No, I am simply approaching this from a balanced point of view. The situation is far more nuanced than the "good guys" are really the "bad guys", and that it's

No, I am simply approaching this from a balanced point of view. The situation is far more nuanced than the "good guys" are really the "bad guys", and that it's all about the money. That's the plot of a movie, not real life. There are many people at all levels and on all sides who have altruistic intent, just as I'm sure there are those who really are perpetuating further conflict for the money. I am in no way questioning the existence or influence of the MIC, but to say that across-the-board this is all about blood money is just as narrow minded as blindly defending the US as if what they're doing is morally right. You'll notice that nowhere in my posts do I go about doing such a thing, by the way. Far from it. I could understand you might have preconceived notions about my position though, it's hard to see the nuance in people's opinions when we reduce things to simply "for" or "against". I subscribe to a Sagan-esque view of mankind as I'm sure many do here. But, again, that has to be tempered by reality or we reach solutions only useful in retrospect like "don't invade in the first place". Anyways, I was originally responding to the commentary that the military had "learned nothing from Vietnam" while "everyone else" did, which is patently false.