Farewell to Kabul

Iraq hawk Ralph Peters says we should get out of Afghanistan:

Initially, Afghanistan wasn't a war of choice. We had to dislodge and decimate al-Qaeda, while punishing the Taliban and strengthening friendlier forces in the country. Our great mistake was to stay on in an attempt to build a modernized rule-of-law state in a feudal realm with no common identity.

We needed to smash our enemies and leave. Had it proved necessary, we could have returned later for another punitive mission. Instead, we fell into the great American fallacy of believing ourselves responsible for helping those who've harmed us.

Elsewhere in Reason: Peters was among the people I interviewed for this feature on U.S. foreign policy, way back in the innocent days of 2003.

Comments

[Matt]

Mr. Peters puts just a touch of intellectualism on J. Derb's foreign policy,

"rubble dont make trouble"

Me like.

[Tulpa]

Instead, we fell into the great American fallacy of believing ourselves responsible for helping those who've harmed us.

Pray tell Mr. Peters, how did the people of Iraq and Afghanistan harm us? Heck, how did even the GOVERNMENT of Iraq harm us?

[Tulpa]

If anything, in the case of Iraq we wound up trying to help the people we attacked without justification. In Afghanistan we [unintentionally] killed more civilians than were killed in the 9/11 attacks. So yeah, I think that brings with it some sort of obligation.

Of course, if we had just minded our own business and stayed out of Iraq and employed stealthier means to deal with al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have such a problem.

[Xeones]

Heck, how did even the GOVERNMENT of Iraq harm us?

"NEENER NEENER" may not leave a mark, but Tulpa, it hurts. It hurts.

[ed]

Things you'll never hear an American president say:

#1. "We're leaving. Our mistake. Sorry about the mess."

[Pro Libertate]

My first choice is to stop meddling about in the Greater Middle East in the first place. However, since that option isn't on the table and hasn't been for some time, my next choice when we're driven to some sort of military option is just what Peters said--go in, topple the government, clean up anything that needs cleaning (like, say, a nuke program or anything nasty like that), then leave with dire threats about our return if we don't like the way things develop.

This goes double for Iraq, if one simply must invade it. I think it would've been more effective politically, too. Our initial successes in both wars were truly awe-inspiring and, if we'd left things at that, the base from which the terrorists recruit would've been much smaller than it is today. First, no one would want to face that sort of overwhelming force again. Second, there wouldn't have been any resentment over a lingering occupation.

Again, I oppose the whole mess--why must we insinuate ourselves into that craziness, anyway? And is bombing everyone into submission the only way the greatest economic power on Earth (for now, anyway) can persuade recalcitrant nations to change their behavior? I doubt it.

[Episiarch]

I swear that the main force driving interventionism since 9-11 is politicians' fear. If we get hit again, they get blamed, so anything necessary to prevent that is fine with them. Spending a trillion dollars to try and stay elected is clearly nothing for them, and sending our soldiers and Marines to die and be maimed clearly isn't either.

[ed]

First, no one would want to face that sort of overwhelming force again.

Har har. There's always someone.

[John]

Aghanistan is everything the Iraq critics eroneously claimed Iraq was; a ancient tribal society immune to Democracy and of no strategic importance engaged in a purely internal civil war with no significant AQ presence anymore.

At this point we need to have realistic goals there. Our realistic goal is to have the country not be a harbor for terrorism. We need to find our strong man and back him. Pay that guy a ton of money and support in return for the promise to make sure no terrorist are harbored in Afghanistan and then get the hell out and be done with it. As it is, it is going nowhere fast or worse towards war with Pakistan.

[Pro Libertate]

ed,

True. Fewer someones, then.

I say we partition Afghanistan and give it to India, Pakistan, and Poland (it's only fair).

[ed]

We need to find our strong man

Right. That strategy never blows up in our face.

[swillfredo pareto]

go in, topple the government, clean up anything that needs cleaning...then leave with dire threats about our return if we don't like the way things develop.

