Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker";p="
Either we stay until we have successfully completed our mission, or we immediately after we admit defeat and surrender. That's usually the way it's done, no? Have we ever named an end date for any war before successfully completing the task at hand?
|
So we should march on indefinitely towards completing our mission regardless of the cost? There comes a point where the costs of war outweigh the benefits of potentially achieving an unlikely victory. The Dems think that point is in 1.5 years. Its not surrendering, it is simply high stakes cost/benefit analysis.