Replies

Once again, you are reading meaning into what I posted or attempting to distort meaning.

WHAT I SAID: (a short review for A.D.D. children)

In my first post I said that American troops will need to stay in Iraq for the long term so Iraq does not fall into anarchy. Anarchy in Afghanistan led to the rise of the Taliban.

In my second post I clarified that the Pre-US-Afghan Soviet occupation led to the warlords and strife that created a leadership vacuum filled by the taliban. I suggested that if we let the UN run (and the UN will not run things well) things Iraq will go to hell.

IT IS THEREFORE in our best interest to continue to keep control of the situation rather than hand over to the UN.

That is all I said.

IT IS THEREFORE in our best interest to continue to keep control of the situation rather than hand over to the UN.

That's for sure. The UN cannot be allowed to come anywhere near this. If they touch post-war Iraq, they will ruin everything we have fought for. It will be like curing someone of cancer and then allowing them to be exposed to a carcinogen again.

I conceded your point for the sake of argument and asked a very polite question about the anarchic status quo in Afghanistan. You, on the other hand, keep repeating your points about past events in Afghanistan and refused to answer this question. If you want to shift your gear out of neutral have a serious discussion, I am all ears.