Reply #21: The reward would be a stable Iraq, [View All]

[paulk]

rather than a failed state like Afghanistan, from which AlQueda was able to export their brand of terrorism to the rest of the world. A stable Iraq, with a stable oil industry, would be in the best interests of the Iraqi people also.

I don't think a before and after argument about the invasion in regards to the actions of nations is pertinent. The situation, post invasion, is vastly different, and will require new solutions.


Western Europe is doing a better job than the US when it comes to energy policy, but it is still a very long way from any kind of oil independence. And the EU isn't really the problem - China, with a billion people, and India, with another billion people, are. Those people want a modern industrialized lifestyle and that takes oil. Those parts of the world will be the ones putting pressure on the world's oil reserves in twenty years.

I'm not worrying about oil like Bush and his cohorts. They're only looking at the money. It's obvious to any thinking person that alternative energy sources must be developed - but even optimists in that field know we will be tied to an oil economy for a long time. And, as I pointed out above, the West is not the only player in this game.

The rest of the world's objections to invading Iraq were mostly because it wasn't necessary, and if it occurred it was likely to provide the sort of situation it has - a complete clusterfuck. No
one is saying it wasn't a bad idea - but the invasion happened and nothing can be done to change what has already happened.

I do believe a change in administrations will bring allies on board. NATO has already said they wouldn't even consider sending troops without a change in administrations.

Kerry will be faced with several options - none of them good. Pulling out completely would be the worst option, IMHO.