zbdent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-13-07 10:05 AM
Original message |
| So ... wasn't "removing troops" from Iraq supposed to signal the terrorists that they won, and |
|
armageddon would commence once the troops started to leave, leading to a bloodbath of biblical proportions?
|
| Rosa Luxemburg
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-13-07 10:29 AM
Response to Original message |
| 1. Britain and other countries have removed troops and no boom occurred |
| zbdent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-13-07 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 2. true ... but the Repukes were the ones saying that |
|
"pulling out of Iraq would result in a disaster" ... which, if you followed the logic, we could never, EVER leave Iraq ... even if it had evolved into the perfect government ...
|
| Rosa Luxemburg
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-13-07 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 3. if they wanted to look strong they would have invaded and then left abruptly |
|
staying in that quagmire has made us look weak, that we can't fight. We should have never gone in there in the first place. We should have left shortly after the big invasion. We have incompetent leaders in charge. It is only after generals retire they actually criticize.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Sat Oct 04th 2025, 09:19 AM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