Is it even remotely realistic to believe that whatever arises from the vacuum we create will develop into something we do like? I agree with your first choice, stop meddling. Because any other action in that part of the world necessarily means a long engagement.

[John]

"Right. That strategy never blows up in our face"

Sometimes life is like that. It didn't always blow up in our faces. It worked out pretty well in South Korea and Chile among other places. Further, staying there and risking war with Pakistan looks like that might blow up in our face to. I think I will take my chances with a strong man.

[ed]

John, remember when Saddam was "our" strong man? He was useful for a time as a hedge against our enemy, Iran, who had just toppled our other strong man, the Shah.
But all turned out well in the end. Didn't it?

[Pro Libertate]

swillfredo pareto,

I'm definitely in the leave-the-region-alone camp; I'm just saying what I think we should do in the event that we're Middle East Solution? addicts (which, of course, we are). Our threatened return would apply to successor regimes as well, I suppose.

I'm not terribly interested in causing the body count or the suffering that would stem from the destroyed infrastructure(s) in this strategy, which is one reason I'm in the stay-the-hell-out side of the debate. That, and I can't figure our our compelling strategic interest there.

[swillfredo pareto]

PL

It's a no-win situation. I cannot see anything beneficial happening if we get in and then get out and the costs of nation building are obvious. The ROK has a fairly stable history, but it took 3 years of war and over 35,000 American lives to get to a stalemate. I think if we had left Afghanistan after our initial success the country would have returned to its pre-invasion government as soon as we left. The supply of martyrs in that region is for all practical purposes infinite. What did WOPR say about the Middle East? The only winning move is not to play.

[Pro Libertate]

Well, I vote to withdraw, with a loud statement to any terrorists (or states) who view that as proof of our weakness that we're retaining the right to blow their asses up if they don't say thank you and hold the door open for us as we leave.

[J sub D]

The US government excels a very few things. Killing people and breaking things is one of them.

"If you wish to possess electrical or water distribution, bridges, international commerce or government buildings, don't fuck with us" is, as pointed out upthread, a foreign policy medieval third world* leaders would respect.

* I know, I know. The term's out of date but "developing world" is a misnomer for many parts of the globe, Afghanistan included. "Pathetically backwards and socially maladjusted" just has too many syllables.

[Pro Libertate]

We could just run a global protection racket. "Nice infrastructure you have there, bud. Be a shame if something happened to it."

[John]

I am a bigger hawk than anyone on here. Even I am starting to think that Afghanistan is getting to be pretty pointless. Let them grow their heroine and live by whatever law it is they live by. As long as they understand that the next time some Arab shows up with the bright idea of training people to come fuck with us, they need to shoot him, we should be okay.

[bookworm]

"I swear that the main force driving interventionism since 9-11 is politicians' fear. If we get hit again, they get blamed, so anything necessary to prevent that is fine with them. Spending a trillion dollars to try and stay elected is clearly nothing for them, and sending our soldiers and Marines to die and be maimed clearly isn't either."

The ironic thing is that this meddling is the very thing that insures that we will again be hit by terrorism.

[Jane]

Pay that guy a ton of money and support in return for the promise to make sure no terrorist are harbored in Afghanistan and then get the hell out and be done with it.

We do need to stop the opium production too.

[P Brooks]

"If you wish to possess electrical or water distribution, bridges, international commerce or government buildings, don't fuck with us" is, as pointed out upthread, a foreign policy medieval third world* leaders would respect.

How well did that work in Lebanon?

[P Brooks]

We do need to stop the opium production too.

No, we don't.

[EJM]

What did WOPR say about the Middle East? The only winning move is not to play.

Leaving aside whether the statement could also apply to the Middle East, WOPR actually said that about an assumed East-West nuclear war.

[R C Dean]

How well did that work in Lebanon?

Reasonably well, by the low standards of the Middle East. Very few rockets have been launched into Israel from Lebanon since the unpleasantness of a few years ago.

