So those troops wouldn't actually go after any of the bad guys? They'd just be there as construction workers would they?

But what does Iraq have to do with our ability to win in Afghanistan. Money is not more important than peace in Iraq, if that was the case we would have gone in, taken all the oil and left long before it started to get heavy or very violent.

Do you have no grasp of the concept that with more infrastructure, wealth, comfort, opportunity, etc. violence would evaporate?


Gone in and taken all the oil?

Lolwhat?

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Matthew 5:9

But we are working on infrastructure and on getting basic services like education to the Iraqi's. But that in itself is not enough, we need a heavy military presence to make sure the contractors are protected. That's keeping the peace. We need to (simultaneously) keep waging this war though, and we can do it elsewhere like in Afghanistan without taking troops out of Iraq.

In response to the statement that we care more about money than peace, if that were the case we would have left a long time ago.

Way to be disingenuous. We were talking about Afghanistan, which is a very different situation from Iraq.

I was just laughing at the concept of running in, grabbing all the oil, and leaving. And of course it's more about money than peace. There are plenty of people making huge profits off of Iraq.

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."
Matthew 5:9

Sorry i got muddled, but the same principle does apply, we can't just have trops in there for the sake of reconstruction, unless we have a totally passive people in the land who have no problem or objection with us being there. That isn't quite the case in Afghanistan. We're not hated but not exactly loved either.

But that's what a whole load of liberals keep saying, that we went in for nothing but oil. Oh yeah and Israel to add in the anti-semetic, puppet of Israel theory they have.

If that were the case why are we still there? We would have set up trade deals with them for oil and gotten the heck out years ago.

Where does Obama say he supports the war in Iraq?

I don't think Obama's anti-war in general. I think he's anti-Iraq War.

It's great that he wants to hunt down Al Qaida. I'm all for that.

__________________


Screw Change!! Let's have a Seamless Transition of Power and Policy.. John McSame in 2008!

Muddled. That's a good word.

Have you followed anything about the Afghanistan campaign?

The people of Afghanistan for the most part, support the NATO mission there.

You are making this up.

Most serious and intelligent liberals know that the US invasion of Iraq had no real justification at all other than US geostrategic goals. And the desire to kick A-rab ass after 9/11. That's about it.

Not at all. Most of the pre-existing oil service contracts were with non-American companies. If it was up to the Iraqis, it would probably stay that way.

Nothing short of a US invaison could have given US control over those Iraqi oilfields. And the minute the USA pulls their guns away, those US contracts will likely as not, evaporate. That means that if the USA wants to control Iraqi oil, it will need some very large permanent military bases in Iraq.

(imagine that - that is exactly what the US military is building in Iraq!)

Yes, very different.

Iraq is a completely lost cause (as it has been from day one). Afghanistan is potentially winnable. That's a huge difference.

It would serve as a novel concept for any incoming administration.

Perhaps I have missed something. Maybe I did not get my liberal email update today (yay sarcasm) but since when is going after the people responsibly for 9/11 something that Democrats (Or Americans in general) should not support?

__________________
"Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth."

Many support the idea of going after those responsible - Perhaps change will lead US in that direction.

Why is it a great idea? Pakistan has a population of over 150 million people and has nuclear weapons -- how would they react if the U.S. went in without permission? What about supplying troops in Afghanistan [currently we fly over Pakistan]? What about the manpower they have to mobilize an enormous military?

Sounds like Obama is just talking tough -- much like many other Democrats who do little with the military except dismantle it and defund it.

__________________
"I miss the days when they made toys that could kill a kid."
- Jerry Seinfeld

I'm sick of Pakistan, and I believe that they're doing little to take out the terrorists in their own country. We should obviously put pressure on them first and try to do things diplomatically, and offer our help - IOW, try to get permission first. If they refuse, well... they don't scare us, c'mon!

At the very least, we should be making much greater efforts to finish what we started in Afghanistan, and take those efforts right up to the Pakistani border.

US invasion of Waziristan (Pakistan's tribal areas in the Northwest) would be the most insane military idea I've heard in a long time. The logistics on that one alone would make Iraq look like a cakewalk. That is madness.

All of the US military power in the world is not enough to control a remote mountain range populated by dedicated guerrilla warriors.

Pakistan is a problem. US invasion is not a solution.

I'll be the first to admit that I have no idea what I'm talking about, but it's frustrating to think that despite our best efforts in Afghanistan, our enemies could just jump accross the border and thumb their noses at us.

I really don't believe that there is any viable military solution to this "war on terror", at least not while trying to fight it on our own. Perhaps we could assist the Pakistani military in routing out the Taliban from their own mountains, or at least slow the fuckers down.