That's wonderful. But, I haven't had my 2nd cup of coffee yet, and I need
> your help with something. The article mentions "the spread of local
> ceasefire deals" as a factor in the improvements. Would you agree with that?
> I do. I'm just wondering if you do.
What's pathetic, even ludicrous, is Scott's belief that a reduction in troop deaths, while good news, is hardly "winning".
It's just ensuring a delay in recognizing that the region will never be molded into what we consider a democracy.
Like Pakistan? That kind of democracy?
Yeah. Perfection.
What's really pathetic and ludicrous is that witless thinks that a "reduction in troop deaths" is winning. As long as roadside IEDs are detonated, we are NOT winning. And as long as there is an American lying dead of an Iraqi insurgent's bullet, we have not won a damned thing.
>
Got a comprehension problem, Mack. I clearly disagreed with Scott's assertion that a reduction is winning.
Re-read it. Or get a second-grader to do it for you. It's right above.
Ya' think?
Your ilk would REALLY have freaked during WWII. I can just hear it....bring the troops home...an American lying dead of a Nazi's bullet, we have not won a damn thing...blah blah blah
They would have freaked even more when Truman dropped the A-bomb, not once, but twice. The U.S. cheered. Quite the different U.S. today. Me thinks we have become soft and spoiled with all our toys and things.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required