[RFN]

I agree with Peters, here. There is no more utility for us in Afghanistan, if ever there was any. Going in, blowing the shit out of the Taliban and chasing Bin Laden and pals into their caves was all we needed to do. To those here that keep on comparing Iraq to Afghanistan, well you're wrong. Iraq had a relatively secular and well educated populace. Afghanistan is the backwoods of the backwoods. They are both fiercely tribal, but after that, there are not too many similarities. The time for being against the Iraq escalation was in March 2003. After that, it was pointless. Iraq was a " if you break it you bought it" scenario. I'm not even sure we broke it. It was already broken, at least to western ideals. Was it our charge to change that? IMO, no, but we went in anyhow. The change in Iraq is there for any honest person to see. Afghanistan probably won't ever change by outside force. Get out now, with the explicit warning that should the taliban/AQ, or like minded other islamist scum, decide to make trouble for the U.S. again, we'll be back for another round of whack a jihadi.

[J sub D]

We do need to stop the opium production too.

Why? Do you have loved ones who are, or are liable to become, junkies?

[bookworm]

"Reasonably well, by the low standards of the Middle East. Very few rockets have been launched into Israel from Lebanon since the unpleasantness of a few years ago."

It was the Israelis who started that war. Hezbollah were only defending themselves. Israel gave up bombing the citizens of Lebanon when they saw they couldn't turn the Lebanese public against Hezbollah. Now that Israel is no longer bombing Lebanon, there's no reason for Hezbollah to bomb Israel.

[kilroy]

We're leaving Iraq (eventually) because it's politically unpopular and we're beefing up in Afghanistan because the military want to have somewhere to have a war.

When Obama said Gates could stay he was telling the military he wasn't going to fuck with their party. I think he expected to have enough to deal with without worrying what the military would do if he closed off the playground.

It also insures continuing big fat DoD budgets and who doesn't like those?

[R C Dean]

Even I am starting to think that Afghanistan is getting to be pretty pointless.

Which makes it an ideal war for a Democrat to oversee. The Dems are all about not using our military to advance our national and strategic interests, but instead using it in out-of-the-way places on pointless "humanitarian" missions.

Buff up the mission statement and some press releases, and I would say Afghanistan fits the bill.

We're leaving Iraq (eventually) because it's politically unpopular

Well, technically we're leaving Iraq because Bush signed a treaty saying we would. Of course, all the Obamatrons in the media are already chattering about how Dear Leader Obama will bring the troops home, when all he is doing is executing on Bush's plan.

and we're beefing up in Afghanistan because the military want to have somewhere to have a war.

Contrary to belief in some circles, the military is not populated by killbots slavering for the blood of innocents. I don't know a single member of the military, and I know a few, who actually wants to go overseas, be shot at, and kill people. They're funny that way.

[R C Dean]

It was the Israelis who started that war. Hezbollah were only defending themselves.

This is a joke, right?

[libertymike]

kilroy-

Well, we know John loves those big fat DoD budgets. Like any good communist would.

[Jane]

Why? Do you have loved ones who are, or are liable to become, junkies?

No, I don't, but drugs fund terrorism, so it is part of the war on terror.

[Xanthippas]

Aghanistan is everything the Iraq critics eroneously claimed Iraq was; a ancient tribal society immune to Democracy and of no strategic importance engaged in a purely internal civil war with no significant AQ presence anymore.

That doesn't make any sense. Al Qaeda is operating in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, and quite comfortably at that. They are strongly allied with the Taliban, and operate with impunity. For all we know they could be planning attacks against us or other Western states from their sanctuaries.

We need to find our strong man and back him.

There are no strong men in Afghanistan. There are warlords, none of which possesses the wherewithal or power to rule the entire country, with or without are backing. The only entity capable of ruling the entire country at present is the Taliban.

Look, I agree entirely that at this point it may be very difficult, if not impossible, to defeat the Taliban and uproot Al Qaeda completely. But we need to be honest about how bad things are over there; there are no easy answers, including leaving.

[Kolohe]

We could just run a global protection racket. "Nice infrastructure you have there, bud. Be a shame if something happened to it."

This *is* our post cold war national security strategy.

