« Grandma gives birth to grandkids? | Main | Would Jesus host a gay funeral? »

August 11, 2007


andy bullock

I'm pretty passionate about this topic.

"If we pull out as the naysayers would prefer, do we then go back in to save the Iraqi civilians once their world implodes from within? (And it will.) Or, does our own desire for self-preservation trump the necessity to intervene on behalf of those who cannot stand up for themselves?"

These two questions might imply 1) that we are saving the Iraqi citizens now and are able to do so later, and 2) that we are standing up to those who would do ill harm to those citizens now and can do so again later.

I believe we are doing neither now, and if we maintain the current strategery, we'll be unable to do so in the future.

Three words people, rules of engagement. We have them, they don't. We are severely hampered by that fact. Your question "Where does it end?" is pertinent. How far are we willing to go or bend our own rules to destroy those little crazies that want to do the same to us?

People like Marcus Luttrell (US Navy Seal) who wrote "Lone Survivor" say that if he was holding a weapon and rounded a mountainside to see Osama there, he'd kill him in cold blood. Is that right? He'd probably go to jail for it.

I simply do not know.

The comments to this entry are closed.