teapartysamurai
Gold Member
- Mar 27, 2010
- 20,056
- 2,562
- 290
- Thread starter
- #81
Does the OP then believe that over the past 20 years the US should have intervened in the Congo, in the Sudan, and in Rwanda,
at great cost and loss of American life, to try to militarily prevent the milliions of deaths that have in fact occurred in our absence?
Yes or no.
Desperate to change the subject!
This tactic is called the "20 questions tactic."
When you know you are losing, start asking questions, until you find something you HOPE will put the op on the defensive.
This isn't about whether or not we should or should NOT invade a country.
It's about what we should do ONCE WE ARE THERE FOR GOOD OR FOR ILL.
The fact is, WE ARE IN IRAQ WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT.
So, that being established we stop asking why we are there, and start asking HOW DO WE LEAVE?
Do we just bail as we did in Vietnam, with the last chopper taking off from the American compound and Hasta La Vista baby to the remaining Vietnamese and Cambodians who can't get out?
Do we leave them to just die?
Do we HAVE some responsibility to those people since we DID invade?
You won't answer those questions because you would have to THINK to do so.
You don't want to think. It's much easier to just hate Bush.
Bush arranged the Iraq withdrawal.
Who's changing the subject? You're claiming we have a responsibility to save lives all over the world,
so what about Africa?
Please show me the evidence that Bush arranged the withdrawal by the end of the year.
And what does Africa have to do wit it?
Obama sent troops to Uganda. DUH!
Say it doesn't count?
Remember Vietnam started when Kennedy just sent advisers.