Quote:
Originally Posted by mpotter";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahTex";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpotter";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahTex";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raina04";p="
Quote:
|
"You want to blame the insurgents? Fine, they pulled the trigger. But they wouldn't be attacking our troops if we weren't in their country."
|
They know that if they stopped pulling the trigger, we could get the place rebuilt and get out of there. The longer they fight us, the longer we're gonna stay. |
I like people that cut straight to the heart of a complicated subject and get it right with no frills!!! Right on Raina  |
What you are suggesting here is a catch 22. So if we weren't there they wouldn't be pulling the trigger, but if they weren't pulling the trigger we could get out of there? How about we shouldn't have been there in the first place to begin this cycle of events? |
I think your evaluation of Raina's evaluation is off slightly. In my judgement, it isn't a "Catch22" because if "They" would "stop pulling the Trigger" (a viable option that would benefit ALL involved) the "cycle of Violence" would end and the situation would be resolved.
Your alternative response, "How about we shouldn't have been there in the first place to begin this cycle of events", is NOT EVEN an "Option"! So Raina's evaluation is Eons beyond your's as a means of resolution.
Dont'cha think so?  |
I don't think so Utah. In fact I will continue to stand behind the fact that this war should not have been the war we got involved in at this time and not in this way. We were not prepared to fight this war, nor were we warranted to do so at this time. We had no plan for peace, and no plan for getting out once the major combat ended. This war should have been fought, but not directly following 9/11 as a pseudo-response to terrorism. |
Again, I have to agree in essence with some of your last comment. But I'm still going to "NitPick"!
My initial contention is that
Raina's statement is not a "Catch22". I think that is evident since there IS a path of action that would result in a resolution of the situation. So this doesn't match Alan Arkin's unresovable problem back in 1970.
Next
Quote:
|
this war should not have been the war we got involved in at this time and not in this way
|
I think that I could live with your statement, as long as expanding your reasons behind it did not violate any of my own reasons for us to be there.
Quote:
|
We were not prepared to fight this war
|
Considering the situation over there right now, I have GOT to agree with this statement.
The subsequent phrase pertaining to whether the war was "warranted" at this time is still debatable I think. I am open to both yes and no, depending on expansion of the definition of the phrase.
Quote:
|
We had no plan for peace, and no plan for getting out once the major combat ended.
|
I would change your word "No" to "a substantially flawed" and then agree with you wholeheartedly!!
Quote:
|
This war should have been fought, but not directly following 9/11 as a pseudo-response to terrorism.
|
I disagree with the use of "Pseudo-Response". I think it is a BIG PICTURE element of our response to terrorism. I believe that the war has a significant effect on the thinking of governments around the world, such as Libya and Syria who have actively supported Terrorism.
Whether that is justification enough to have invaded Iraq when we did, I have real doubts about.
I think there is much more to it than that. But That isn't the topic of the thread right now.
Amazing how two
incendiary individuals, such as ourselves, can rationally discuss a subject, and even voice agreement, when "absolutes" are left out of our statements!!! I enjoy that.