Yes, you saw someone theorize it. So what? There’s no reason to think it even might be true. There was no movement towards a war with Iraq before Bush started pushing for one.
Some of us have been saying the same things about the war for close to nine years. It’s not hindsight.
Political reasons. That’s what politicians do.
All that being said, the idea of leaving Afghanistan and hoping for the best is distasteful (when have things ever turned out for the best there?), but the idea of staying indefinitely in support of uncertain, potentially impossible goals does not make sense.
My own opinion is that with Bin Laden dead, there really isn’t a good reason to stay there anymore.
Also, Pakistan is undercutting us at every oppurtunity, making our position weaker, not stronger.
Finally, Karzai is probably untenable as a leader, but we don’t have a plan B. He’s dead or in exile five minutes after we leave. It would help if the guy wasn’t nuts.
Are you alone? Perhaps you could get someone to read the posts to you slowly. Starting at 26 and going on since, there has been a lot of Iraq conversation.
[QUOTE=septimus]
Wrong. The discussion here is now about the Iraq War. Thread title and OP are about the Afghanistan War. Going “off-topic” may tend to derail debate, but then so does stifling (because they’re “off-topic”) discussion of matters that participants find relevant.
[/QUOTE]
My bad. I hadn’t realized this had turned into another Iraqi war wank fest. Enjoy.
Enough already. I wasn’t going to do this since I posted about Iraq myself, but it’s time to take that to a separate thread. The topic here is supposed to be Afghanistan.
Here is the latest on Afghanistan. The banks are stealing mega millions and distributing it to the pols and the already rich. That is sort of what we are doing but faster and more blatant. I am sure that is lots of our tax money being given to the Karzai tribe.
Tell me again why we are there?
A quick explanation of the Gore/Clinton 90s-era attitude to Iraq for those who weren’t following the whole thing closely at the time :
From the moment Bush 41 didn’t carry on to Baghdad in 1991 there was a huge organised movement of the right-wing GOP, neoconservatives, and the nexus of the oil and gas/war industries that fund these two groups to push for war with Iraq. A full court press as it were. When Clinton got elected they amped the pressure up even more. The pre-internet media, back then dominated by newspaper op-eds which set the agenda for Washington, were warning the country of the evil Saddam’s intent to strike back at America and how he had to be dealt with. There was a constant media/political drumbeat to do something about Saddam.
Clinton/Gore thought the whole idea of invading Iraq was as crazy as Bush/Baker/Powell before them but , like any Democratic administration, had to avoid looking like wimps. So they came up with the Iraq liberation Act, which agreed that Sadders was indeed a huge threat to America that needed to be dealt with, and the ILA would make it the policy of the US to do everything possible to get rid of him. They used a lot of tough rhetoric and bluster to disguise the fact that the ILA specifically ruled out putting actual US boots on the ground on Iraq. Basically they mdid everything they could to stop the crazies (Colin Powell’s description) getting the US involved in a land war there.
So yes you can look back and see tough ststements about Saddam but that’s all they were, words. Their actions were to do everything they could to prevent the crazies, when they did get back in power, from starting a war with Iraq.