.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ShadowSD.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="ShadowSD:482939"]Like Pam I can understand the we can't withdraw argument MUCH better than the we should have gone to war argument. Leaving in the middle of a commitment causes chaos, and betrays those counting on our protection. It really seems like an open and shut argument. It's not. Logically, you have to be able to sit back and ask, what if the situation can only get worse from here? Let's say things are inevitably going to deteriorate, leading to us ultimately being forced to leave anyway; what does that mean coupled with more anti-American sentiment around the world every day we stay there, leading to a greater amount of sympathy towards, harboring of, and recruitment of terrorists? If we can determine within a reasonable certainty that we have nothing to gain by remaining, do we still stay regardless of the price? Or is there a limit? The situation in Iraq allows one of two choices, both terrible. We can leave, causing the country to deteriorate further into chaos; terrorists will be able to train there en masse, the democratic strides made thus far will fall into shambles, and the country will be a bigger threat than ever before to us and our allies. Or we can stay in Iraq, and all those things will happen anyway, a few years later but much more intense, after the deaths of thousands more US troops, and thousands more terrorists recruited due to anti-American sentiment created by every day of the Iraq occupation. Take your pick. If we don't like those two options, that's why we should never have gone in the first place. No one wants to be stuck between amputating a leg or a head, but I was saying this long before the war, the whole argument against regime change in Iraq is that once we get in, we will not be able to leave without causing chaos, because NO COUNTRY IN HISTORY HAS LIKED BEING OCCUPIED. We can either take this historical lesson, which should have been obvious to a donkey from the outset, and learn from it, or not. Things can't get better in Iraq. They never could have from the start, because we would inevitably been viewed as occupiers (which has the added bonus of daily reminding the Arab world of the Palestinian occupation also paid for by US tax dollars, which is what inspired Islamic terrorism against American civilians in the first place, ultimately leading to 9/11). [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.014 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][