Do you think it might have been a better use of US troops in 2003 to

have deployed them in Lebanon, to help the Lebanese Government get control over the southern part of Lebanon?

Instead of sending them to get ground down in Iraq? For nothing?

If we had done that (but NO, that would have taken some THINKING), what's happening in Lebanon now could have been prevented.

I bet both the Israelis and Lebanese would have really liked the idea. We'd have gained an ally in Lebanon. Now all they see is destruction by made-in-USA weapons.

Sigh...to think we could have done something right. Just once.

Redstone

THE OIL !

It's about Water.

Those people would STILL be getting slaughtered.

Redstone

farting contest would have been a better deployment for them.

Redstone

That would've been more aligned with our "war on terror". The thing of it is that assumes Bushco actually wants the terror to stop. They need as much chaos (and fear on the homefront) as possible to fuel the M-I complex though, so don't expect peace or even common sense to win out here.

ENDLESS WAR FOR ENDLESS PROFITS !

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/22/emergency.draft.ap/index.html

Look at Israel. They have a draft. Everybody likes it. The draft is cool.

Redstone

As things are going, we're going to need a lot of them.

Sorry. It really was not an attempt at thread hijacking. It seemed appropriate when I posted.

Redstone

been designated 75% money and troops to Afghanistan (without the roundups to Gitmo) to actually keep it from falling apart and to help them to rebuild after so many years of warring upon them and financial aid and the remaining 1/4 troops sent to Lebanon?

But that would've cheated the neocons of their PNAC adventures.

Even half and half, I think, would have done it.

Redstone

on LinkTV or FreeSpeech TV earlier in the week and I was astounded by what I saw. A young man whose father had fled Afghanistan led a film crew into the country post the American invasion there. They had to get permission to speak with an older gent (he was well into his 70's) who had been and still was the leader of that particular village. Part of what he talked about was how different the country had been prior to Russia invading the country. He mentioned the difference in the 40+ year olds who had been brought up during that time and how the children there now have less of a sense of joy than their parents. In other words children have no business growing up in a state of war.

There are so many places around the globe where money could be better spent, including here at home, than on weapons and destruction.

I read here earlier today that Ethopian troops are heading into Somalia on a 'holy war' as if there is even anything holy about war. I'm just tired of the futility of people warring on each other.

Redstone

and I can think of a lot of other and more worthy missions for the military. How about having enough troops in Afghanistan to provide real security while rebuilding the infrastructure and institutions of that country, or as part of a peace keeping mission in the Sudan? As you can see, I'm not opposed to using the troops, just using them unilaterally in pre-emptive wars.

And I'm all in favor of saving lives.

Redstone

If there was any group that deserved to be wiped off the map it was the Taliban with their horrid human rights record. But instead of using our resources to finish off the most oppressive regime in centuries, we went and invaded Iraq for no good reason.

,...on behalf of war profiteers,...

That I would consider a better utilization of our troops.