And seriously, it's not too bad an idea.

[libertymike]

Drugs also fund the intelligence operations of nation states. And local, county, state, regional and national police mobs/criminal enterprises.

[Kolohe]

Let them grow their heroine

That's the answer; not a strongman, but a strongwoman!

[John]

"kilroy-

Well, we know John loves those big fat DoD budgets. Like any good communist would."

Yeah because I just so want to leave my family and job to go risk my life in Afghanistan. Mike, why are you such a jackass? Really? Is it that hard to not be one?

[kilroy]

"I don't know a single member of the military, and I know a few, who actually wants to go overseas, be shot at, and kill people."

I'm speaking mainly of the commanders who have spent a career training to fight a war and want to prove they've got what it takes. I'm fairly sure there's an institutional incentive to have at least some combat tested commanders/troops on hand should a situation arise where we actually *need* to be at war.

I know a few military people myself and none of them joined up because they wanted to kill people. They didn't join to stop Afghans from growing dope or fucking sheep either.

The really trigger happy individuals I know are all police.

[Cabeza De Vaca]

"Why? Do you have loved ones who are, or are liable to become, junkies?"

"No, I don't, but drugs fund terrorism, so it is part of the war on terror."

So does oil.

[The Expatriate]

re:bookworm
It was the Israelis who started that war. Hezbollah were only defending themselves. Israel gave up bombing the citizens of Lebanon when they saw they couldn't turn the Lebanese public against Hezbollah. Now that Israel is no longer bombing Lebanon, there's no reason for Hezbollah to bomb Israel.

You're describing an even that occurred in the universe where Mr. Spock has a beard, right?

[BDB]

Middle East Thread again?

You know, maybe it's not so bad if Iran gets nukes. They will either get a lesson MAD and it will preserve peace for at least 60 years, or Iran and Israel will remove themselves from the map and remove two very big diplomatic headaches for us.

[libertymike]

John-

Do not take my comments personally. I have no reason to dislike you, personally, therefore, I do not. Besides, there are many things upon which we agree. You and J sub D may have a hard time accepting the fact that I have friends who are reservists, one of whom I count among my 5 closest friends. And, I grew up in a military town and would go out of my way to make friends with military kids-not because their folks were in the service, but because I make friends easily and like to include everbody in doing things.

Having said that, communism is communism. Government ownership and government control is not free enterprise. The military industrial complex is not free enterprise.

[Kyle Roberts]

Xanthippas, you are partially wrong about a proper strong man in Afghanistan that we could back. His name was Ahmed Shah Massoud. Guess when Al Qaeda assassinated him:

Sept. 9th 2001.

This guy should have been the George Washington of his country.

[bookworm]

"but drugs fund terrorism, so it is part of the war on terror."

If drugs were legal, then there wouldn't be such a big markup on them and thus the extreme profits would be taken out of them. There would be less money available to the terrorists.

People should not be denied the right to take drugs. Afterall, it's their bodies. The government doesn't own our bodies.

[Right Wing Realist]

Liberal Imperialism is two bad tastes that make each other worse.

[bookworm]

"It was the Israelis who started that war. Hezbollah were only defending themselves."

"This is a joke, right?"

The Israelis had been looking for an excuse to attack Hezbollah so they used the excuse of the captured Israeli soldiers. In the past, they had not attacked when soldiers were captured, why this time? Some people believe it was to weaken Hezbollah so they couldn't attack Israel after the US bombed Iran. I believe there probably were originally plans underway to attack Iran, but fortunately cooler heads prevailed. Bush started listening to Rice and Gates instead of Cheney and the neocons.

[Jane]

If drugs were legal, then there wouldn't be such a big markup on them and thus the extreme profits would be taken out of them.

No way, they are not healthy and are dangerous. Most people expect the government to protect them from dangerous things.

There would be less money available to the terrorists.

No, it would increase sales so there would be more.

People should not be denied the right to take drugs. Afterall, it's their bodies. The government doesn't own our bodies.

