I'm sorry Tom but I'm not buying that word. It's a load of crap. We already won the war to invade Iraq. We're now in an occupation and getting out simply is calling an end to that phase. We have no clear cut enemy anyway so who would we be surrendering to? Of, of course - the terrorists - because I keep forgetting that this isn't the War in Iraq, it's the War on Terror.
Problem is Tom, the "terrorists" in Iraq aren't the ones we started out fighting after 9/11. Al Quaeda only makes up a small percentage of the people in that country that are doing us harm. A great deal of the hatred now is from the Iraqi people themselves. We're getting killed by both Shia and Sunni insurgents who, only a few years ago were simple Iraqi citizens.
So tell me guy, just who would we be retreating from? If it's simply that our leaving is simply an admission of a failure that has already occurred, then it's hardly a surrender to an enemy but simply a surrender to common sense. I can live with that.
Art
Current Events » in reply to Democrats again call for immediate and unconditional surrender.
Surrender?
The whole thread (31 posts)
- Democrats again call for immediate and unconditional surrender.
- Now wait a second!
- Surrender?
- Bush has had longer than WWII. Iraq had 23 million people, no air force, no navy.
- I'd love to see your definition of "counter-terror" too.
- Incidentally...