Again, this is a complex subject you, as a liberal, simply can't comprehend.
What happened to the poster that was saying Bush supporters were so polite? Where'd he go?
YOU CAN'T INFER, HOWEVER, THAT THE WAR IN IRAQ ISN'T AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN PREVENTING FUTURE ATTACKS.
Uhmm, lets see...double negative, telling me that I can't assume what something will not cause. Suggestion - in the future just state what you think (in simple direct sentences) and it will be more clear. I'll help you:
David Ray view - The war in Iraq is necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks on the US. Correct? Fine.
Elroy view - The war in Iraq ended with the collapse of Saddam's regime. The current action in Iraq is not a war (don't fall for the Bush PR campaign), rather it is an attempt to build a stable, liberal democracy in the middle of the Arabian peninsula. Building something is the opposite of a war (where you are destroying something). The sooner the US can train 100k Iraqi policemen and leave, the better. Once the American force is out of the country, the "insurgents" have zero idealogical feet to stand on, and will either get captured or fade back into Iraqi society. Training Iraqi policement shouldn't take more than two months, so the US should be able to leave in 6 months. As for the lunatics that are fighting the interim Iraqi government, let the Iraqis fight them.
It is just faulty logic to assume that a war in Iraq won't solve the problem.
Uhmmm, there's not faulty logic in the above statement; rather, there is no logic. It's just a argument against a case that no one is making. |
