 cniq_cniq says: Sign up and show the Dems how America really feels about defeatism. Since this is, supposedly, a war on terror waged against the American public, withdrawal from Iraq would not constitute "surrender", but rather a change in the front on which the war is waged. In fact, given that there would be reduced American casualties, it could be considered a victory, dare a say a victory over a mad-man president's delusional ideas. "Since this is, supposedly, a war on terror waged against the American public, withdrawal from Iraq would not constitute 'surrender', but rather a change in the front on which the war is waged." Yeah, I'd much rather fight them in New York instead of Iraq as well, especially since most of the attacks of late have been AQ inspired in an attempt to reignite sectarian violence that has greatly subsided. Besides, why choose the place of battle when you can allow the enemy to do it for you? Much better to fight them on their terms, than on those we would prefer, right? Yeah, I'd much rather fight them in New York instead of Iraq as wellYes 'cause it was the Iraqis that attacked NY.... *shakes head in disbelief* Yeah, also shaking my head in disbelief that you lost your concentration after only fourteen words. Sorry, was the abbreviation AQ too difficult to decipher? good one.. loser. It is difficult to understand how one cannot comprehend that our loss there (Iraq falling into anarchy) is Al-Qeada's win, and our win their (stabilizing Iraq under some form of representative government) is Al-Qeada's loss. If one does not seriously believe Al-Qeada has a substantial presense in Iraq at this moment and is invested in the outcome of the Iraq war, I can only assume that person is lacking any form of cognitive ability. It is completely irrelevant if Al-Qeada was there before the invasion. Al-Qeada has a substantial presense in Iraq at this momentAgreed. They do. But they didn't (according to most articles of substance i've read) before the US invaded. And it may be irrelevant to you, but it probably isn't to those who are there now ans see their country in the hands of terrorists.. at least with Saddam, they know where the terrorist was and who he was. BTW: I'm not for the complete removal of US forces from Iraq. I'm for the partial removal of US forces & addition of international forces. I don't think the US should be allowed to withdraw their support (militarily/financially) until the region is at least put back close to what it was when they entered). If that means putting in another dictator, so be it. at least they will have a semblance of peace then... Agreed. They do. But they didn't (according to most articles of substance i've read) before the US invaded.Whether or not AQ was present before the start of the war is not the relevant in the debate over withdrawal today. The hard truth is that they are the dominent force opposed to us now in Iraq. So we either stay and fight, or surrender to the terrorists. If you separately wish to hold the Bush administration responsible for entering the war under "false circumstances", then so be it. But, it is not a reason to pull back from Iraq now. I realize you're not advocating a full retreat, but this comment is directed as much to those that are as it is too you. AQs p... To believe that the "common Iraqi terrorist" (for lack of a better term) who may be taking pot-shots at our military and getting lucky with his IED in-country will somehow find the resources to make a trans-Atlantic journey to wage his 50¢ battle is preposterous buffoonery. Lack of a US military presence in Iraq increases our terrorist exposure by about .000005%. Those who would be bent on greater assaults on US soil and able to act upon that inclination are just as likely to do so regardless of the military presence in Iraq. Who are these terrorists-in-waiting? Why, US-born Islamic extremists, of course. You know, those individuals who have a RIGHT to access US soil, and are very well lik... |
View the Top Clips from April 30, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
