Saturday, May 24, 2008
To Blur the Picture Even More
I don't think the Clinton/Obama supporters have taken into account one important detail here. I'm talking of the fact that, even after this phased withdrawal of theirs, they still plan to leave between 55-60,000 U.S. troops "in country" - to protect our bases there, to guard the "Green Zone", to guard our embassy, to keep a check on terrorism, etc.. Not, of course, that this is in any way worse than McCain's "stay the course"plan. But, having said that, I'm not so sure that it's going to be any better, either. This, I'm saying, in that to have that few troops in a very hostile region could in fact make us more vulnerable. I mean, I don't know for sure, obviously. It all depends on where they're deployed, I guess. But, think about it, folks, wasn't a U.S. military presence in Arabia one of the main "boiling points" of the terrorists (not, necessarily, that we should be taking our marching orders FROM them, of course)? Do we really want to keep alienating them - not to mention the rest of the Arab world?........................................Me, I think we need to get out totally. Protect (though, not coddle) Israel, come to the aid of the Kurds if necessary, blow up a terrorist training camp if one springs up - stuff like that, sure, but even a remnant of occupation isn't the type of impression we want to be leaving over there. I'm pretty sure of that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Israel has been quite capable of protecting herself, she needs n help from us, other than the high-tech weaponry we sell her. And yes, it was our presence in Saudi Arabia that caused the 9/11 attacks. So with those two thing out of the way, what is our rational in keeping bases in a country we now occupy?
Everyone I talk to wants out. We want out now. Sadam was a stabalizing force in the Middle east. It was his hostility, his war with Iran that kept Iran in check. Now half the government of Iraq are Iraqis who were living in Iran in exile. How damn dumb are we, to think removing Sadam would make us safer?
Obama and Clinton both seem to want to keep those bases, unfortunately. And the embassy and the Green-Zone. As for Saddam, you're right, he was the only thing keeping that make-shift country together. Look at it now, it's basically 3 separate enthnically-cleansed sections (4 million refugees total).
Chalabi, hang him, huh?
And yes, it was our presence in Saudi Arabia that caused the 9/11 attacks.
I think you'd better review cause-and-effect again. Here's what caused the 9/11 attacks: the terrorists who executed them.
Are you the type of person who believes that women in "provocative" clothing cause themselves to be raped?
This is kind of tricky here. Absolutely, the lunatics who attacked us are to blame for 9/11. No question. I'm just saying that there tends to be a negative blowback whenever the U.S. engages in boneheaded and arrogant foreign policy. That's all; imposing the Shah in Iran, propping up a slew of other Middle-Eastern dictators, occupying an Arab country, etc.. As for the rape question, no, I don't believe that.
Hey Will!,
I think Mr. Exterminator was critiquing Ms. Utah's comment at the top...
Ah, yes, my apologies to "the externinator". I would have never used the word, caused.
Post a Comment