No, the conservatives do, by doing exactly what the Islamic fanatics want. And that’s when they aren’t outright allying with them on issues like homosexuality and abortion
And a lot didn’t make it when we poured in. Dead is dead. And we didn’t want it to be free; at best, we’ve never cared about freedom, and that’s when we aren’t installing puppet dictators.
So someone should invade America and install a new regime ?
And what do you think you are supporting, with your “attack everybody Islamic” strategy ? How many people would we kill in conquering and occupying Iran and Syria and Pakistan ?
It was only “debunked” in the minds of the far right. They used the same techniques used in other war zones and disaster areas; the number was only disputed because it makes America look bad.
And a lot of people are dying who are not “Iraqi insurgents and jihadists, and old Saddam army bastards”.
If you are pro-Iraq war, you are anti-woman and pro-radical Islam. Women were far better off under Saddam, and the Iraq war was a huge boon to the Islamic fanatics.
Yes, it’s impossible.
:rolleyes: Ah, yes. Trusting Hitler worked out SO WELL for Stalin.
If you mean my assertion that Vietnam is “safer” now than in the past, certainly it is – because there is no more war and no more foreign domination, not because it is a police state, which it certainly is; but its incarceration rate compared to ours is not irrelevant to that evaluation.
The point being, that if we pull out of Iraq and it ends up a “police state” as a result, that is probably still better than what will happen if we don’t.
It’s the proverbial price of butter in Denmark. What happens in the US has no bearing on how safe or unsafe it is in Vietnam. North Koreans are very “safe”, too. But note that many people are risking their lives to leave those “safe” places to go to places where they are less “safe”.
I’m not arguing about Iraq, just questioning the assertions you are making about Vietnam.
A national government, at least, can sometimes be talked out of that, but you need much more carrot than stick. Getting tough with Iran (I assume you’re referring to Iran, as Hussein’s Iraq was never friendly to terrorism) will only make them dig in their heels and make Iranian dissidents rally 'round the flag.
Which one ? America ? We’ve never minded funding terrorists, as long as they are our terrorists; IIRC we’re doing that right now to try to destabilize Iran. We just don’t call then terrorists, just as any dictator we support is “authoritarian” and not “totalitarian”"
Again, what the Islamists **want ** is immaterial if they are unable to achieve it. I’ve repeatedly asked you to describe the nightmare scenario by which the Islamists will conquer the world. You have failed to do so. May we now take it as a given that the Islamists do not represent a threat to Western Civilization as a whole? And that the danger that they do pose is in fact much more limited in scope?
Getting back to the OP: Does anyone seriously dispute, at this point, that our occupation has turned Iraq into a training ground for terrorists, who might later attack the U.S. on other fronts?