[Khairan]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

With stability, the occupation forces would have to leave, and the war profiteers would lose. With instability, they have an excuse to stay, wasting more money on it and create more problems, in which case the war profiteers win. So, given that, how exactly would stability be more conducive to their interests? Remember, the main issue isn't oil output, investments, or privitization, it's about certain people making money off of perpetual war and chaos.

It's pretty clear that the U.S. as a whole is losing a great deal of money from this endeavour, and it's military entrenchment in Iraq is impeding it's ability to challenge Iran right now. It is simply not true that the U.S. is actively benefiting from what has been happening in Iraq -- the Bush administration and the GOP have suffered political backlash in the country, the nation has lost worldwide credibility, and Americans are mired in an expensive war which is sapping their resources and misdirecting their military power.

I'm not saying there hasn't been a great deal of corruption involved in the "rebuilding," and individual people have certainly profited from what has gone on there. However, the U.S. as a whole is not gaining anything through this -- there is no reason why Americans would want to perpetuate this mess indefinitely just for the sake of spiting muslims when they have far more opportunities to profit from a stable Iraq.