Hey dbu...

What do Iranians think about terrorism and groups which support it, such as al Qaeda?

No, I do not consider that winning is not an option in this case. Losing should NOT be an option because its consequences would be incredibly bad.

Dizzy did not offer any example of winning, so your sentence doesn't make sense. You misinterpreted the word "that".

They can try to f*ck with us risk-free...with our great leader George W. Bush...their end will come fairly soon.

Of course you coward liberals win the election and they will f*ck with us and no one will do a damned thing.

Precisely what the President said from the beginning was the way to change minds in North Korea.

mike

I doubt our military wanted him opening his mouth any more about N. Korea. Even top ranking generals place value on human lives, especially those of their own soldiers.

"Unlike the U.S."? What do you mean? The U.S. doesn't respect China?

If that's true, GWB should be chained to the White House fence, and we should be allowed to piss on him all day long. He won't do a deal because it's the same one offered by someone smarter?

Such as the strength we had and were perceived to have before we invaded Iraq?

We can't do that because GW Bush never had the will to do what was militarily necessary -- send in 500,000 soldiers, because that would have required sacrifice by all Americans rather than from just the members of the military and their families and would have weakened support from Republicans. GW Bush has always cared more about Republican power than about America's security.

That has been the unintentional GW Bush strategy all along.

So how are we going to finish the job? Certainly not by continuing the current strategy.

Why do the vast majority of Iraqis want us out of Iraq, but the vast majority of Afghanis want us to stay in Afghanistan? Could it be that our tactics and strategy for Afghanistan have been much better?

Which we had just after we took over Afghanistan and before we invaded Iraq.

Which we haven't been doing because we have too few troops and we disbanded the old Iraqi security forces.

Sending in only 150,000 soldiers has proved that. GW Bush wouldn't send in more because that would have affected all American families, not just by the families of the soldiers, and would have been a political disaster for GW Bush and the Republicans. Don't underestimate how much he cared more about Republican power than about doing the right thing in Iraq.

So what's your solution? The insurgency has been getting better faster than our fighting skills have been improving. We don't have enough soldiers to quash all uprisings, and sending another

The reason they are so today is because we invaded Iraq.

Is that why he publicly lumped North Korea in the Axis of Evil =AE, called Kim Jong Il a Pigmye, made Colin Powell break his promise for one-on-one negotiations, and contradicted South Korea's policy? In reality GW Bush tried to swagger but ended up going back to Clinton's North Korea policy.

Don't attribute wisdom to the stupidest US president history.

You're right about the military. Unfortunately that's all you're right about here.

But according to GW "The Buck Passes Here" Bush himself, not on his watch but on the watches of future Presidents.

Is that why he publicly lumped North Korea in the Axis of Evil ®, called Kim Jong Il a Pigmye, made Colin Powell break his promise for one-on-one negotiations, and contradicted South Korea's policy? In reality GW Bush tried to swagger but ended up going back to Clinton's North Korea policy.

Don't attribute wisdom to the stupidest US president history.

Compared to him, YOU are a mental midget.