No, the government doesn't own your body, but the government does make laws to protect us. We all have to obey the law as part of the social contract we implicitly signed at birth.

[bookworm]

"Even I am starting to think that Afghanistan is getting to be pretty pointless."

"Which makes it an ideal war for a Democrat to oversee. The Dems are all about not using our military to advance our national and strategic interests, but instead using it in out-of-the-way places on pointless "humanitarian" missions."

And that doesn't also describe Iraq?

[bookworm]

"they are not healthy and are dangerous. Most people expect the government to protect them from dangerous things."

Jane, would you believe that some people have been able to take these substances in moderation without harm to themselves? Read Jacob Sullum's "Saying Yes".

Even if every use of them was harmful, it would still be people's right to use them. You own your body, not the government.

[bookworm]

"No, the government doesn't own your body, but the government does make laws to protect us."

If the government can tell you what you can or can't do with your body, then they essentially own your body.

[Trooper Jones]

Y'all do realize that we are actually being kicked out of Iraq and that there is nothing the people who want us to stay - for whatever reasons - can do about it without overthrowing Maliki?

Obama is executing Bush's plan? Which plan, with which strategic goals is that?

The SOFA - not a treaty - says we all have to be gone by December 31, 2011 and it is certain that we will be. No matter what the generals, diplomats and politicians say, we will all be gone because that is what Maliki and his supporters want.

Our elites and their supporters are in a profound state of denial about the fact that we are being ejected from a country we "saved".

[Kolohe]

I think the SOFA only says 'combat troops' (but am not sure).

That's why Obama can propose keeping between 30K-50K troops in the country indefinitely even after 'withdrawal'.

Even if the SOFA is crystal clear about no troops:

A security agreement between U.S. and Iraqi officials requires that all U.S. forces leave by the end of 2011, although that deal could be renegotiated to allow a longer American presence if the Iraqis request such help.

The American government has shown a Korben Dallas ability to negotiate when they put our minds to it.

[Jane]

Jane, would you believe that some people have been able to take these substances in moderation without harm to themselves?

No doubt true, but the risk of harm is too great.

Even if every use of them was harmful, it would still be people's right to use them. You own your body, not the government.

Well there is negative effects on society, increased crime , healthecare effects, lost productividy, traffic accidents. The government can protect society.

If the government can tell you what you can or can't do with your body, then they essentially own your body.

Again, no. It is a matter of preventing negative downstream effects on society. Example: You own your body, but you cannot use your body to assault and kill someone.

[J sub D]

Jane,

We've heard it all before from the internet siren, that prohibitionist goddess of the internet who has stolen my heart, Juanita.

She's far better at this stuff than you. And she's HAWT!

[bookworm]

"Well there is negative effects on society, increased crime , healthecare effects, lost productividy, traffic accidents. The government can protect society."

Increased crime results from the expense of heroin which is expensive because of its illegality. People have to commit crimes to support an expensive habit.

It is the war on drugs that has caused a big increase in the crime rate just as it did under alcohol prohibition.

Alcohol also causes traffic accidents. Should we bring back alcohol prohibition? People should be punished for driving under the influence, not the mere use of the substances. If they use the substances in the privacy of their homes and are not hurting anybody, why should they be punished?

Junk food and cigarettes also have a harmful effect on health. Should we make junk food and cigarettes illegal? Heroin has actually been found to be less organically damaging than alcohol in large quanities and cigarettes.

Alcohol also has a bad effect on productivity. Should it be made illegal again because of that?

Your arguments in favor of protecting society and ignoring the rights of individuals is collectivist thinking.

[bookworm]

"It is a matter of preventing negative downstream effects on society. Example: You own your body, but you cannot use your body to assault and kill someone."

The mere use of these substances if not used in excess does not have negative downstream effects on society.

There are laws against using your body to assault and kill someone and rightfully so. There should not be laws against your use of a substance if you are only hurting yourself.

[Jane]

Increased crime results from the expense of heroin which is expensive because of its illegality.
It is the war on drugs that has caused a big increase in the crime rate just as it did under alcohol prohibition.

