Actually, I think you are going to be surprised on this if either a Republican or Hillary wins. No bets on Obama, Edwards or others. We'll see.
It's obvious that our forces in Iraq exercise a stabilizing influence, at least when compared to what would happen if we bailed.
Look at it this way: Every aspect of the "bail out consequences" scenario you describe, including widespread death and destruction, disastrous worldwide economic impacts, and the al Qaeda response in many nations to a significant victory on their part--is not only worse than what we are seeing now, it is worse than the very worst of the Iraqi violence in the past four years.
Might avoiding all this be worth even the high price being paid right now? Hell, things might even get better over there.
So why not pass it on to the Democrats, and tell them to stop throwing sand into the works? This is all hard enough already.
Current Events » in reply to PS
"We will, shortly after the presidential election"
The whole thread (30 posts)
- The Road Home
- New York Times calls for surrender. Why is this news?
- A prediction, based on history.
- a draft
- re: A prediction, based on history.
- One last point on history
- There was "genocide" and "regional war" in Iraq before 2003
- Picking nits.
- When
- Busting
- PS
- re: Busting
- Busting
- When
- PS: see below Regarding 'Foam'
- Picking nits.
- There was "genocide" and "regional war" in Iraq before 2003
- You are exactly right
- "America is not going to stand for that."
- A prediction, based on history.
- New York Times calls for surrender. Why is this news?
