On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Collins Richey wrote: > On 12/15/06, Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> >> And what is your definition of winning in Iraq? >> > > Not to take any wind out of Bruce's sails, but the definition hasn't > changed with time. The mission is to support a stable (hopefully > somewhat "democratic") government that is capable of controlling the > sectarian Moselm idiots and other invaders (please let's don't get > sidetracked into the discussion about all Moslems) and taking it's > place in the company of peaceful nations, and then and only then to > begin withdrawal of troops.
Thank you for brightening my saturday morning with this bit of humor. Its as if you are all sharing a single brain and just passing it around as you parrot Karl Rove's meaningless drivel. What defines a "stable government"? Iraq's government was quite stable under Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was quite capable of controlling the sectarian 'Moselm idiots'(sic) and keeping out the invaders. As for taking its place in the company of peaceful nations, that's the funniest part of all, as the US isn't even in that group. What defines a peaceful nation, other than not parttaking in pre-emptive strikes against non-aggressors? > > I doubt very much that the way to accomplish thie mission is to "cut > and run" in 6 months time, or "redeploy" as the PC types prefer to > say. The hell that Bruce describes will be just that if we lose the > will to see the project completed. And what of Afghanistan? Did we complete this project there before cutting & running (which is what we did, in case you hadn't heard)? This entire thread is rather pointless. I'm not even sure why Bob started other than as troll bait. *sigh* -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org _______________________________________________ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
