10/25/2005

2,000

For what, exactly?

3 comments:

SavRed said...

Nate--Really? How about:

--Iraqi constitution?
--Checking Islamic terrorism and expansion?
--Democratizing countries who would like to destroy us?

I know those three things fall on deaf ears, but I think if you think about things longer than a news cycle, and consider years and decades, you have to check Islamic fascism NOW or pay heavy, heavy prices LATER.

Charles.

Eric Dienstfrey said...

Come on, Nate. Our planning and execution of Iraq might have been flawed, but that doesn't mean that we should not have gone in there. Only 2,000 soldiers in two and a half years actually means that there's a huge number of soldiers who's lives we have saved. But of course there's no real statistic for that number.

I think it's easy for someone to be anti-war, especially when you're also anti-Bush, but in the grand scheme of things Charles is right. Letting Islamic terrorism get away with murder has a greater cost than fighting them now. But too bad McCain wasn't president during the planning of this war.

Shawn said...

No one thinks that Islamic fanaticism should be allowed to run unchecked, but I'd rather have Tom and Jerry running Iraq over the current administration.
Does anyone disagree that screwing things up in Iraq could make things much WORSE than they were pre-9/11??