In article <12eup75q8hn3e9a@corp.supernews.com>,
"mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
> news:lvkue2l90k6cipmou52vjkg3acrb90040t@4ax.com...[color=green]
> > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:59:45 -0700, "mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com>
> > wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >>
> >>"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
> >>news:br5ue2hlhl41b0j4m6chda5om9v39dss1v@4ax.com...
> >>> The ONLY strategy for a war is to WIN....
> >>>
> >>> The Dimocrats are talking about exit strategies.
> >>>
> >>> We exit after we have won.
> >>>
> >>> You idiots caused America to lose Viet Nam....you won't do that to
> >>> America again!
> >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/color]
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> >>First of all, we never HAD Vietnam.[/color]
> >
> > That is simply NOT TRUE......
> >
> > We could have won in the beginning pretty easily.[/color]
>
> OH? and what exactly would we have 'won'?[color=green]
> >
> > We could have won later on if the f*ing weak kneed politicians had
> > kept out of the 'targeting' game.
> >
> > You loser libs caused all those deaths.[/color]
>
> And the newborn (or fetal) neocons would have won the day? Nonsense.[color=green]
> >
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> >>And if we couldn't keep from getting
> >>kicked out of there, flinging helicopters over the sides of carriers, and
> >>leaving with our tail between our legs, although we had half a million
> >>troops in country, we sure as hell won't "win" Iraq with 130,000 troops
> >>there.
> >>Even if we "won" Iraq, what would we do with it, make it the 51st state?[/color]
> >
> > Why not?[/color]
>
> Now I think you've gone around the bend. That would mean that about 20
> million of the population of Iraq (those who could afford air fare) would
> soon be residents of Dearborn, MI and other areas where American moslems
> congregate. Is that really what you want?[color=green]
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> >>At what point is the Replicant administration willing to concede that
> >>invading Iraq was a bad idea...after another 2500 US troops are killed
> >>(and
> >>18,000 Iraqis in the last seven months have been killed too) or maybe
> >>after
> >>25,000 US troops, or just when?
> >>With the "wisdom" of our foreign policy for many decades now, I can see
> >>that
> >>it's entirely possible that we maintain a troop strength in Iraq for the
> >>next half-century.....just as we've done in Korea. Does that idea make
> >>sense to you?
> >>[/color]
> >
> > --
> >
> > Scott in Florida
> >[/color]
>
> I see that you've pointedly omitted answering my last question, so I'll ask
> it again. Do you want US troops in Iraq in quantity for the next 50 years
> and beyond?[/color]
This is yet another better red than dead lazy self serving liberal.
--
