I was trying to save you the mentions and embarrassment. There is nothing to disprove because you didn't have a point.
If you don't understand why, I am happy to explain:
If you don't understand why, I am happy to explain:
1) People who insist you can't comment on something unless you have a certain authority are usually just trying to silence arguments they don't like. In this case, you tried to appeal to the authority of those who served, but conceded that you haven't even served.
2) If we were to take a survey of those who had and do serve, I am fairly confident they would agree that this policy is a mistake. Especially given how many lives have been spent trying to defeat ISIS already and how many more would be at risk with this policy choice.
We have the best military in the world. They are often hamstrung by politicians and bad strategies. However, they would much rather serve as a deterrent (as they are essentially doing now in Syria) than have to go home and come back again when things get worse.
Syria isn't Afghanistan or even Iraq btw. We have accomplished an incredible amount by being strategic and relying on allies (esp the Kurds). U.S. only had 3 combat related deaths in Syria since 2014 while crippling ISIS's ability to strike us & deterring Turkey, Assad, & Iran.
There would be tens of thousands more dead if not for our presence. ISIS would undoubtedly control more territory and be a bigger threat. We are risking giving all that up by leaving without a plan or some stabilizing force in place. This will not end well.
