Yukon Cornelius said:
This is insanely revisionist history to cope and justify something that shouldn't have happened. Alqeda was going to hold Iraq's oil hostage from Afghanistan because of 911 so we had to invade and kill a million Iraqis? You're wrong. Your position is wrong and you're coming up with absolute nonsense to justify it.
And ya when wives start getting sent Hd video of their husbands last minute of life with their body parts laying around them gasping for air it's going to mess a lot of people up. We aren't prepared mentally for the absolute horror that is drone warfare.
You someone think al-qaeda was only in the hills of Afghanistan. Now that is revisionist history. ISIS was born of osama's seeds.
If you look at my posts back then you will find my same reasoning. It was always about the oil. They told us it was wmds but it was about keeping the oil flowing. I'm pretty sure I had a post that discussed what would happen if they attacked the oil infrastructure and how it could lead to a lot of bad outcomes outside the war zone. I also said the war should have been against Iran at the time, but we did not have the resources in place to fight that war.
Now any terror group or Iran can send drones and missiles from hundreds of miles away to attack that same infrastructure. The threat is more real than back then.
And the bigger mess up will be the airliner getting hit as its wheels leave the runway and the recording of a hundreds of passengers dying on their way to Dallas or Chicago. That is what we are hoping to avoid as long as possible.
But let's do it your way, capitulate to avoid some soldiers deaths so that Iran can sell shahed drones to the cartels or build navel drones in mass to give to the houthis, so that the strait, the world's oil infrastructure, and the world in general will be in more danger.