Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
When you refer to 'Global' stability, you mean western stability, which accounts for about 1/5th of the 'globe'.
|
Here, here! That's exactly what this is about, securing what is most important to the west, and especially the United States; oil reserves. Iraq's security means nothing, which is why the US doesn't give a rip about the thosands of Iraqis that die each month while they "control" the region. As long as oil continues to flow to America, security will remain in question. If security were really the issue, Iraq never would have been invaded. Hussein and the Iraqi military were completely contained and a non-threat to anyone in the region. General Anthony Zinni stated that emphatically before the whole mess started, and he would know, he was the man in charge of that theatre.
Interestingly enough, American security has continued to wane with the long term involvement in Iraq. The military is over-taxed. The reserves and national guard are all deployed and don't allow for their involvement in situations where they would normally serve. When local disaster strikes, like tornadoes in Kansas, no one is home to answer the call. The security of those regions is in question. Also, Iraq continues to be a breeding ground for terrorism and provide real world training scenarios for those wishing to develop an expertise in this regard. Again, the security of America grows weaker as we continue to provide a recruiting and training environment for those that wish to do harm to us. Claiming that this is about security of the country is pretty weak IMO, as it is just the opposite. We guard a natural resource, and let the country around it implode. We keep our eye on the security of that resource while ignoring the security of the country back home. When the borders are crossed illegally several thousand times a day, the claim that this invasion is about security rings very hollow.