OT Exit Strategies are for LOSERS!

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!


--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free Thanks to the Brave'

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
news:br5ue2hlhl41b0j4m6chda5om9v39dss1v@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> 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?

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:59:45 -0700, "mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
[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]
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/color]

[color=blue]
>First of all, we never HAD Vietnam.[/color]

That is simply NOT TRUE......

We could have won in the beginning pretty easily.

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=blue]
>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=blue]
>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

'The Land of the Free Thanks to the Brave'

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
news:lvkue2l90k6cipmou52vjkg3acrb90040t@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:59:45 -0700, "mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
>>news:br5ue2hlhl41b0j4m6chda5om9v39dss1v@4ax.com...[color=darkred]
>>> 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]
>
>[color=green]
>>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=blue]
>
> 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=blue]
>
>
>[color=green]
>>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=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>>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?

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:00:16 -0700, "mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>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]

I see no reason not to....

We have been in Japan, Korea and Germany for 50 years...


--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free Thanks to the Brave'

In article <12eui57tcnloc7@corp.supernews.com>,
"mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com> wrote:
[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]

Nobody kicked us out. The cut and run democrats anounced ahead of time
what they were going to do. The VC sat back and waited for us to leave.
We left and the rest of the story is history. Nobody kicked us out. We
could have leveled that crap hole and the harbor that supported it, but
it was not politically correct.
--

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.
--

Troll in Florida wrote:
[color=blue]
>(snip)[/color]

Stupid troll.

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:16:30 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Troll in Florida wrote:
>[color=green]
>>(snip)[/color]
>
>Stupid troll.[/color]

Another name for yourself?

I'm sure Mike will add it to your list.

btw you are also a loser....

--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free Thanks to the Brave'

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
news:br5ue2hlhl41b0j4m6chda5om9v39dss1v@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> 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]


Dimocrats don't win wars. They cut and run and wait for republican
administrations to get the job done right.

"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:P3PHg.1694$B14.88@dukeread03...[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]
>
> Dimocrats don't win wars. They cut and run and wait for republican
> administrations to get the job done right.[/color]

Roosevelt and Truman were Democrats.

Did Nixon "save" Vietnam?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

mack wrote:[color=blue]
> "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
> news:br5ue2hlhl41b0j4m6chda5om9v39dss1v@4ax.com...[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > 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]
[color=blue]
> First of all, we never HAD Vietnam.[/color]

I doubt that the outcome to the Iraqi war will be as "positive" for us
as Vietnam was. At least Vietnam doesn't hate us -- they've even
invited us back to base our military there at Camron Bay.
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

But that was because Congress was controlled by the Democrats back then
-- just ask Scott, who's probably sitting in his recliner, still
wearing his old military helmet. ;)

Scott in Florida wrote:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:59:45 -0700, "mack" <mackerel@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:[/color]
[color=blue]
> You idiots caused America to lose Viet Nam....you won't do that to
> America again![/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> >First of all, we never HAD Vietnam.[/color]
>
> That is simply NOT TRUE......
>
> We could have won in the beginning pretty easily.[/color]

Didn't they say the same thing about the Iraqi war? But unlike Iraq, I
don't think that Vietnam has ever lost a war.
[color=blue]
> We could have won later on if the f*ing weak kneed politicians had
> kept out of the 'targeting' game.[/color]

Was President Eisenhower one of those "fucking weak kneed politicians"?
Because he decided against escalating U.S. involvement in Vietnam,
changing his mind after a marathon meeting with advisors, who included
General Matthew Ridgeway, another person who was hardly weak kneed.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >Even if we "won" Iraq, what would we do with it, make it the 51st state?[/color]
>
> Why not?[/color]

Even by force, if the Iraqi people don't want statehood, Napoleon?

.dbu, wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <12eui57tcnloc7@corp.supernews.com>,[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > First of all, we never HAD Vietnam. And if we couldn't keep from getting
> > kicked out of there,[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Nobody kicked us out. The cut and run democrats anounced ahead of time
> what they were going to do.[/color]

It was Nixon, a Republican, who greatly cut back U.S. forces in
Vietnam. During the 1968 presidential campaign he even touted a
"secret plan" to end the Vietnam war.
[color=blue]
> The VC sat back and waited for us to leave. We left and the rest of
> the story is history. Nobody kicked us out.[/color]

If the Communists had merely sat back, why did so many of them die?
[color=blue]
> We could have leveled that crap hole and the harbor that supported it, but
> it was not politically correct.[/color]

And then what?

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]