|
Post by Writhe on Jun 24, 2004 16:05:58 GMT -5
I don't find it very easy to answer that. I think that maybe we shouldn't be there in the first place, but we have done some good for at least some of the Iraq people (or so the media tells me).
I guess now that we are there we should probably see through until full handover. But it would be alright too if they organised a plan to bring them out in stages etc.
Possibly the worst thing would be to cut and run. It would send a positive message to the militias and old sadam supports, And possibly even bin laden. That there methods are working.
I think there is one key to the whole terrorism problem. The media! Without that they are nothing.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Sept 20, 2004 9:02:37 GMT -5
Troops out now! Never should have been there. Iraq did not produce terrorists and is now a terrorist hotspot. Saddam was evil but first we gave him weapons, then we bombed him and then we let him go. Then we bombed him again and now we caught him. Pretty screwed up, but we got him. We're not fighting him any more. We're fighting terrorists that we invited into the country and resistence fighters. Remove the occupying forces and the resistence fighters have no one left to fight except terrorists. So they knock them out again and get on to rebuilding what's left of their country. Yes, we have a lot of debts to pay and must pay them now. Yes if the people want it UN peacekeepers should be provided. Seeing as it's the other end of the world, we probably don't need to be a part of that. Attacking Iraq was like me coming up from Melbourne and beating Writhe up because I heard through the grapevine that he was making a sling shot and he might just use that sling shot and travel all the way down to Melbourne to shoot me with it. Bush is on the warpath. Check out the Project for the New American Century www.newamericancentury.org/ to find out what the real plan is. American domination is bad for your health. God is a CEO.
|
|