"so then you want to bomb the countries into poverty"
uh no that is not at all what I said, but continue reading what you what to see
"Hm. I wonder what the long-term consequences of that will be"
Hm. I wonder what the long-term consequences of "cut and run" will be.
"So your evidence that something which did not happen would not have have been tolerated is, in fact, that it did not happen.
Okay, I'm glad we cleared that up"
Yeah maybe it was just an accident that people did not take up arms for an insurgency against the german/japan occupation
i suppose after an atomic bomb the people supporting japan and wanting to help them fight an insurgency against the US occupation were lined up to help. again, total destruction of an enemy is usually the best weapon against insurgency. you can't fight war with one hand tied behind your back to please the New York Times and Micheal Moore. why are there no insurgents in the United States? Because they know what would happen. Why is there very little insurgency in Iran? because they will be destroyed. Insurgency feeds on weakness, feeds on hesitation, feeds on the faint hearted. abe lincoln knew how to deal with insurgents. It would not have worked to "cut and run" from the South. it would not have worked to cut a pact with the South. the only way was destruction. you in fact are a product of a country (the USA) that totally destoyed an enemy(American Indians) in order to eventually found a 50 State nation. Then again your country used the destruction of an enemy to preserve the Union that cost 500K lives. The US is not alone. Many, many countries were founded after a war and after a destruction of an enemy that wanted the same land and/or power. It may not be pretty, but it's reality.
"After the bombings, Iran and Syria stop supporting insurgents in Iraq"
correct in Iraq and also stop supporting many, many, many other Islamic groups elsewhere in the world
"After Iran and Syria stop supporting insurgents in Iraq, what happens then?"
the democrats might be in trouble
the insurgents would be hard pressed to find similar funding, training, arms, munitions, and intel
the suicide bombings (80% foreigners) would greatly diminish and the NY Times would have less headlines.
the Iraqi military would be much better able to handle the situation
if the insurgents support/funding dried up they would be more likely to cut deals and lay down their arms
the world community and capital would be more likely to flow into Iraq
imagine that. capital flowing into Iraq instead of Iranian IED's
what would help the Iraqi people more? Capital or Iranian bombs?
"What do you think will be the consequences in the Middle East?"
alot more positive consequences than if the US "cut and runs" leaving a killing fields in Iraq and a possible Iranian style theocracy that will begin exporting arms/funding/support/training similar to the Islamic Theocracy that runs Iran at the present moment.
"Will the terrorists go into hiding?"
will they go into hiding if we "cut and run"?
they will have less arms, less munitions, less funding, less training, to threaten democracy and americans
there will always be terrorists
but you can greatly marginalize them by cuttiing off their funding/training/support/intel from the only Islamic Theocracy
if you "cut and run" you could very well have two Islamic Theocracies side by side sitting on a cash cow of oil reserves that will fund
many more Hezbollahs.
if Iran has a next door neighbor Islamic Theocracy in Iraq, and they are both loaded with cash, and both emboldened by a US retreat are you saying that would mean less terror in the world? A new Islamic Republic would mean less funding of new Hezbollahs to deal with? Less suicide bombing around the world? Less threats of shutting down the Persian Gulf and our gas at $10 a gallon? How much poverty would $10 dollar gas cause?
Can you answer what the consequences will be if we have an "Iran Jr" in Iraq after we "cut and run" and not just one Islamic Republic meddling and funding Islamic revolution, but two? With the US in retreat how long before that would become 3 Islamic Theocracies? Would you defend Saudi Arabia if Iraq rolls in there with Iranian Revolutionary Guards side by side? Egypt? Jordan? UAE? How much poverty, death, money would those new fronts of war cost? You think Iran after tagging Iraq is going to go into hiding and not want more?
"Will they increase in number?"
Will the terrorist decrease in number if we "cut and run"?
don't you think they will be emboldened ?
will they suddenly all become choir boys if we "cut and run"?
i think they don't increase in number because funding, training, arms, munitions will have greatly dried up
others will be leery to fill the support shoes, knowing they could suffer the same fate
"Will the economic downturn in Iran and Syria have any ramifications?"
short term sure, and so will "cut and run" have ramifications too.
But with Iran not exporting terror and not exporting destabilizing proxie groups there could be a influx of investment capital from all over the world. Iran has alot to offer if it behaves, and the world would respond.
plus if Iran is spending all that money at home instead of funding proxy wars it could actually help the economy and Iranian people
"Will America have to engage in nation building in Iran and Syria?"
Why would there need to be nation building when you are just destroying the military?
Plus if Iran's military is destroyed Syria will come quick to the bargaining table
Most likely Syria would not have to be touched
"What events do you think will follow this Clintonian series of air raids?"
In my opinion if Iran and Syria's militaries are destroyed, (Syria's may not have to be) they are both no longer a threat to Israel. Hezbollah trained, organized, and funded by Iranian Revolutionary Guards basically collapses as a threat in Lebanon and to Israel. Syria no longer meddles in Lebanon. Syria would be under great pressure to make peace with Israel. Basically 4 countries (Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Israel) are no longer a huge threat to world peace.
