Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
The subsequent 2005 attacks were justified by the perpetrators and their supporters, not on doing a bad job in Iraq, but being in Iraq in the first place. Hence argument 1.
The people who perpetrated these attacks cannot be argued with anyway, hence:

Quote Originally Posted by me
With enemies like the Taliban even that rule is not universally true though.
Basing your policies and opinions solely on the opinions of extremist idiots is setting yourself up for failure IMO.
Might as well listen to the Neo Nazis then because if we don't, they'll complain all the time...

That's true for leftist extremists as well as rightist ones. The choice between two completely opposed options is usually some extremist thing.
Take appeasement before WW2, that's your argument 1. Now it can be argued that an allied invasion in Germany prior to the outbrak of WW2 would have increased German resentment etc., but that's why the world and politics can be complicated, not a reason to resort to simplistic solutions. Had the allies exposed the death camps during such an invasion and installed a democratic government again, it may have actually worked.