"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
ScottW wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
John Reid became the first senior Cabinet figure to admit Britian's
foreign
policy was turning young Muslims to terrorism.
The Home Secretary's remarks end at least three years of denial by the
Government that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been a key
factor
behind the alarming rise in Islamic extremism.
The most stubborn refusal to accept the argument has come from the Prime
Minister.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770
And this in a 'right wing' paper !
So...the sooner you surrender, the safer you'll be.
No, your right-wing 'patriots' have increased our risk exponentially.
Our risk at home? ..no I don't think so.
Really? Then you disagree with the NIE, Sen. McCain, and a host of
others.
Where's the proof?
The 'fight the terrorists there' argument was
smoke-and-mirrors.
There's no doubt about that,
Yes...there is. You seem to think individuals
are more dangerous than state sponsored terrorism.
I don't.
No, I seem to think that our action in Iraq has not mitigated
state-sponsored terrorism one bit, while vastly increasing those pesky
individual terrorists exponentially.
You're self centered approach is noted while ignoring that Saddam
was gleefully paying families of young suicide bombers
thousands.
Not to mention draining our national wealth,
international standing,
military, and a host of other bad things.
and there's not a damned thing we can do
about it at this point.
How many generations of damage do you suppose that we've created,
toopid?
How many generations do you suppose that we should 'stay the course'
before we leave?
Do you disagree with Kissinger's statement that military victory in
Iraq is no longer possible? If yes, based on what?
Military victory was achieved long ago.
Disagree. You probably don't need reminding, you military genius you,
that there is a part of an OPORD that discusses how things are to be
situated at the end of the day. It's called the 'Commander's Intent.'
The initial intent was get in and get out quick.
You guys can argue that all this subsequent nation building
is military action but I disagree.
Just because we never had that in our plan doesn't make that
requirement go away.
What is going on today is not a military campaign IMO.
Then you'd have no problem with the military pulling out tomorrow, as
they're not performing a military mission there. We should send cops or
something.
Got some spare cops handy? We should train Iraqis and let them
have the country. Their already starting to clamor for more responsibility.
Is it our responsibility to make sure they don't abuse it?
When you shoot at somebody who's shooting at you, it's combat.
So cops are often in combat.
When you
don't control the terrain, you can't declare victory. We control pieces
of terrain sometimes.
Old school. They go where they want when they want.
And how many generations do you suppose it might take for Iraq to form
a functioning democratic government that can survive after we do leave?
Thats up to the Iraqi's.
Just curious.
Here's to the 'safe and secure' environment that we've created:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15848198/
We created this alone? I don't think so.
We couldn't do it without all those peace loving muslims
you're so proud of.
Another leap in 'logic' from toopid.
LOL!
Moron.
Cut and run...again.
ScottW