BatgirlXXX wrote:
Propaganster wrote:
BatgirlXXX wrote:
I will give him credit on how he has handled Iraq and Afghanistan, which has made him unpopular with his supporters who wanted a complete breakaway from the Bush strategy.
On the other hand, I'll give him credit for being a convincing salesman of lies in regards to these two wars he inherited from America's most corporatist administration ever.

Iraq was about as necessary as a nail through my left foot, and the Afghan mission needs to be constantly redefined to justify it so it can be expended.

"Follow the money trail." We fight where the money is.
I don't get involved in debating the rights or wrongs of either of those conflicts anymore for personal reasons and I find that discussions inevitably turn into circular arguments which make for an uninspiring debate. 
We're in Iraq because it's got oil, and in Afghanistan for other ressources as well as gaining a second geostrategic position in the event of an armed conflict with Iran. Those poppies are worth a lot, and the US has used drug money to finance armed conflicts before.

In light of our intervention in yet another country with oil reserves, Libya, and having military options 'on the table' for yet another oil well nation, but our continued lack of intervention in countries which do not possess a ressource we can profit from, this statement is no longer open to debate. Circular arguments come from those who choose not to recognize some very basic facts.

Indeed, we are all fascists now.

As to Gitmo? It was actually there before the Bush Regime. It just had a different purpose, but it's useful, I presume, to maintain a military base in Cuba which the USA maintains an embargo on. It's never going away.