General P dances to the questions

That the results of ethnic cleansing can be classified as progess. Mostly.

 

How about putting a halt to ethnic cleansing. Does that pass your test?

 

Of course, as ethnic cleansing runs its course there will be a decrease in ethnic violence. Once they run most of the "undesirables", from their point of view, out of their neighborhood there's less people to commit violence against. Thus, ethnic violence decreases.

 

Right there's a whole lot less people to kill now compared to when this nation building first began.

Everybody talks about "this war" like it only started 6 years ago. It started when we first shook hands with Saddam. Why isn't anyone adding up the "gains and losses" since then. That's when this current experiment in democracy became our baby.

We can look at graphs under a microscope all day long if you want to NS but I suggest we back up and look at the whole experiment in democracy from when the diplomats jaws started flappin till the "lul in the violence".

The violence is down you say? Good I hope it's true but pardon me if I don't seem very optomistic. I've seen this movie a few times before. It always ends the same. We the people lose.

And Ken, I'm sorry about ridin ya so hard lately. Watching this whole election mess hasn't been very encouraging for me. Didn't mean to take it out on you.

 

No problemo.

 

Look at the bright side: Senators get paid a lot of money to be pompous, uninformed windbags. People here at the BB do it for free.

Petraeus, from what I saw, did a good job of showing that there has been real progress made without bowing to the pressure from either side to lie about too much progress, or to lie about too little progress. He was wise enough not to set dates, and not to set "died in the wool" benchmarks. As anyone with sense knows, you cannot predict the future. To say that "A" would mean we could withdraw does not take into account that while "A" might happen, so might "B" and change the scenario. People on here (and in the Senate) rush to judgment for political purposes without considering the reality of life.

 

Don't forget, you're a BB member here also, I guess that makes you one of us "uninformed winbags" too. :laugh:

(notice I used the pronoun us)

 

Not necessarily. Not everyone here is pompous, uninformed, or a windbag. I was referring only to those who are.

 

So was I!

 

Yeah. Me an my ole buddy PL know who all you pompous windbags are but prefer to keep that knowledge strictly to ourselves. Right PL? :smilewinkgrin:

 

I predicted it would turn to this several years ago. The glamour of a quick war would wear off as winning the peace would be harder then winning the war. As long as we have politicians who are self serving cowards and a bunch of weak sister news media any endeavor we take will be doomed to failure. We ,the general public are like stupid sheep listining to and believing all of the garbage the Kenndeys,Obamah"s, and Kerry's put out along with our bleeding heart press.

Bin Laden declared war on the United States and then attacked us over and over until he finnally got our attention with the Twin Towers. The president of Iran wants our destruction as well as Israels complete destruction. As we speak the Taliban and Al Queda are trying to move back into Afganistan. When we do finnally tuck our tails and run as Bin Laden predicted we would then the enemy will be free to follow us to our own land and attack us here again. Just because we quit don't mean the enemy will quit.

Our public whinning and crying is counter productive it only encourages the enemy. No war ever goes according to plan, so get used to it.

What we really need to do is add about 80 more divisions and really get after these guys wherever they are.
We should develop our iol resources in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and the shale oil (2Trillion Barrels in Wyoming ). Then let these renegade Islamics go back to the stone ages.:BangHead:

 

If President Bush and his suppporters on the Regressive Right had stayed focused on al Qaeda and not gone after Saddam Hussein then we wouldn't be in the mess that we are now and al Qaeda would not be strengthening again. That's a major reason why George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the worst, if not the worst, presidents of the United States.

 

It is amazing how quick these days revisionists work to revise recent history.

 

Does Jimmy Carter ring any bells?

 

What we need is a much larger army with enough boots on the ground to properly occupy it once we win. This will help us to win the peace as well as the war.

 

The only way to do that would be through a draft. Even the minority of folks who still support keeping our troops in Iraq for a long time to come wouldn't go along with that idea.

 

Support For Iraq War Highest Since 2006

American public support for the military effort in Iraq has reached a high point unseen since the summer of 2006, a development that promises to reshape the political landscape.

According to late February polling conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans - a slim majority - now believe “the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals” in Iraq. That figure is up from 42 percent in September 2007.

The percentage of those who believe the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well” is also up, from 30 percent in February 2007 to 48 percent today.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/13/politics/politico/main3933699.shtml

 

Institute a draft and watch those "slim majority" numbers fall like a rock. And you know they would.

 

I'm sorry didn't you just say it was a minority?