Advocate wrote:nappyheadedhohoho wrote:Advocate wrote:Excuse me if I already mentioned this, but Edwards had an excellent plan.
He said that we should limit our involvement to training the Iraqis in military matters, which would allow a large reduction of forces. Further, we should be doing this, in the near future, outside of Iraq, which would limit our occupation of the country. He would leave a few thousand troops in Iraq to protect the embassy and certain other critical places.
Where? Okinawa?
Radical islamists would be ok with "a few thousand troops in Iraq"? Says who?
Don't we have about a thousand bases around the world, not to mention the USA?
Yes, but somewhere on this thread you said that all, or almost all, of them should be closed. Are we closing them before or after we train the Iraqis in Okinawa?
Advocate wrote:Regarding the radicals, why should we care about their views?
Well, you said,
Advocate wrote:A, the multitude of bases we have puts us in more danger. For instance, bin-Laden, on a number of occasions, made it clear that 9/11 was due to our presence in the ME, primarily SA.
We can duplicate the benefit of bases there and other hot spots with bases over the horizon. Also, aircraft carriers give us a potent presence anywhere we wish to place a carrier group.
Staying in Iraq is folly. We are hated there, with a large majority of Iraqis wanting us dead. Our presence has spurred the growth of al-Qaida, which was once on the ropes. Moreover, radicals fighting there have left for all parts of the globe.
If we're hated there and it's clear that 9/11 was due to our presence in the ME (which many Democrats believe), won't the radical islamists have a bit of a problem with your thousand troops?