No.
Yes.

:yep:

Barring climate models and the opposite sex, I can't think of many things more complicated than the Middle East right now. It's not as simple as "cut & run/stay the course", the day that anything is is the day a donkey can run the world.

Well, we are talking about the Democratic Party.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1298/donkey22rc9.gif

How the hell are we losing, were fighting a bunch of suicidal maniacs, honestly are they that hard, this guy comes charging at you strapped with dynomite, SHOOT HIM.:rotfl:

Very funny, Rilder. And not really what reality is like. Because he is not running, but walking, and not at your direction, but that of the market, and not showing an explosive belt, but driving a truckload of explosives. I agree with AL that in parts the troops should go home (those who have been running longtime service now, or even several tours), while newly arrived troops may find better use in Afghanistan. But i would prefer to see them rotated and other troops from home taking their place in Afghanistan. Several years Iraq is service enough for one man, I think."In Afghanistan I made very personal experiences with the fanatical fighters of Islam, with their utter disgust for death and religiously motivated readiness for self-sacrifice. In that cultural area of theirs we have nothing to win", said Gen. Lebed once. I see much truth in that statement not only concerning Afghanistan. Iraq is lost since long, Afghanistan's chances have diminished so far like never before in the past 6 years. Let's try to save there what is left to be saved. Even that already is a highly uncretain issue. Taleban cannot be defeated militarily, they will just keep on coming, for decades if needed, and the better part of the civil population is so desillusionised that they are more or less hostile towards the foreign troops now. It was not always like that. One did not read the signs in time, and ignored them. The mess today is the result.

And by your logic England should have thrown in the towel back in 1940 after the fall of France.

Bush relies on ill founded rampant paranoia to keep support for his war going....and there are just about enough gullible people around to get him the support he needs.

You sound ALOT like this guy:

"There is no terrorist threat....." -Michael Moore.

A large % of americans still think 11/9 was somehow to do with Iraq. That shows just how utterly deluded the populace is, taken in by spin, propaganda and paranoia from the government.

Occupying an arab area in the middle east and killing more and more each day is REALLY going to make them love you. As america found out on 11/9 - piss people off enough and they eventually strike back.
You dont make people like you by bombing/killing their families.

Sadly, this is very true.

The rest of your post, however, I cant roll with. It smells too much like that "America deserved it" bull****.

Even the troops in Iraq think that it has to do with 9/11 - http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Carefully massaged speeches, statements made without being explicitly worded.
CS Monitor article from 2003 - http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm

[quote=Tchocky]Being intelligent was never a requirement for joining the army so thats to be expected.

Slow down there, John Kerry.
Intelligence also isnt required to know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They have been misled.

Lack of intelligence meaning easily misled. Army in particular at lower level thinking for yourself really isnt encouraged. You're told what to believe.

Deliberate lies, propaganda in an attempt to mislead an entire population. Sums up iraq nicely.