Furthermore, they'd just draft the neighbors and fling 'em into fighting the fire without training.

And, of course, pile on accelerators madly.
======================

I'm with you, Mr. Drummond, on this. It is of vital importance to stabilize Iraq before U.S. troops exit in large numbers. Sadly the current security measures are not really working as the number of Iraqi civilian dead increased to 1,861 in March, up by 229 from February, and certainly higher than than the average of 1,500 a month in previous months. But that doesn't mean that the search for a viable security plan should be avoided or to give-up and allow chaos.

Thomas Edison had an interesting viewpoint on this. He had 1,000 failures when he attempted to invent the lightbulb. But he didn't consider these as failures, but as finding 1,000 ways his invention would not work, and still kept that search for the right solution as a main goal. The U.S. military needs to find the right security plan solution that will work for Iraq, because the cost of leaving Iraq in a serious sectarian civil war setting is just too great of a risk, politically or for humanitarian reasons.

Quite interesting, Paul, that your delusions are so well bounded.
=========================================

Uh, I think it would be easy to misinterpret that line, P. I often completely agree with you, as here. But then you'll come out with something completely wack. It's like you are sane, but with festering pockets of confusion. I'll let you know.
=========================

I actually like your firefighter analogy. Let me amplify it a bit.

Imagine you're a team of firefighters and you rush into a burning house only to find out that the owners set the fire themselves and everytime you try to put some of it out they use a blowtorch to get it going again, meanwhile your guys are dying around you from smoke inhalation. At some point, it you cared about your team that is, you might decide that these guys are not worth wasting the lives of your guys if they don't want to save themselves.

Kim, even my background in psychology is not able to make much sense of your arrogant point. But just because Iraqi civilian deaths are currently increasing are no sign to walk away from calming the violence in Iraq, but to finding the right security solution that works. No good policeman would walk away from crime and allow it to flourish.

kim, your MO seems to be squeezing out a snarky comment or insult without ever putting out an opinion or idea of your own. How 'bout it? Anything there?

Frank, I have very little but my own opinions.

Paul, I'm not arrogant; you have delusionary beliefs, often. Not on this topic, apparently.
===============================

But thanks for thinking I'm not opinionated.
=========================

Or not.
====

As usual Frank, we find we can always count on the Liberal to change definitions, ignore context and history, and make excuses, so that abandoning the mission can somehow be painted as morally acceptable.

Your sellout would kill countless innocent Iraqis and Kurds, especially women and children (women for daring to vote, children for the sin of being the wrong family, and as a means for punishing parents who supported democracy). But facing that fact must be beyond your courage.

Kim, what's likely fueling the Democrats call to withdrawal troops from Iraq is the continued violence and high American deaths. But to me, that only means that the right security plan is yet to be found. If there were virtually no American or Iraqi deaths, then the Democrats call for a quick withdrawal would probably greatly calm down.

I have to disagree there, Paul. The Democrats began whining the moment they saw a political gain in doing so. I have not forgotten their lies and slander in 2004.

Well, your argument might be true, if it weren't just the latest excuse to oppose the free world's efforts in Iraq against Islamofascism. Latest, and, of course, longest.

By the way, what's your plan?
===========================

DJ,

Well, we've already killed countless women and children(countless because "we don't do body counts"). That fact seems to be beyond you as well.

Kim,

The wisdon you bring to your one-liners rivals the great thinkers of our time. Please continue to teach this wayward bunch.

Frank:

Well, we've already killed countless women and children(countless because "we don't do body counts").

You say we've killed countless women and children, and defend your point by saying there is no evidence. Well done.

f, try to get over your jealousy long enough to tell us about the body counts from Saddam's mass graves.
===============================

DJ, both parties seem to complicate serious foreign policy matters with political nonsense. The White House hurt the stability situation in Iraq by refusing to change course much earlier on for political reasons for fear of admitting some failure, which also hurt the Republicans in 2006. And the victorious Democrats think that the public wants a quick exit from Iraq despite the costs, which may be a grossly wrong interpretation of the public's will as well. Effective foreign policy cannot be guided by politics like this, but rather what is right for resolving the foreign policy problem at hand.

I think Bush, Rumsfeld, and now Petraeus have adapted marvelously to the evolving conditions of war. We are winning and it has been amazingly cheap.

This is one of your delusions, Paul, that we haven't done a lot of good over there.
==============

Frank's "analogy" would be more accurate if it were an large apartment complex and a handful of the residents were starting the fires aided by many who don't live in the building, but are either coming into the building to start the fires or are supplying those who do with the tools to start them.

Of course, if his analogy were as truthful and accurate as this one, then his conclusion would be as wrong and harmful as the one the leftist are applying to Iraq. But if they mis-define the situation, as Frank and pretty much everyone on the left has, I guess it makes it easier to accept the wrong and harmful conclusions that they've come to even before they attempted to definde the situation.

