Oct 24th 2012, 22:49:56
Originally posted by CKHustler:
Cougar, you're not understanding what I'm saying.
A strict timeline (aka a set date of leaving) is what those on the right oppose and still oppose, including Romney. A probably timeline of leaving is a prediction of when the necessary requirements will be done so we can leave. The requirements is the key word here, not timeline. Bush never supported a strict date and neither does Romney. However Obama does and it does embolden the enemy
A strict timeline (aka a set date of leaving) is what those on the right oppose and still oppose, including Romney. A probably timeline of leaving is a prediction of when the necessary requirements will be done so we can leave. The requirements is the key word here, not timeline. Bush never supported a strict date and neither does Romney. However Obama does and it does embolden the enemy
I understand full well what you are saying, it just is a distinction without a difference. We are there now, we and our enemies both know that at some point in the future we will be gone, and the terrorists will still be there.
It makes no difference one way or another. By your logic, would it not be advantageous for the terrorists to lay low, cease attacks and feign peace just long enough for us to leave? Simply put, there are attacks now, there will be attacks in the future.
Similarly, were we to not set a firm date, it is not as if our forces would simply up and disappear one night. A withdrawal will take a great deal of time. We've been waiting for "conditions to be met" for what, eight years now? It is long past time for our forces to come home.
I only mentioned McCain by name because he was the standard bearer of the GOP at the time. The criticism for Candidate Obama's statement was universal from the Republican Establishment. You can't shrug if off as if it was just one guy you don't particularly care for, it was the official party line at the time.
Pang doesn't need to explain how your post was incorrect, I just did.