Talk about an excluded middle! Is there no tier available between an occupation involving a hundred thousand troops chasing around terrorists and getting blown up by terrorists in the middle of a civil war, and being "back on their heels, standing around?" If we are in Iraq to avoid "standing around" and to penetrate their domain, why Iraq? Why just Iraq? Why not the whole damn pie?
But I thought we weren't in Iraq to fight terrorism. I thought we were in Iraq to safeguard this great democracy that we've erected. Which is it?
If it doesn't, then the "war on terror" is nothing but a popularity contest and the lefties are right, we should focus all our efforts on trying to make everyone love us. Sign Kyoto, more foreign aid, submit to int'l courts, toss Israel overboard, etc.
Again, your hyperbole allows for no middle. We shouldn't go out of our way to make everyone love us. But neither should we go out of our way to make more people hate us. And that is about all Iraq is accomplishing.
I humbly beseech your apology for anything I say which is not documented and substantiated by anything other than common sense. It seems to irritate you.
Oh, there certainly is, but I asked you specifically "what do you want us to do instead of the former" and you said "the latter" (in essence). You didn't choose any of those other numerous middle options. Don't blame me for that.
If we are in Iraq to avoid "standing around" and to penetrate their domain, why Iraq? Why just Iraq? Why not the whole damn pie?
Why not Iraq? Where else? (But we're going in circles - you've already answered, your answer is "home")
And how can you complain now that we're not taking the "whole damn pie" when I asked you directly where you wanted our military to be, and you didn't say "whole damn pie", you said "landmarks".
Which is it?
But I thought we weren't in Iraq to fight terrorism. I thought we were in Iraq to safeguard this great democracy that we've erected. Which is it?
It's to safeguard the democracy, which will deny a terror haven (on the physical level) and a terror victory (on the moral level). Like I said.
You're the one complaining that this not only doesn't do enough to fight terrorism, it actually "increases" the "threat" of terrorism, according to your (baseless) estimations. Then I asked you where would you like the military to be instead of Iraq that they could better fight terrorism (because "fighting terrorism", at that point in your critique, seemed to be your #1 goal), and you said let's have them stationed home, on borders and airports and landmarks and whatnot. I have no idea how that constitutes "fighting terrorism" in your mind (sounds more like "waiting for terrorism"), but that's what you said.
So anyway, that's how we got to this point in the argument. Remember now?
You stated a truism in war:
"You are either actively chasing around terrorists killing them and getting blown up or you are back on your heels standing around."
War is 'the excluded middle':
If you are not taking ground physically and ideologically, you are losing it.
War cannot be conducted by half-measure and half-heartedly.
I know you wish it were different, and so do I, but what does a wish count for?