LOL Ok I will call you BukcytheCynic now..
If that is the plan, for us to be on the ground in the Mideast for decades, then Bush and company has not prepared the public.
We had a goal in WWII, and I don't think the Germans killed 2000 or more US troops after they were defeated, did they?
This is an insurrgency like Vietnam, or Algeria.
Didn't they argue in Vietnam after a few thousand US killed that we must stay the course, since so many had died already?
But in the end, another 50,000 were killed, same outcome.
And Vietnam even adopted capitalism, eventually, on their own, because it was in their own interest.
Why not spend the 300-400 billion we are using there here in the US on alternative energy, or just helping dig out tar sands in Canada even?
I don't see what the US gets out of keeping troops in perm. bases in Iraq, other than thousands more killed. We could set offshore on aircraft carriers and always intervene, if asked by the Iraqi govt. later.
If there is a civil war - or if the current civil war continues, how does us staying make it better??
>>
Cynical, me? Let us review a few things. How many years has it been since the Korean war? And how many troops still on the ground there?
Ah, Germany, same questions.
Japan, ditto?
If you break it, you gotta fix it.
How long do you think we are going to be the mideast?
And why? |
