So far, just a few arrows.

But if it does happen, we will NOT hear calls to bring them home. No, what we'll hear is how we've been insufficiently sensitive in how we delivered the aid, such as giving it directly to a starving, unveiled woman rather than her fat husband.

Ace:

I agree with you - but can we bring our military and aid workers home from Iraq at the same time and for the same reason?

Steve

More at thoughtsonline...

That's a great question stevesturm.
I have the same question.

I completely agree with Tall Dave. You'll never hear the MSM saying we should pull out. It's only when the U.S. uses its military force to act in its own interest that the MSM goes on about quagmires.

If it does happen, we should move our forces to countries that don't attack us. After we take everything back. Let the MSM deliver aid to the terrorists. They're doing it now anyway.

Ace,

Disagree with you on this one. The terrorists don't get to dictate our actions in war or peace. They don't want us there helping the folks in need and demonstrating our compassion? That is reason enough to redouble our efforts militarily and charitably.

I don't know. I get tired of it. I get tired of their idea that they can kill us and butcher us and that there will never be consequences.

I think bugging out would demonstrate that we are not patsies, and that there are consequences for barbaric behavior.

We can't let terrorists dictate our aid policies, but at what point do we say enough is enough? We can't go on indefinately taking casualties to give aid to people who won't even protect us or themselves, but if we pull out who pulls in, the terrorists? This is indeed a tough call ACE.

I admit it. Sometimes I fantasize about isolationism.

The lesson of Somalia must also be remembered. In 1998 OBL said in an interview that because of Somalia that: "our boys ... realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger ... after a few blows [the US] rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers." But in the end, if we can't protect our people, and they can't protect our people, we can't go on forever letting them kill us, either. As always, it comes down to how many casualties are we willing to bear to acheive our ends.

Steve Sturm and Ryan,

We cannot pull troops and aid workers out of Iraq for the same reasons, because they are there for different reasons.

In the case of the tsunami, we didn't cause the problem, we are just trying to fix it. If the locals don't want us there, then they don't want us there. The reason for leaving would be lack of gratitude.

In the case of Iraq, we did cause the big problem (i.e. removal of a government). The reason for leaving would be the admission of failure and/or cowardice.

Also, pulling out of S.E. Asia would not leave the place worse than we found it.

It's worse than it looks in Aceh. The Indonesian military, which is supposed to be protecting the unarmed aid workers, has ties to some of the Islamist groups that are threatening the workers.

More here.

Does anybody here remember Vera Lynn?

Remember how she said that
We could meet again
Some sunny day?

If Islamofascists attack our military and aid workers in SE Asia, we would have every right to pull out and move to an area where such help is appreciated.

The difference in Iraq is that it is a location of our choice, not their's. The fascists are free to attack us anywhere but have chosen to take the battle to us in Iraq. So much the better, better than on our shores (which they have already breached multiple times and will undoubtedly breach again).

The point is, as long as we can keep them busy elsewhere, and can make progress in rendering them as harmless as can be, we will still hold the higher moral ground (Allah notwithstanding).

I don't see them, however, as taking hostages for ransom. Expect to see odious, hideous and outrageous murders in the next few weeks as their brand of mercy takes hold and shows compassion for the weak and needy.

Vera! Vera! What has become of you?
Does anybody else in here feel the way I do?

Gotta love Roger..

I'm with you Ace.
Though it would probably be misinterpreted as weakness by the enemy, that seems of secondary importance in a humanitarian mission.

Mainly I imagine my little brother (now a Marine), being killed by people he was trying to feed.

Fuck that noise.

If we start taking casualties and can't protect our people and they won't either, we should get out fast. And we should pull out before it turns into another drawn out media-circus like Somalia. After all, the mission is not that important to us anyway.

Two things come out quite clearly here:

1) All dark-skinned people are terrorists who will cut off their noses to spite their faces

and

2) The US will only help those who universally show an adequate level of praise and gratitude.

Don't your high 'moral values' dictate that aid should be given to those in need without seeking praise or reward for your actions?

Who cares about gratitude? We're not talking about ingratitude, we're talking about murdering our aid-providers.

Listen, if you're starving and I bring you groceries, just keeping you alive is gratitude enogh for me, I don't care if you thank me or not. But don't take the groceries and then shoot me in the back, 'K??

Oh and keep up the race-baiting. We need another win in '08!

Actually, Sobek (above) WAS talking about gratitude, OK. Take a look.

Again - which recipient of aid has been shooting?

You accuse me of race baiting but the attitude shown here is S.E. Asian = Moslem = terrorist.

Why else are you all equating aid recipients with terrorists?

Adamant says, "You accuse me of race baiting but the attitude shown here is S.E. Asian = Moslem = terrorist."

You seem confused. Our problem is with radical Islam, not skin color. It was said before, but I'll say it again: keep up the race baiting, we'll get another win in '08.