.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

May 25, 2006



Bonus question for the day. When the U.S. briefed the Saudis prior to invading Iraq which of the following did they say, “We will soon be removing our troops from your soil” or “ With your permission we would like to democratize your neighbor.”?

WMDs and the 'Mushroom Cloud' have always been extraneous elements in regard to the central question, which is, "Do we maintain a presence in the Middle East and if so where."

No less than Ted Kennedy is on record as saying that the Straight of Hormuz is an area of U.S. national interest. It is of course an area of global national interest. If Osama can blow up the Cole and the across-the-globeTowers then the majority of gaming scenarios vis a vis keeping the Saudis, Kuwaitis et al safe and the world's oil flowing indicate a physical presence in the region is mandated. Invading Iraq was never legal or ethical but it achieved a presence. Sadaam invaded an oil rich country, destroyed/burned a billion barrels of oil on exiting, practiced genocide and sired U-day and Q-say, two future leaders that not even "South Park" could love.

Post 911, a military presence was required other than in Saudi Arabia: Iraq won the lottery.

If Afghanistan had a border with Saudi Arabia life would have been so much easier. Oh well.

When Hillary refuses to say that she is against the Iraq mission she accepts the reality that ships, i.e. Warships alone, are inadequate to the military presence needed. Jack Murtha's "Withdraw over the horizon" plan to amend our Iraq mission and Hillary's position are not contradictory.

You call it Arianna: It may be a tad late to be searching for legal, ethical alternatives to Iraq but: Where is “Over the Horizon?”
Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?