Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SteveZ
There was a time when terrorism never made it to our shores, and those who plotted to do us harm were "mitigated" on other continents through a well-formed and effective intelligence/operations program. It took decades in some cases to build that program, and only one-and-a-half administrations to dismantle it. The rebuild is underway, but that will take quite a while, and in the meantime while that rebuild is ongoing, we're stuck doing the job in a more costly manner. While that may not be popular, it's the way it is.
I have yet to meet the veteran who wants his/her offspring to experience the hell of combat. However, I'd rather a candidate who was honest enough to tell the people the truth of what it's going to take to fix what got us into this War on Terrorism, than coddle everyone with fairy-tales of how the world will be a better place if we just talk with everyone and kiss their backsides.
|
Steve,
I am not disagreeing with you at all. I simply think that our politicians (especially the republicans) have a pre-9/11 way of thinking. Maybe it is because most Jewish people are generally democrats, and they have a tad bit more experience at this then we do, but the way we are doing it now is "Tactically Incorrect". There is no need to make this a 100 year war. (And yes, there are right wing democrats like the Clintons and Lieberman who are equally wrong)...
Not to mention, Iraq was never about Terrorism. It was about Freedmen Economics. When 9/11 happened our country was in shock, and the administration enacted a plan that they had already discussed for several years to take advantage of our vulnerability and get us into Iraq. The Project for a New American Century (the neo-con think tank that the administration came from) published a paper in September of 2000 that said that this country needed another Pearl Harbor to shock this country into carrying out their new military model, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." (
http://www.informationclearinghouse....asDefenses.pdf). 9/11 was an opportunity for them. On September 10, 2001, Rummy addressed the Pentagon and laid out his new vision for the organization (which involved privatizing health care, computer support, etc. all part of the Freedman model). (
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/...x?speechid=430) This was going to be a long process, and after 9/11, this was all accomplished in a matter of a couple of weeks. ( Further, as soon as we went in, Paul Bremer issued Coalition Provisional Authority Order # 39 allowing for foreign investors to come into Iraq, buy up all its resources, and keep the money for themselves (
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulat...nvestment_.pdf). Further, the contract for the consultants to help 'reorganize' Iraq to be the economic model that they wanted to prove could work was signed July 2003 (
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/contracts/...aringPoint.pdf).
Well there are a lot of conspiracy nuts out there, my general rule is simply to look at the facts and draw sound conclusions. I read the stuff that everyone has to say, research the contracts that they issue, and pay attention to their advisers. All of the stuff I am saying I can back up with official documentation. Bottom line is, if we support our troops (and I do) we only use them when it is necessary for them to defend the US. We don't use them to make money or to experiment with other people's countries. I think that this is the reason that with this war, you either support the war OR the troops, but I do not believe it is possible to do both. This war was about economics not security. It was illegal, immoral, and we should get our people out of there as quickly as possible. Let the contractors fight their own battles...