missing text image: sites/all/themes/obs_2007/img/reply.gif
qbill (not verified) says:
Iraq was stable before we invaded. It was no threat to then. Iraq will become stable when we leave. The majority will rule over a horribly broken mess of a country with no capacity to meaningfully threaten anyone for decades. We have successfully destroyed nearly all of the cold war era military equipment that should never have been sent there in the first place.
There is violence in Iraq today, there will be violence in Iraq for a time after we leave, but the majority will rule, and likely form somewhat of an alliance with Iran. The notion that keeping our troops there will change this outcome is just as stupid as invading the country in the first place.
The outcome of a truly bad idea is never improved by repetition, endurance, or increased force. History is littered with examples of this fact.
Iraq was stable before we invaded. It was no threat to then. Iraq will become stable when we leave. The majority will rule over a horribly broken mess of a country with no capacity to meaningfully threaten anyone for decades. We have successfully destroyed nearly all of the cold war era military equipment that should never have been sent there in the first place.
There is violence in Iraq today, there will be violence in Iraq for a time after we leave, but the majority will rule, and likely form somewhat of an alliance with Iran. The notion that keeping our troops there will change this outcome is just as stupid as invading the country in the first place.
The outcome of a truly bad idea is never improved by repetition, endurance, or increased force. History is littered with examples of this fact.