Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005 Status: offline
|
Nope. One must look to the neo-cons' motives for that answer. Iraq has something they can sell, oil, add to that Israel's desires and you have a pretty nasty concoction. Oil is only part of the big picture, somewhat like phosphorous was in Viet Nam. Important, but there were other goals. Funny, I can think of one Man who would do it, withdraw and seek to improve relations - Ron Paul. I don't think anyone else has even a snowballs chance in hell of winning that chair who would. And I am not sure Paul even has a chance. We'll see. I am against Paul on abortion, but I do fully understand the reasoning behind his position. With that in mind I can see past that and will support him fully. I can see the guy walking into Iran's equivalent to the Whitehouse and just saying "We can't just all bomb each other". The argument that US policy is feeding new recruits to terrorist networks is not new. I have articles that are like three or four years old postulating exactly that. It has been a more common belief in the more enlightened countries of Europe for quite some time, and opinion polls in those places have shown a marked disapproval for US foreign policy. So this is old news to some. It has been said even in the US media that Al Queada probably hoped Bush got reelected because there would be recruits lining up at the door. Rare in our controlled media yes, but sometimes something slips out. And the fact of the matter is no matter what the opinion polls may say, I cannot find one single person in Cleveland that supports the war in Iraq. T
|