[messierhunter]

He wants our military out of all foreign countries, period. That’s not surrender, that’s ending a destructive foreign policy that’s gone on for over a hundred years.

LMFAO! Oh, you're really a hoot. You claim it's not surrender and then you give an excuse for surrendering. You know what jack? Our foreign policy wasn't destructive enough from the get-go. We've been dealing with these islamic extremists since our nation was founded and it's time to end it for good, not run from it crying and hoping they don't attack us again. I don't even care if that means turning mecca into the world's biggest sheet of glass, but surrender is not the answer. Surrender only emboldens them, as it has in the past. That was Ronald Reagan's biggest mistake.

We’ve been fighting in Afghanistan for so long now, it’s crazy that we haven’t gotten him. Either he’s there or not. If he is, get him, if not, find his a$$.

It doesn't matter if he's there or not. It's an important strategic location to go after Al Qaeda, which is still trying to reconstitute itself in that region and if we surrender now it will only guarantee that they will get the next move. I don't happen to think they deserve to live long enough to make that move.

[rightwinghour]

LMFAO! Oh, you're really a hoot. You claim it's not surrender and then you give an excuse for surrendering. You know what jack? Our foreign policy wasn't destructive enough from the get-go. We've been dealing with these islamic extremists since our nation was founded and it's time to end it for good, not run from it crying and hoping they don't attack us again. I don't even care if that means turning mecca into the world's biggest sheet of glass, but surrender is not the answer. Surrender only emboldens them, as it has in the past. That was Ronald Reagan's biggest mistake.

I shouldn't have to tell you this, but surrendering means we stop fighting and become prisoners of war. Leaving Iraq and surrenduring to Iraq are two different things.

[djsherin]

***Our foreign policy wasn’t destructive enough from the get-go.***

I don’t think a destructive foreign policy is desirable, unless you mean against the enemy.

***I don’t even care if that means turning mecca into the world’s biggest sheet of glass, but surrender is not the answer.***

Firstly, how can you even entertain destroying Mecca? Every muslim in the world would be up in arms and regardless of what religion one is, the idea of destroying the holiest site of any religion should abhor EVERYONE. Our legacy would be completely shattered if we did something like that. No one is advocating surrender, just pulling out. Surrender would mean leaving the troops there and handing them over to the enemy. (Don’t call me a pacifist, I didn’t support one view over the other, I’m just pointing things out.)