What are you talking about? How did Reagan do anything similar in that conflict?
Are you making stuff up again?
I realize you're a liberal, but there are these things called history books. If you pick one up sometime and read it (top to bottom, left to right), you'll discover that conservatives really aren't just dreaming up elaborate stories every time they talk about things that happened more than five minutes ago.
In 1982, Ronald Reagan said that we "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran", and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran."
Ever since, liberals have been morally equating us with Saddam, acting as if our early support for him invalidated our removal of him more than 20 years later, after a decade of failed diplomacy, genocide, and terror-sponsoring.
Yet now that Democrats are in office, it's not only okay to get our hands dirty, but its even okay to work with a regime that facilitated 9/11 and still hides bin Laden.
Are you failing to comprehend basic facts and evidence again?
Oh the uber-partisanism is coming out. If you bothered to actually read anything we've said, you would have noticed we are for talking to the members of the Taliban who can be separated from the rest.
Oh the illiteracy is coming out. If you bothered to actually read anything I've said, you would have noticed my question...are both the "moderates" and the hard core jihadists not hiding bin Laden?
As I highlighted the first time this smokescreen was tossed up, you're splitting hairs to act as if there is this world of difference between the hard core Taliban extremists who merely sympathize with bin Laden on every level, stone women to death for being raped, and hate our guts...and the "radicals."
Both Bhkad and I, who normally never see eye to eye agree 100% that you are dead wrong.
:bs
Ad populum fallacy. Try again.
Bhkad is being an Obama-Apologist?
I'm not sure you can top that in terms of insanity.
Um...no. The people
contradicting eight years of their own hysterical anti-Bush, "what about Saudi Arabia" rhetoric are who I'm correctly identifying as Obama apologists. Not rocket science.
What the hell are you talking about?
Democrats relentlessly undermining the war in Iraq for five years straight by preaching about "the real war"-the one they trashed and undermined until it could be used to undermine Iraq-turning around and "reconciling our differences" with the Taliban...after claiming that defeating the Taliban would be the central focus of all our resources if elected.
This is like the third time I've spelled all this out. Either learn how to read or get used to being in the dark on this, because I'm not repeating it again.
You really have no understanding of COIN do you?
You can smear me opposing the "reconciling of our differences" with the terrorist regime that facilitated 9/11 as me not understanding the nature of counterinsurgency all you want. That won't change the fact that the most ridiculous absolutist ideologues on the planet (Democrats), who insisted blindly for eight years straight that it's never okay to get your hands dirty; who constantly claimed that working with, for instance, the Saudis or Pakistan nullified any claims that we were at war with terrorists; who repeatedly argued that siding with Saddam over the lunatic regime Democrats installed in Iran was "why they hate us"...are now doing a total 180 not to work with some questionable enemy of our enemy, but to work
with our enemy.
The Taliban needs to be
destroyed, not negotiated with. Leaving it in power on the comically naive hope that the "moderates" will keep Afghanistan from reverting to a savage Islamist slaughterhouse once we're gone is gullible in the extreme.