Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

NATO was to hit Afghanistan and leave us able to stomp Saddam into the
sand, NATO failed while We the USA succeeded, Iraq was beaten and
Afghanistan was a multinational failure.

Joe from Kokomo wrote:

Huh? "Iraq was beaten" you say?

Eight years later and we are still in Iraq and still pouring billions
per month down that rat hole. If you define that as "winning", I sure
would hate to see what you call losing.

Next thing you know, you'll be telling us "Mission accomplished!".

Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

Is Saddam in power and shooting at our Jets? NO ?

We won.

Well, maybe we "won" by your definition, but...

-Are we still there after eight long years. YES!
-Is American blood still being spilled? YES!
-Are we still pouring HUNDREDS of BILLIONS into a bottomless pit? YES!
-Do we have young men and women suffering as amputees and from PSD for
the rest of their lives? YES!

As stated above:

If you define that as "winning", I sure would hate to see what you call losing.

In any event, Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11, as admitted by both
Bush and Cheney. We shouldn't have been there in the first place, much
less for the last 8 years.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I would hardly call anything that
has gone on in Iraq a "win".

Then if it becomes just another Muslim murdering state, well you can
lead a horse to water....

"IF it becomes another Muslim murdering state"? Too late; it already IS
and has been for the last 1000 years except for the brief period when
Saddam's iron fist kept things under control. And Saddam is currently
off the job, nursing a stretched neck.

The other option is to destroy their entire society as we did to Germany
and Japan.

Huh? A whole 'nother topic, but we -destroyed- the German and Japanese
societies? They seem quite successful, thank you very much. And even if
I gave a shred of credence to your statement, your analogy is completely
bogus. Japan and Germany *started* WW II, got their asses kicked and
deserved whatever they got. Iraq (see above) was a sovereign nation that
was invaded for bogus reasons.

Oh, sorry. I forgot. You seem to like bogus.

Joe from Kokomo wrote:

Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

NATO was to hit Afghanistan and leave us able to stomp Saddam into the
sand, NATO failed while We the USA succeeded, Iraq was beaten and
Afghanistan was a multinational failure.

Joe from Kokomo wrote:

Huh? "Iraq was beaten" you say?

Eight years later and we are still in Iraq and still pouring billions
per month down that rat hole. If you define that as "winning", I sure
would hate to see what you call losing.

Next thing you know, you'll be telling us "Mission accomplished!".

Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

Is Saddam in power and shooting at our Jets? NO ?

We won.

Well, maybe we "won" by your definition, but...

-Are we still there after eight long years. YES!
-Is American blood still being spilled? YES!
-Are we still pouring HUNDREDS of BILLIONS into a bottomless pit? YES!
-Do we have young men and women suffering as amputees and from PSD for
the rest of their lives? YES!



WE are still in Japan and Germany 70 years after we beat the living ****
out of them.... Total and unconditional surrender.

Still being there is hardly a defining point of winning.

But leaving is up to the Generals.

Joe Bidet (Bidet),,, Accident Prone!
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=278453
cuhulin