Retaking ground is often as costly as taking it the first time. We already had troops on the ground. We had the opportunity to end the thing right there. Wold have saved us the manpower and the losses involved with going back and finishing the job.

Pure speculation without consideration of any facts. You can believe it's true all you want, just don't expect anybody else to believe it's true based on such a flimsy argument.

There's not question that it would have been a hard row. But it still would have ended up saving lives, in the end.

That's an interesting hypothesis, how do you propose to prove it?

Here is Dick Cheney in 1994 explaining why taking Baghdad and deposing Saddam is a horrible idea.

Fortunate for us

Who is this "us" you refer to? The armchair tough guys who cheer for the war while real men do the fighting and dying?

War is sometimes necessary. But Iraq was not such a case.

Fortunate for us, that's not a decision you're charged with making.

Almost everybody was in agreement that proceeding on to Baghdad in 1992 would have ended badly, for our coalition and for Iraq. Just because waiting 10 years to make that mistake ended badly, doesn't mean it would have been better had we made it earlier.

You don't know me very well if you think that kind of nonsense is going to sell me. There's not question that it would have been a hard row. But it still would have ended up saving lives, in the end.

Somehow, I don't think that's going to work, in this case.

The problem with the war on terrorism is that they need very little in the way of means to effectively conduct their war against us. On 9/11, their means included 11 people with box cutters, I don't think we'll ever be able to reduce their means beyond that. If we can't remove their will to conduct war, then the war will never end.

But not his will, which is the reason we ended up having to go back and finish the job. I don't suppose it would occur to you that had we told the UN to stuff it, and finished the job back in 92, hat a lot less people would have died, in the end?

Almost everybody was in agreement that proceeding on to Baghdad in 1992 would have ended badly, for our coalition and for Iraq. Just because waiting 10 years to make that mistake ended badly, doesn't mean it would have been better had we made it earlier.

Really? You mean you're unwilling to follow through n the lofty anti-war ideas?

You sound like a twit, Bit.

War is sometimes necessary. But Iraq was not such a case.

We did not "finish the job" in '92 because GHW Bush was experienced enough to understand the law of unintended consequences. BTW there is video of Cheney giving a very lucid, and correct explination of why this policy was the correct one. Saddam may have still had the will, but his means were destroyed and that is what counts.

Somehow, I don't think that's going to work, in this case.

How many Arabs do we have to kill so that you can "feel" safer while you are at home watching TV?

ou win a war by removing your enemy's ability and/or desire to conduct the war. Killing people is only one of many means to that end. We won the Cold War by removing the Soviety Union's desire to continue it.

Yes... "We begin bombing in 5 minutes'.

Somehow, I don't think that's going to work, in this case.

We won the first Gulf War by removing Saddam's ability to conduct it.

But not his will, which is the reason we ended up having to go back and finish the job. I don't suppose it would occur to you that had we told the UN to stuff it, and finished the job back in 92, hat a lot less people would have died, in the end?

No, Democrats want Bin Laden dead.

Really? You mean you're unwilling to follow through n the lofty anti-war ideas?

Gee.

How my decades does one wait, before one is at what you in your infinite wisdom would consdier a 'last restort'?

Wait for what, exactly?

Clearly, he's smarter than you, having understood that basic first.

You win a war by removing your enemy's ability and/or desire to conduct the war. Killing people is only one of many means to that end. We won the Cold War by removing the Soviety Union's desire to continue it. We won the first Gulf War by removing Saddam's ability to conduct it. In both cases, there was never a need to kill as many of the enemy as possible.

I presume you'd try negotiation with the guy, first?

No, Democrats want Bin Laden dead. Unlike Bush, who had other priorities. Clearly justice for the thousands of Americans murdered on 9/11 is not on the GOP radar.

They were, as has been amply prven since, sponsoring terrorism.

Thats funny, I thought we went to war because they had WMD, or wait, was it to spread democracy in the mideast. Or is it to fight them there so we don't have to fight them in Omaha? Now there is a new reason du jour?

What exactly did Iraq do to justify Bush's war? Be an asshole?

They were, as has been amply prven since, sponsoring terrorism.

Congratulations. You just provided Bin Laden with a moral framework for 9/11. Nice work skippy...

Clearly, he's smarter than you, having understood that basic first.

I presume you'd try negotiation with the guy, first?

(Snicker)

7 One does not win a war(And thus defend morality) by respecting the rights, the beliefs, or the demands, of the enemy.In the end, it is how many of them can you kill, wound or otherwise disable.

Congratulations. You just provided Bin Laden with a moral framework for 9/11. Nice work skippy...

How my decades does one wait, before one is at what you in your infinite wisdom would consdier a 'last restort'?

What exactly did Iraq do to justify Bush's war? Be an asshole? The world is full of them. Plenty of nasty, brutal, even genocidal people running countries. We do business with a lot of them every day of the week.

Take a few pot shots at our aircraft? Big deal. They usually go a HARM in reply, which I consider an adaquate response.

Repeat. GHW Bush pulled Saddam's fangs and contained him. He did it with a minimal loss of life among our forces, and spent only a small amount of national treasure (which is finite) doing it. He did it in a way that increased our stature in the world.

And his idiot son has pretty much undone it all...

Simply labeling those who disagree with you as "leftists" is intellectual laziness...

Read it again my friend. I first designated you as my fellow countrymen.

Signing off for 07/04 duties... bless you all.