I really wish that people would do a bit of real research before thinking that some wars did nothing for our country. I heard that about Vietnam just the other day, that it was a waste of lives and time. Yet these people are looking at the war, and it's outcomes, without taking into account what would have happened if we would have let the Soviets march over Vietnam (and Korea for that fact.) What countries would have fallen next? What would the world of today look like? By countering Soviet goals in southeast Asia, we forced them to realign and focus on Central America. When Reagan stopped them cold there, they were in a bind. Proxy fighting and support for regimes in Asia and Central America was draining the Soviet Union's economy, so they had to look to new sources of wealth, and they settled on Middle Eastern oil. Unfortunately, the logistics trail from the Soviet Union to the Middle East was too long to sustain, so they tried to take Afghanistan to shorten that trail. When they got stopped there it was game over for them. Had the Soviets been able to take all of Asia, they would have likely taken most of the Middle East by now and would have put the US out of business by now. So, Vietnam was hardly a waste of time.
As for Iraq, Saddam Hussein had no intent on using WMDs against the United States. To do so would invite his destruction and to what end? Nothing. Saddam Hussein had one goal in mind, and that was to unite the Middle East into a single geo-political entity, with himself in charge (of course.) In order to accomplish this, he first had to gain control of Mecca, which is in Saudi Arabia, and there was no way for him to take and hold Mecca against counterattacks from the south. The only way that he could take Mecca would be to come in through the Saudi port cities of Jeddah and Jubail, and coordinate attacks from those cities and from the north. But to come in from Jeddah and Jubail, he first needed an amphibious capability. The French were willing to sell him the surface vessels he needed, but he had no deep water ports to support them. Kuwait did, which was the real reason he invaded there in 1992.
The reason that Hussein was pursuing WMD technology was not to attack the US directly, but he needed them to gain control over other Arab states, especially after the destruction of so many of his forces in 1992. With the bomb he could sieze control of any Arab state and the US wouldn't be able to do much to help the Saudis. Now, suppose this had occured, and Saddam Hussein became ruler of the Middle East. What would have happened? While we only get about 45% of our oil from there, many of our "Allies" get the majority of their oil from these states, and if our "Allies" like France, Germany, and others would bail on the US for the sake of oustanding loans and contracts with Hussein, what would they do if Hussein threatened to cut them off oilwise? Whiel Hussein could not, and would not, attack us militarily, he could have easily devestated our economy, as well as the economies of any nation that opposed whatever he wanted to do. He didn't biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons to get even with the US. He could have done us in with oil and politics.
It took us over 50 years of keeping our foot on the necks of the Europeans and Japanese, who had known war after war for thousands of years, before the generations who had grown up on war and killing died off, and new leaders who had grown up in peace took their place. I don't mind keeping our foot on the necks of the Middle East for 50 years if it means that we can do for the Middle East what we did for Europe and Japan. An exit strategy in Iraq is the dream of short-sighted fools.
As for Iraq, Saddam Hussein had no intent on using WMDs against the United States. To do so would invite his destruction and to what end? Nothing. Saddam Hussein had one goal in mind, and that was to unite the Middle East into a single geo-political entity, with himself in charge (of course.) In order to accomplish this, he first had to gain control of Mecca, which is in Saudi Arabia, and there was no way for him to take and hold Mecca against counterattacks from the south. The only way that he could take Mecca would be to come in through the Saudi port cities of Jeddah and Jubail, and coordinate attacks from those cities and from the north. But to come in from Jeddah and Jubail, he first needed an amphibious capability. The French were willing to sell him the surface vessels he needed, but he had no deep water ports to support them. Kuwait did, which was the real reason he invaded there in 1992.
The reason that Hussein was pursuing WMD technology was not to attack the US directly, but he needed them to gain control over other Arab states, especially after the destruction of so many of his forces in 1992. With the bomb he could sieze control of any Arab state and the US wouldn't be able to do much to help the Saudis. Now, suppose this had occured, and Saddam Hussein became ruler of the Middle East. What would have happened? While we only get about 45% of our oil from there, many of our "Allies" get the majority of their oil from these states, and if our "Allies" like France, Germany, and others would bail on the US for the sake of oustanding loans and contracts with Hussein, what would they do if Hussein threatened to cut them off oilwise? Whiel Hussein could not, and would not, attack us militarily, he could have easily devestated our economy, as well as the economies of any nation that opposed whatever he wanted to do. He didn't biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons to get even with the US. He could have done us in with oil and politics.
It took us over 50 years of keeping our foot on the necks of the Europeans and Japanese, who had known war after war for thousands of years, before the generations who had grown up on war and killing died off, and new leaders who had grown up in peace took their place. I don't mind keeping our foot on the necks of the Middle East for 50 years if it means that we can do for the Middle East what we did for Europe and Japan. An exit strategy in Iraq is the dream of short-sighted fools.
