To me the point is not how we got there, it is the fact that we are there and like we have done in the past (except Clinton in Somalia) we stayed for the long haul and saw it through. Germany was crawling with insurgents after WWII and we stayed to stabilize not only the country, but the region. We are probably going to do the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan. And yes, Iraq may be in a state of civil war, but that means that more than ever we need to stay and do everything we can to stabilize the region. If we don't, then there is going to be a huge vacuum created that will surely be filled by the likes of Iran, Syria or whoever feels like moving in. Surrender is *not* an option.
Gruss Gott wrote: > > (1.) We weren't there to provide security for a civil war. > > (2.) We were there as a result of a war against a government and a > people who supported it (2 'sides') - not the case here. > > (3.) We were there primarily to oppose a communist threat from a > government and the people who supported it. > > In other words, those were "symmetric" wars and security: government > and people. Iraq is not. Iraq is a civil war. > > No country should put it's troops into a foreign civil war when they > neither have the strength to lock down the country nor the leadership > to accomplish anything ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;192386516;25150098;k Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:257734 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
