RE: >>"your argument is the same tired old BS. 'why don't they send their children'...'easy to send someone else'.."<<
No, that's not "tired old BS," it's a window into human nature. The truth is that it's a lot easier to accept the "costs" of a war when it's someone else's family and friends that are coming home with bullets in the back of their heads. You understand that much about human nature I'm sure.
Re: >>"My point was soldiers are getting shot at and bombed and killed all over the world, and the USA does not and can not pull out of everywhere."<<
That's not really the point, the point is whether this is one where we SHOULD cut our losses, irrespective of whether we should have invaded in the first instance. There are causes that are important AND CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED, and there are causes that either aren't important or CAN'T BE ACCOMPLISHED. In Iraq there are some good things that we would like to accomplish, (although it's doubtful that those were the motivations of this administration in invading and occupying Iraq) but the question is whether we are CAPABLE of achieving those goals and, if so, whether the cost is justified.
It's becoming more clear that we will be facing a guerrilla force that is comprised of at least several factions, supported by at least a substantial minority of the Iraqi population and that is committed, armed and willing to kill and die for its cause. It's also becoming clear that even if we employ terribly harsh measures, a huge number of troops, suffer mounting casualties, and expend billions more dollars, the probability that we will ultimately fail is high. In other words, we're trying to push a string.
It was critically important that the Bush Administration be right when it told us that the Iraqis would welcome us with flowers and open arms. That kind of welcome would have indicated that the population would not have supported guerrilla attacks on the U.S. troops. The Bush people were wrong or they were lying, and now we are in a place where the bad guys look just like everyone else and our superior firepower is neutralized. They can pick the time and place and all we can do is take the first rounds and the effects of the explosions and then try to figure out who did it and where they'll strike again. It's a no-win unless the population changes and becomes overwhelmingly supportive of our occupation. Only then will we stop getting blind sided by people we can't locate.
Our "liberation" or Iraq has left many average Iraqis with no voice in their government, no choice in their police force, no jobs, no security for their families, and at the beck and call of armed foreigners who don't speak their language or share their culture. They have no control over their own future. If that happened here I think we'd be a little upset; how do you think they feel? Add in the radical, fundamentalist groups, the number of young, unemployed, religious youth, and the country's history of violence, and what future do you see?
It's not rocket science. It's just about thinking for yourself instead of accepting spoon-fed drivel from dogmatic thinkers that seem to be figuratively dropping their pants in front of the world on a recurring basis. |
