Joe Irvin wrote:

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:epqr38$b9d$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:epqpi3$bcn$1@news04.infoave.net...

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:epqmj1$9oj$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:epqko2$5h0$1@news04.infoave.net...

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@NOSPUMMYitg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:epqgki$7ms$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...

"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:epqf0f$uk1$1@news04.infoave.net...

How about winning?

lol Don't stop there - we're all waiting in anticipation of your
brilliant plan.

I not a military expert, but obviously the US has forgot how to wage
war since WWII.

In WWII, the enemy was a nation, or nations. In 2006, the enemy is a
small, loose bunch of rattleheads, and we attacked a nation - and not
even the right one.

But its nations/states that harbor the 'loose bunch of rattleheads',
they shouldn't allow to have a safe haven to plan, rearm an attack ...
Lockerbie/PanAm/USS Cole/Marine Baracks in Baruit/Khobar
towers/Somalia/World Trade Center 1&11 ... all US interests ... This
doesn't include the attacks in the rest of the world
Asia/Africa/Europe. If we/they have chose Iraq, we should go on offense
there ...

They didn't. And even now, after we've given them every excuse in the
world, there are still less than 10% foreign fighters working against us
in Iraq.

Muslim jihadist are what I'm talking about ... Iraq is not the only
country in the world that has been attacked by the jihadists.

seal the boarders and

engage ... not let armed militias have freedom to roam all over Iraq
... thats a disaster ... let the military make the rules of engagement.
What is the right nation or place to engage the enemy? ... do you
believe there is an enemy? The US has been attacked for at least the
last 25 years.

What I do think that needs to be done is for the politicians

to let our military wage the war ... let the military make the rules
of engagement, disarm the Iraqi militias, etc. When your military
wins 99% of the battles in Vietnam/Iraq, is the best military in the
world, best armed and equiped one has to wonder why we cannot win.

Win what? The Iraqi army is gone, Saddam is dead.

The Muslim jihadist are still around ... killing Saddam or Osama
doesn't mean the war is over. Do you believe the Muslim jihadist are
defeated with death of Saddam or Osama ... see what was just uncovered
in London today?

We will never defeat them until we stop making them popular. We will
never defeat them at all militarily, they are scattered. Haven't seen a
new London story yet.

Well then why was Spain/Great Britan/Sudan attacked by Muslim jihadists,
not to mention other countries around the world ... look what happened in
France because of cartoons? ... these are not peaceful people. They hate
the west.

You are obviously confused, in denial or a foxnews watcher.

So... er... what happened in france because of cartoons? (idiot)

You either commit to win,

not just defend, or you never get involved. We could send 100,000
troops but if they are just there to defend and not go on offense in
the long run you will lose ...

We are, of course, on the offense.

We are reacting ... road side bombs ... kidnapping ... bombs set off in
populated areas ... militias running around the country armed? Thats
not offense, thats reacting to the enemy ... raising the US troop
strenght without going on offense just makes it a more target rich
envirnment for the Muslim jihadists.

Invading a country that was hostile to the terrorists we were after is
not reacting.

Hostil to the terriorist???? Saddam was paying the families of suicide
bombers ... thats not hostile.

Saddam gave families who lost their homes in Israeli retaliation acts
money to build homes.

Zap that box around a little more, for a broader base for your opinion

Don't get involved in a war if you don't have the stomach

for it. The Pentagon is full of Generals that could devise a
strategy to win this war, but I doubt they can devise a stategy with
all the restraints the politicians put on them.

Like what?

Rules of engagement ... not disarming the militias ... not sealing the
boarder with Iran.

I don't have an exact plan, I'm no military expert.

Sorry, should have been more clear. I mean, what restraints?

See above.

As in 'look upwards'?

JayJBee
"look upwards when asking where the kicking comes from"

"Egalitarian" <xan...@mchsi.com> wrote:

"Bible Believer" ["Pharisee"] wrote:

"Joe Irvin" wrote:
Just FYI, top posting is considered rude and annoying
in usenet.

Again, just FYI, you are supposed to put your response
to each comment, below each comment. This is not
lazy email, in which there are only two participants
and we cannot follow the flow of conversation, treating
usenet like email.

Comments moved to bottom...

"Egalitarian" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:

There are two ways to get our troops OUT of
Iraq - **NOW** !!

There's a good way and bad way.

First - the BAD way. That's the way it was done
this last week. 43 of them were killed. Thus, fully 43
of them *immediately* got out of Iraq. But the problem
with doing it that way is that it's rough on their families
and probably is rock bottom on the list of priorities that
most soldiers would have by way of methods of redeploy-
ment out of there. And too, it would take 'way too long.
At that rate -- around 5,000 per year -- it would take over
25 years to get them all out of Iraq. Warmonger-in-Thief
Bush is probably the *only* person who'd like to see us
being stuck there for that long.

Then there's the GOOD way: Congress immediately
and with the full force of law totally DE-FUNDS the war,
with the sole exception of the amount of money that it
would take to IMMEDIATELY get **all** of our troops
out of these, and back to America safely. That would
save countless of our soldiers' lives, and enable the
USA to regain some of the respect it lost worldwide
when the a-hole who stole the White House illegally
invaded another sovereign nation after LYING to every-
one in order to CON them into supporting his idiocy.

Some people disagree with the latter method. It
would be interesting to know how many of those same
people also are bone-dumb enough to be RRR Cult
lemmings.

How about winning?

Craig ("Egalitarian") is an idiot who portrays himself
as the "be all, end all" of fair and unbiased thought,
when in reality, he hates anyone who disagrees
with him and hasn't an intelligent thought in his
(lack of a) brain.

Wrong on ALL counts, lying Pharisee.

But please DO keep right on making such a total fool
of yourself in here. It's fun to watch RRR Cult lemmings
self-destruct so publicly.

And just for the record, I don't hate anyone. Not
petty, bigoted, and ignorant little dolts like you, and not
even the loathsome crafty leaders of the RRR Cult. I *do*,
however, despise the hateful and mindless agendas
against personal liberties that they are STUPID enough
to espouse and promote. As would *any* SENSIBLE,
fair-minded, and intelligent person

I have nailed this man to the wall with his illogic
many, many times and he runs away each time,
hurling insults behind him as he runs away at
top speed. <chuckle> :)

All the chuckling is being done by the readers at
YOU, for making such a blatantly-lying and INANE
statement. (You really don't have much at all in the
way of a working brain, do you, cowardly Pharisee
who has neither the guts nor the courage of his con-
victions to post under his REAL name... as I and so
many other egalitarians in here ALWAYS do?)

LOL!!!
What a tool.

-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:

A couple thousand casualties in Iraq is fairly meaningless
compared to to the tens of millions of American children killed
by pro-abortion fanatics in this country.

So the President made a military blunder.
It is not the first or last time that is going to happen. Any
President who sends American troops to fight in a foreign country
without a declaration of war from Congress has made a military
blunder.

Robert B. Winn>