Subject:
|
Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:05:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
978 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> We should either conquer them or get the hell out.
We'd lose any remaining credibility if we just annexed them into the US (not to
mention the added drawback of being permanently stuck with them until either we
or they are all dead, which is really a greater cost than the oil is worth), and
we are gradually reducing our involvement towards pulling out altogether. The
trick is that our victory or loss here is going to ultimately be decided by what
happens after we're gone. If Iraq can sustain itself as a democracy without US
troops standing around to enforce it, it's a victory. If things start
spiralling downward soon after we leave, and they end up under the subjugative
control of one or more warlords/radical clerics, it's a loss. And if it looks
like we were forced to retreat by terrorists and/or insurgents, it's also a
loss.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
| (...) Oh, yeah, I don't think we should annex them. But if we're going to hang out we need to stop hemorrhaging. The way to do that is to break their will to resist. (...) Sure, that would be a wild, stunning and amazing victory. Fat chance. (...) I (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
| (...) How do you figure? The war in Iraq doesn't have anything to do with global terrorism. In Iraq, terrorism is merely a tool to repel the invader. We should either conquer them or get the hell out. Chris (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
56 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
