Answer this without a long drawn out spin.

1. Now that the US is at war I just want the US to win.

2. Or do you want the US to suffer high casualties and have the leftest pressure a pullout?

Just post 1 or 2, no need for a feel good answer.

 

.

 

forum.

 

[Skyweasel]

Are there any other choices besides 1 and 2??

 

[ShamelessSchill]

After reading OutandUp posts, I think that is as high as he can count!!!

 

[cussin'it]

OK I'll answer #1.... if you only promise to get that GED by summertime

_________________________
Sure could use a trim

 

SW,
Seem those are the two most likely outcomes. Should I put you down for 1 or 2?

 

Cuss,
Don't be a pos today.

 

SS,
Do your homework. 1 or 2?

 

Clearly there exist more than two choices.
For the time being my choice is 3. (none of the above).

 

Lander surely there are more outcomes, these are the two most likely. If you had to pick one which would it be.

 

[codeworks]

1

 

Out why would there only be "high casualties" because of leftist pressure?

1. Any casualties are the DIRECT result of Bush going to war.

2. Pulling out of the war would reduce future casulaties in Iraq too ZERO (hardly a high number).

 

[ShamelessSchill]

You have oversimplified thngs again O&U! The point is that no one will WIN this war, it cannot be won. Maybe like the Israelies "won" the war to occupy Palestine... but is the war over?

 

[Jointpleasure]

So let me understand lander,

If we pull out of Iraq now, future causualities on the coalition would be 0. The point is future causualities onthe Iraqi side would also be zero. I guess that's were you would like it now to end up a zero-zero tie.

How bought this scenerio. Zero US causualities and Saddam giving up the tyrancy. He'd have to take all his thugs with him - somewhere; the loyalist who will fight to the death ( of course so they meet the allah man ).

 

You leftest do not want us to win. What a surprise.

 

Just sack up and say it.

 

"If we pull out of Iraq now, future causualities on the coalition would be 0. The point is future causualities onthe Iraqi side would also be zero. I guess that's were you would like it now to end up a zero-zero tie."
The point is this a preventive war, remember?
The spin about "liberation" came after the "preventive", "violation of UN resolution", "WMD" spins.
You can speculate that Saddam will kill his own people just as I can speculate that more will die from the Coalation but NEITHER support the basis of the war that this is a matter of "national security". Thus, this the war is unjust. An unjust war increases hated of America & Americans throughout the Middle East. Do you feel safer with millions of people hating you & hundreds more vowing to revenge the death of their families? I sure as hell don't.

"How bought this scenerio. Zero US causualities and Saddam giving up the tyrancy. He'd have to take all his thugs with him - somewhere; the loyalist who will fight to the death
I'm all in favor of Saddam being ousted from power, but the Iraqis obviously do not want an American government either. The would rather fight their own battle, gain their own independece & rule over their own people - just like we did some 200+ years ago. History shows us that democracy is evolutionary, it cannot be forced upon people.

( of course so they meet the allah man )."
Do you hate Arabs?

Out,
You leftest do not want us to win. What a surprise.
Seeing how we do NOT want a war, it's obvious that our goal is NOT to have anyone win - nobody truly wins in war.
We want this unjust war to END NOW with NO MORE DEATHS.
This is not an overly-complicated concept.

 

Lander,
Now that we are at war, do you want the US to win or lose? Someone has to win now.

 

Lander,
I would say we won Gulf 1 ask the raped Kuwaiti women. Ask France if anything good came from war? They'd be speaking German. Ho! the feel good answers.