JDG wrote:
And would you still blame us for the number of people that would
continue to die?
We'll always be responsible, but the moment we leave, the Iraqi people
begin to assume more responsibility. It's also my opinion that the
violence will continue to increase while we are there.
Take a look at the recent list of Al Qaeda attacks - there's a start.
I don't think that we're writing checks to the Saudi government, but I
do believe that we provide military assistance. This assistance
obviously goes back to the first Gulf War, and is related to the fact
that it is Saudi supplies of oil that are keeping the world price at the
60-or-so dollar level that they are at right now.
Saudi Arabia's a good example of why we should leave Iraq.
http://tinyurl.com/us7gn
Sounds like "managed decline" to me....
What is it that we have now, unmanageable decline? I'll ask you again,
what's the alternative? Do we reinstate the draft and widen the war?
Will economic sanctions have any effect on the outcome?
Well, the threat of terrorism is present today. So, either your
proposing tripling the price of oil in this country, or you are
proposing a policy with about as much near-term relevance for energy
independence as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In
this case, it appears that you are proposing a policy that might bear
fruit in decades, and engging in partisan bashing of the people who have
an electoral responsibility to also look at policy options that are
effective for the present.
The single most effective thing we can do to reduce the threat of
terrorism is to leave Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations. We can't
change our energy requirements overnight, but the energy policy of the
Bush administration has led us in exactly the opposite direction that we
need to go. We either start finding alternatives and promote conservation
now or we face a tremendous shock some time in the future when prices
skyrocket.
What's yours stay the course?
Ah, the classic partisan buzz phrase.
Pardon me? Wasn't that _the_ administration policy up until about a month
and a half ago?
Anyhow, I'd discuss my policy,
but I haven't been elected President of the United States, so why should
I?
Quite the cop out considering you're the one who originally asked the
question, but I can understand your reluctance to reply here where
anything you propose is likely subject to attack from several directions.
Of course that's the case just about anywhere you go these days, isn't it.
Doug
"...arguably the worst foreign policy disaster in U.S. history." George
Will
--
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