True, but all things on balance it is better not to have people be addicts, so we need the law.

Alcohol also causes traffic accidents. Should we bring back alcohol prohibition?

No, alcohol is too accepted in our society.

People should be punished for driving under the influence, not the mere use of the substances. If they use the substances in the privacy of their homes and are not hurting anybody, why should they be punished?

If the chance of potential harm is great, yes.

Junk food and cigarettes also have a harmful effect on health. Should we make junk food and cigarettes illegal?

That is in the process of happening, slowly but surely with ad restrictions, syntaxes etc.

Heroin has actually been found to be less organically damaging than alcohol in large quanities and cigarettes.

Maybe, but alcohol and nicotiene are bad enougth, do we really need another.

Alcohol also has a bad effect on productivity. Should it be made illegal again because of that?

No, it is accepted in western society.

Your arguments in favor of protecting society and ignoring the rights of individuals is collectivist thinking.

Societies rights are more overrule individuals.

[bookworm]

"The SOFA - not a treaty - says we all have to be gone by December 31, 2011 and it is certain that we will be. No matter what the generals, diplomats and politicians say, we will all be gone because that is what Maliki and his supporters want."

And it's what the vast majority of Iraqis want as well.

[bookworm]

"True, but all things on balance it is better not to have people be addicts, so we need the law."

That's your opinion, not necessarily the opinion of the addict. There are facilities available for addicts who want to kick their habit. Why should we punish them for their habit? It is right to throw somebody in jail just because of some substance they choose to take when they're not hurting anybody but themselves?

[bookworm]

"Alcohol also causes traffic accidents. Should we bring back alcohol prohibition?"

"No, alcohol is too accepted in our society."

So what matters to you, Jane, is what the collective wants, not what the individual chooses for himself. In other words, might makes right.

[Imperialist]

Step one: Legalize heroin.

Step two: Let US corporations buy opium from Afghanistan.

Step three: Let nature take its course.

[R C Dean]

Y'all do realize that we are actually being kicked out of Iraq and that there is nothing the people who want us to stay - for whatever reasons - can do about it without overthrowing Maliki?

Yup, which is why I think it is so irritating that Obama is preening about getting us out of Iraq.

Obama is executing Bush's plan? Which plan, with which strategic goals is that?

The plan that said we would stay only as long as the Iraqis want us. But you knew that, Trooper, because you state that:

The SOFA - not a treaty - says we all have to be gone by December 31, 2011 and it is certain that we will be.

The SOFA was negotiated and signed by Bush. I call it his plan for that reason, and because it is consistent with what his administration was saying all along.

Broadly speaking, the Bush plan was to get rid of Saddam, get some kind of functional legitimate government in place, and leave if they wanted us to (or stay, if the wanted that). Pretty much what happened.

And now Obama announces that he will do what Bush agreed to do, and the lickspittles in the media cream their panties over how Obama is getting us out of Iraq.

[Someone had to say it]

Jane you ignorant slut . . .

[bookworm]

"Maybe, but alcohol and nicotiene are bad enougth, do we really need another."

Why don't we just let people choose their own poison? A person that might have a problem with alcohol or cigarettes, might not have a problem with opiates.

[bookworm]

"Y'all do realize that we are actually being kicked out of Iraq and that there is nothing the people who want us to stay - for whatever reasons - can do about it without overthrowing Maliki?"

"Yup, which is why I think it is so irritating that Obama is preening about getting us out of Iraq."

He's doing the right thing because neither the American people or the Iraqi people want us there.

[bookworm]

"And now Obama announces that he will do what Bush agreed to do, and the lickspittles in the media cream their panties over how Obama is getting us out of Iraq."

RC, you forget that there were people in the Bush Administration that wanted us to build a permanent base in Iraq.

[jsh]

Broadly speaking, the Bush plan was to get rid of Saddam, get some kind of functional legitimate government in place, and leave if they wanted us to (or stay, if the wanted that). Pretty much what happened.

