Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogryn1313
If not mistaken that expression applied to Hitler's Europe as it was fortified and defended against possible invasion. Which, naturally didn't help him.
Don't split hairs now. It's useless. I didn't say combat is going on but it isn't a war unless you simply apply the broadest definition to it. Which, if so, is in error. I call it what it is. When it was a war we established clear objectives. These were met. Major combat operations ended. It's not a "war" in the usual sense anymore. I contend America did win the "war" in Iraq. All objectives were met. One simply doesn't launch a war, win, then walk away. No, they stay behind, help rebuild, re-educate, provide security, keep things from falling apart. Which is what we now do there. Yes, we're being shot at and taking shots. But it isn't war as most define it. There are different types of military actions.
You simply don't get it Anna.
I said it is akin to a peace keeping force. We are on the side of the Iraqis. We liberated them from Saddam. And want them to have their own stable government. To that end we are trying to help keep it going. Our original war enemy, the Hussein regime is defeated. We no longer have a clear enemy in Iraq beyond Al Qaeda. The true enemy there is the Iraqis themselves who wish to not get along and move their nation ahead but rather carve it up. In some ways we are caught in their crossfire. But if we left we'd be leaving it worse than we found it.
Anna, I think you are being too black and white on this, focusing on a small picture instead of the whole picture. I'm looking at everything when I discuss such matters. So forgive me for being argumentative and annoying.
|
Umm, Iraqis primary desire is to get the Americans the fuck of thier soil. Even the puppet government the US installed has called on the US to get out.
Americas primary aim is strategic dominance of the middle east.
You are the one who doesn't get it, open your eyes, the USA didn't invade Iraq to 'liberate' the Iraqis, they went to control the region, they now have Iran surrounded and have control of one of the world largest oil fields. They are constructing permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have Iraqi oil under control of US companies and they have forward bases to strike Iran or Syria.
Lets focus on the whole picture, the US invaded Iraq why? To find the WMDs? no. they always knew there were none. To get Al Quieda? no. There were no Al Quida cell in Iraq before the invasion. Because of 9/11? no. There were no links at all. To liberate the Iraqi people? Lol, that's a goo one. To overthrow a dictator? no, they are usually good friends with dictators. So why? Oil is one reason, strategic control of the middle east is another, Iraq was the weakest of the hostile countries there, so to take it over then use it as a forward base against the other countries seemed a good idea, a way to give government money to rich people is nice incidental factor, there's more I can't think of now.
Oh and the term Fortress Europe is currently used to refer to EU methods of stopping illegal immigrants from outside the union. There is free movement within the EU, but the outer borders of the EU are more impenetrable than ever. It's certainly no borderless world concept, any more than the USA is.