to say that I’m blaming the victims of terrorism is absurd and insupportable based on what I wrote. I’ll try again to get the point through to you this way. We have as much results from the War on Terror as we do from the War on Drugs.
Tell me how many Trillions of dollars should we continue to spend chasing down insane people in the Middle East; when the practical solution is to spend a fraction of that money making our borders virtually impenetrable and at the same time putting a moratorium on study visas, asylum applications and immigration from countries where people are of a mind to Jihad?
Secondly, if we did go to war for Oil, it’s ludicrous that we didn’t take enough to pay for the cost of invading and occupying. That’s not my fault. You might ask George Bush why he didn’t fill up the tank while we were over there. So, obviously it wasn’t about oil and it wasn’t about WMDs either. Then what? You tell me.
We could have hung up the banner ‘Mission Accomplished’ right after the Statue was toppled and backed out and let the Sunnis and Shiites have at it with each other since that is what they were going to do anyway. No, we saddle our soldiers with rules of engagement that are tantamount to treason and then assign them to collect garbage and collect trash.
I say, let the trash collect itself. $4 Trillion is hell of a hefty price for trash collection. Let’s get our own energy here and give that whole region a collective middle finger.
“to say that I’m blaming the victims of terrorism is absurd and insupportable based on what I wrote.”
No, it’s not absurd or insupportable, it’s right there in black and white:
“If there is even the smallest amount of reality in the assertion that our military actions in such regions of the world, are contributing to a motive for terrorism – doesn’t it follow that we need to scrutinize our national interest in involving ourselves in these areas going forward.”
This statement certainly expresses that we may share some fault for the actions of the terrorists. Why else would we need to scrutinize anything? By bothering to give such notions a mention, other than to rebut them, you are lending credence to them.
“Tell me how many Trillions of dollars should we continue to spend chasing down insane people in the Middle East; when the practical solution is to spend a fraction of that money making our borders virtually impenetrable and at the same time putting a moratorium on study visas, asylum applications and immigration from countries where people are of a mind to Jihad?”
Sure, I agree, let’s stop all immigration from those countries and boot out the Muslims already here. However, we both know that won’t happen anytime soon, so it’s a fantasy proposal at this point.
“Secondly, if we did go to war for Oil, it’s ludicrous that we didn’t take enough to pay for the cost of invading and occupying. That’s not my fault. You might ask George Bush why he didn’t fill up the tank while we were over there. So, obviously it wasn’t about oil and it wasn’t about WMDs either. Then what? You tell me.”
Well, at least you admit the notion we went to war for oil is ludicrous. As for it not being about WMDs, I’m not going to concede that point, as obviously that was a large part of the justification for going to war. However, if you want to talk about the real reason, it was simply vengeance, or bloodlust.
At that point in time, the entire country, Republicans and Democrats, wanted vengeance for 9/11, and the invasion of Afghanistan was accomplished far too quickly and easily. Our bloodlust wasn’t sated, so we picked another target. It’s as simple as that, but nobody really wants to have that discussion because we want to maintain the illusion that we are civilized people and never surrender ourselves to such base motivations.