The plan was to stop Saddam from giving out WMDs. Turns out the govt was lying about the WMDs. As that lie gave RCD the war he wanted, RCD is happy the govt lied to the cattle to get its way.

RCD still, for some reason, considers himself a proponent of limited govt. Dude, any govt that can lie with total impunity to get what it wants is an unlimited govt, even if you like what it wants in any given instance.

[bookworm]

"Societies rights are more overrule individuals."

That is completely contrary to the principles of individualism that this country was founded on. Read "The Federalist Papers" where it is written that the majority don't have the right to coerce their will on individuals. The Bill of Rights makes it clear that individual rights usurp collective rights, in fact, there are no collective rights to infringe on the rights of individuals.

[Pro Libertate]

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Unless my mind has been invaded by Cheney mind-control rays, I distinctly remember Bush announcing that we'd be out of Iraq by 2011. Isn't that what Obama is planning to do? Whether we should've invaded is a totally separate question, but I think it's a complete lie to even imply that Obama getting us out is something he initiated. He didn't. He could, of course, repudiate the SOFA and bomb the Cambodians, but that's another matter altogether.

[bookworm]

"The plan was to stop Saddam from giving out WMDs. Turns out the govt was lying about the WMDs. As that lie gave RCD the war he wanted, RCD is happy the govt lied to the cattle to get its way."

Actually, that was the Bush Administration tried to sell the public on. The real reason for taking out Saddam was for Israel's security as John Mearshimer makes clear in "The Israel Lobby". But the neocons knew the American public wouldn't be willing to send young American soldiers to Iraq to die as proxy troops for Israel so they had to say it was all about WMD.

[economist]

"Again, I oppose the whole mess--why must we insinuate ourselves into that craziness, anyway?"

Starts with an O, ends with an L, is three letters. It forms much of the basis for a modern economy, and a lot of it is under the middle east.

[bookworm]

"Again, I oppose the whole mess--why must we insinuate ourselves into that craziness, anyway?"

"Starts with an O, ends with an L, is three letters. It forms much of the basis for a modern economy, and a lot of it is under the middle east."

We don't have to go to war for oil. Better to have friendly trading relationships with the countries in the area.

Besides, I don't think either of those wars were fought over oil.

[RFN]

"Turns out the govt was lying about the WMDs"

Prove it. Prove that they lied. It's too bad we have apparatchiks on either side in a reason blog. Grow up, jsh. The WMD was one of many reasons the former President decided to escalate in Iraq. It was the biggest reason, if you had to rank them. It turns out they were wrong about them. You know who else was wrong? The Europeans. The United Nations. Hell, even saddam himself. But, you hate Bush so much, that of course, "Bush lied. People died". Fuck. You people are loathesome and everything that is wrong with the American electorate.

And of course, Obama is just executing the Bush plan. Now, ideally, there would have been no reason to extricate our troops in the first place. But, that was made moot in March 2003. Obama placated his minions by saying what they wanted to hear and got himself elected. (wow, a politican lied! Who'da thunk it!) The dupes bought it as dupes are want to do.

[bookworm]

"Obama placated his minions by saying what they wanted to hear and got himself elected. (wow, a politican lied! Who'da thunk it!) The dupes bought it as dupes are want to do."

At least 4500 young soldiers didn't lose their lives over Obama's lie.

Bush was given the intelligence from the CIA that Saddam didn't pose an immediate threat to the US, but he chose to lie to the American public the very same day and tell us that Saddam did pose an immediate threat to us. Plans to attack Iraq had been in the plans for years for the sake of securing Israel. Bush used the publics' ire over 911 and lies about Iraq being an imminent threat to the US to get the US public and Congress to support a war we had no business getting involved in.

[Imperialist]

Yo bookhead, Bush R Gone, get a life.

[bookworm]

"Yo bookhead, Bush R Gone, get a life."

I won't be happy until he and Cheney are held accountable for their crimes.

[Jane]

I won't be happy until he and Cheney are held accountable for their crimes.

I'd agree to that.

[han]

The shoe throwing was a political gesture that incidentally involved hurling objects,