start to be felt, as this is one product that literally effects everything.

Finally, America would reach a position where it cannot afford to furnish its debt, and suffer the same fate as feudal France, communist Russia, and all other societies which when push came to shove, couldn’t pay their debts. Just because it may seem unthinkable to you now, doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

While you may think Iran with nukes is scary, the world without America’s economy is nothing to be sneezed at either. A worldwide depression doesn’t have the same romance as a nuclear winter, but its results can be just as deadly.

Evidence? And did you already write the newspaper to ask for a correction?

In the meantime (lol): Troops withdrawal within the next six months… (lol)

Even Sen Hagel is asking for a troop withdrawal from Iraq within the next six months…

(Did it hurt when you read it?)