|
This is quite unexpected. | by Peace_man | 2008-08-22 08:49:18 |
|
First, | by MatthewDBA | 2008-08-22 08:53:17 |
|
Third, this is an arrangement required by | by merlin | 2008-08-22 08:57:52 |
|
If it does contribute to peace in Iraq, then | by Peace_man | 2008-08-22 09:50:09 |
|
Apples to Oranges | by DesertRat66 | 2008-08-22 10:36:47 |
| Have conditions really changed that much? |
by Peace_man |
2008-08-22 11:13:16 |
Or is a bloodbath by a repressive Shi'ite government acceptable, where Saddam's oppressive regime wasn't? Is it OK for Iraq's army to kill Iraqi Sunnis, as long as they can be called 'insurgents'? Or 'terrorists'? Or whatever name will be used?
I'm not disagreeing with the decision to leave Iraq. I haven't even started questioning the motives - although they seem suspect. I'm just pointing out that I see some seriously flawed justifications for pulling out and leaving what looks like a serious conflict brewing, that will cost many Iraqi lives, when the US military has paid so much in blood to save Iraqi lives. It makes US military losses look cheap. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
It's the difference between the US saying | by merlin | 2008-08-22 11:17:32 |
|
That's where I see hypocrisy. | by Peace_man | 2008-08-22 12:35:29 |
|
Initially, it was judged | by MatthewDBA | 2008-08-22 12:39:19 |
|
That and | by DesertRat66 | 2008-08-22 12:46:58 |
|
I still don't buy that excuse. | by Peace_man | 2008-08-22 14:43:22 |
|
Ahh but there is the sticking point. If the | by Classic_Jon | 2008-08-22 15:14:07 |
|
The Iraqi people didn't have a choice then. | by merlin | 2008-08-22 12:46:45 |
|
If his goal was to harm the US, then | by Peace_man | 2008-08-22 14:57:56 |
|
The goal was restoration of stability. | by lheggland | 2008-08-22 15:15:18 |
|
Ah, but we were invited. | by lheggland | 2008-08-22 13:00:10 |
|
We obviously disagree on that point. (n/t) | by Peace_man | 2008-08-22 14:33:13 |
|
Possibly | by DesertRat66 | 2008-08-22 11:18:48 |
