[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.)

[messierhunter]

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

Read my whole post and see if maybe, just MAAYYBEE you can figure out what I was saying.

No one is advocating surrender, just pulling out.

Horse crap. It's the same thing, no matter how you want to candy coat it. If a terrorist demands I leave a country and after I decide to up and leave then I have surrendered regardless of what I claim I'm doing it for.

Surrender would mean leaving the troops there and handing them over to the enemy.

Bullcrap. Surrender means giving up the fight, whether you want the troops to all die or not is irrelevant.