Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bob Smith Thats the key. We are there, whats done is done, and we cant pull out without causing even more problems, so what do we do?
Looking back, its easy to say "well, we should have used more troops, or we should have done this or that." Unfortunately none of us have that crystal ball to be able to predict and manage situations perfectly. Does the US send 20 or 50 or 100k more troops now to stop the insurgents, or do they stick with current levels? Why does it seem like the Iraqi army isnt taking over? Are we not training them in a manner for them to be able to take over?
I want our troops back home, but leaving now would be disastrous. |
Bobbo, you're going to think I'm am assehole for saying this (well, I am an assehole, but that's a topic for another thread) but I was closely following the war in Vietnam at a time when you had other pressing matters that absorbed your attention, such as which of your mother's breast to nurse at. And I can tell you that your reasoning sounds identical to the arguments that decision-makers used to stay the course in Vietnam long after the outcome was settled, at the cost of more blood.
Leaving aside for the moment whether the U.S. should stay the course in Iraq, there's another important issue that people aren't talking about. The people at the top exercised very bad judgement in the way they went into that godforsaken shithole, and after. There's also considerable evidence that that they deliberately obfsucated the facts in the way they presented their case to the American people. Thousands of innocent people have died as a direct result of the way these decisions fucked up, yet these leaders are dan cing as hard as they can to avoid being held accountable for the outcomes that happened because of their actions, and on their watch -- and they're succeeding.