HAVE you asked WHY 911 Happened?

But, what if..........

Have you pondered any of the many contingencies of a sudden U.S. withdrawal? What if the whole place devolves into a slaughter house and the flow of oil to the West stops? What if the situation gets so bad, world condemnation of the U.S. spirals to unprecedented levels, and we decide we must return to restore order? What if Al Qaeda takes over, and OBL begins to actually broadcast his hatred from inside Iraq? Can you imagine the scandals, the popular uproar, the international humiliation, etc., etc.? There are people who are paid good dinero to ponder this stuff full time in Washington and elsewhere, and believe me, they have worst-cased this crap down to the most minute detail. We're not pulling out. Period.

What if none of that happens? What if the Iraqis successfully outst AQ from their ranks? What if moderates in the region actually gain control, and the people turn strife into properity? What if the stabilization in the region through self government leads to lower oil prices across the board?

Pulling out is not your descision, sorry. And if your worse case scenerio comes true, and Hitlery becomes the POTUS, guess what?

Government has a moral imperative to conduct 'worst-case' contingency analysis and planning, for the common good. Your contingencies are 'best-case' scenarios. You never strategically plan, based on best-case analysis. That's dangerous. And no.....The Hildabeast will not pull out, either. She's just implying she will right now for political gain. NO ONE CAN GET US OUT. We're stuck.

Fortunately for me I don't have to plan worse case, but when I was in Army we did. On raids we planned down to the very last detail. You can't determine policy based on the worst things that can happen, if we did that, we would have already destroyed 90% of the planet.

This isn't just policy. It encompasses the entire spectrum of world issues: geo-politics, military strategy, economic forecasting, alliance maintenance (i.e., Israel). Our entire way of life and status in the world are on the line. This is super-serious stuff. The stakes are huge.

People said all the same sh!t about Vietnam. Kinda strange. "Fight 'em over there or fight 'em over here"=domino theory.

We didn't get oil from Vietnam. Neither was Israel located in Indo-China. Did you know brokers estimated that the price of oil might have jumped up a bit due to the latest sea-storm that hit the Persian Gulf? A sea-storm. Now imagine what would happen to oil prices if Al Qaeda took over Iraq. Think about it. Give it careful, honest, critical thought. Don't fool yourself. WE ARE 100% ADDICTED TO OIL.

What do you mean Al-Quaeda would take over Iraq? Suddenly every a$$hole with a gun in Iraq is Al-Quaeda. This is ridiculous. Everyday I read some headline about Al-Quaeda operatives being caught or killed. Are they all wearing their Al-Quaeda uniforms or carrying their shiny little Al-Quaeda badges?

I have seen what's happened to oil prices since we've gone over there. They've doubled. Now I hear bonehead neo-cons constantly talking about using tactical nukes against Iran. Just what exactly do you think that will do to oil prices?

Does anyone actually think that any of this crap we're doing in the Middle East is to ensure that Joe Blow can get cheap gas?

It's complicated for many reasons -- complicated and dangerous. Think about pre-911 Afghanistan. Do we want something even remotely similar to happen to Iraq, when we leave? I don't think so. The stakes are so much higher. No....Al Qaeda didn't own Afghanistan, but it had free-reign, which produced 911. Knowing that, how could we ever justify allowing it to happen again? I, for one, don't want that on my country's conscience.

Does anyone actually think that any of this crap we're doing in the Middle East is to ensure that Joe Blow can get cheap gas?

There are 2 schools of thought:

(1) 100% US operation, which Loose Change claims it was; and

(2) 50% US operation in that they lured Arabs into attacks by threatening to bomb Afghanistan in early 2001, and facilitated the attacks by scheduling overlapping war games on 9/11 involving 9/11-type of scenarios, causing NORAD confusion. Protocols established since Cold war were changed just before 9/11 to where NORAD needed Cheney or Rumsfeld's approval for a shoot down, and both made themselves pretty scarce that morning.

but by being there pino the americans are alienating the muslims in the middle-east even more,they see US troops as a foreign army on muslim land.

If someone is intent on killing you, can you alienate them any more than they already are?

iraq did not attack the USA,alqueda did,instead of invading iraq the west should have concentrated on afghanistan,after 9/11 the USA had the vast majority of the world behind them,they lost it invading iraq.

Bush had it right when he made the statement about sponsors.

If you are European and a Scot, you should remember the Cold War. Hadrian's wall didn't protect you then and it won't now.

If you are a student of history, you'll realize both sides in the cold war used surrogates. They still are.

the romans built hadrians wall to keep the picts out of england,they couldnt handle us

the romans built hadrians wall to keep the picts out of england,they couldnt handle us