Subject:
|
Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:15:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
896 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> If the officer didn't get involved in the situation outside of his
> juristiction in the first place, and let the citizens of that local
> community handle it, hey, no harm no foul.
>
> At least, thats the way it's gonna look.
At least, that's how you _hope_ it'll look when you choose not to get involved.
It seems that half of the Middle East hates us because we did get involved in
one situation, and half of the Middle east hates us because we didn't in
another, so there's apparently a difference of opinion depending on which side
they're on.
> Again, I'm debating this and I haven't totally made up my mind. Is there an
> exit strategy for the US that, today, will not embolden terrorist
> organizations around the world, and not leave the Iraqi people
> (again!) 'hangin' out to dry'?
Long term or short term? In the short term, we assist the new Iraqi government
until they ask us to leave (and hope they don't become permanently dependant
upon us). In the long term, we hope and pray that the new Iraqi government
doesn't begin to collapse the instant our last soldier steps off Iraqi soil,
because if we have to run back and save them, we've already failed.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
| (...) True, the Iraqi situation doesn't directly have anything to do with global terrorism, but here's an analogy-- You're a police officer Your duty is to protect the innocent civilians. You and your fellow citizens see a bully acting against the (...) (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
|
|
|
|
