Staying the course is a strategy to lose. Either put another 100k soldiers
there to see if the mess if fixable or get the hell out. Bush is too much
of a coward to do anything but nothing.
"mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:12eui57tcnloc7@corp.supernews.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
> news:br5ue2hlhl41b0j4m6chda5om9v39dss1v@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> 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]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> First of all, we never HAD Vietnam. 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?
> 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]