If that didn't make sense, what I'm trying to say is that they came to the conclusion first and then they needed to fabricate the conditions that led to their false conclusion.

Kim, certainly since the Republican election loss in 2006, and with the new leadership of General Petraeus, who may be the most intellectual American general ever, there has been some important new changes and adapting to the security challenges in Iraq. But despite this, the Iraqi government Interior Ministry finds civilian deaths only increasing to 1,861 in March, up by 229 from February, or up from 1,500 average in previous months. This means to me that Congress should really give General Petraeus a few more months to find the right security solution that actually lowers the violence levels in Iraq and stabilizes the situation without their involvement.

It is a matter of fact that Iraqi civilians deaths are only worsening in Iraq despite the new security crackdown, largely now outside of Baghdad. But that doesn't support a view to give up on efforts to calm down this violence as many Democrats seem to advocate advocate, but to continue to seek security solutions that really work for Iraq.

Are casualties really worsening or are you hanging too much on one month's small percentage increase?
==============================

The democrats should remember they're actions in Vietnam. They have the blood of millions on their hands and it must have dried up. Now they want fresh blood and they could care less who's it is.

Over 4,000 American soldiers died in any 4 year period of the Slick administration and that outnumbers the current deaths during two wars. The deaths that have occured are horrible, but they are less than 10% of what the lefties were screamed would occur before we set foot in Iraq.

The "support the troops" halberd was first wielded as the Iraq adventure began backfiring into the faces of the planners. With gas in their eyes, the knights "discovered" that footmen could take the avant-garde after all. So much for the chivalric code.

Before then, on the heels of success, it was all presidential flightsuits and puff pieces on Rumsfeld as the new Super K.

AND tsk-tskings and warnings from the administration against the left's early use of troops as props and talking points! How the worm has turned!

Boy Scrapiron, you'd think the blood from 40 million unborn babies would be enough to satisfy the lefties...

I think Bush, Rumsfeld, and now Petraeus have adapted marvelously to the evolving conditions of war. We are winning and it has been amazingly cheap.

This is one of your delusions, Paul, that we haven't done a lot of good over there.

WOW. I want to know what the definition of "amazingly cheap" is. Is that cheap in the monitary costs or cheap in loss of life.
Rummy adapted so well he adapted himself out of a job. And do you think that if dubya had the ability to run for potus again that he would have a snowballs chance in hell winning? COME ON!
John Mc Cain called...he wants his rose colored glasses back.
Kim..you're nuts.

In yet another desperate bid to escape exposure of his side's fallacies, bryanD abandons all pretense of logic, misapplying analogies and false symbolism in a vain attempt to steer the debate towards the straw men.

Are you even distantly familiar with casualty figures from Iwo Jima, jeff? Have you even heard of Antietam?

Each death is terrible, but 3K for 5 years is superbly low by any strategic measure. Small wonder the Left wants to bury that fact.

I think it would be remarkably hard to have even a superficial knowledge of history and still be a leftist.

(And yes I know not all those who are calling for retreat are leftists bust most who post on this site are.)

How is this for supporting the troops? McCain makes a stupid statement about how safe it is in Baghdad, so to prove his point he stages a Photo-Op that puts our soldiers in harms ways. What was the outcome? The insurgents killed 14 of the merchants from the open air market.

How is this for support? The US Army just recalled a 55-year old grandpa back to active duty (retired for 14-years).

Or how about sending troops back before the 12-month rest period?

You know the Left is weak, when Barney has to cherry-pick his whines to find something for his side.

Hey Barney? ever wonder why Bush and Condi and even Rummy got crowds of Marines who wanted to see them in person, while Kerry and Hiiiiiiillllary found themselves curiously unpopular with the men who actually did the fighting?

There's a reason. The same reason why Gore tried so hard to throw out the votes of Active-Duty servicemen in 2000.

Again the lefties try to take us off topic. DJ, there is no support for our troops from the left. Most leftists anyway. They loath the troops. Always have and always will. The troops are trained to kill and that goes against the lefties sensitivities. They only like to protect them now because of the political points they can make.After the war is over, watch how much support the troops get from the left. If you take into the totality of the obstacles GW had to face, including the obstructionists left, he grade is pretty good. If you gnit pick, everybody will fail. ww

"Hey Barney? ever wonder why Bush and Condi and even Rummy got crowds of Marines who wanted to see them in person"_dj

I'll handle that one: Because there is a high ratio of bright eyes and bushy tails in the service. Gung Ho. Alive. Physically fit and alert. (Oh, and BORED S***LESS, too.)

So, OF COURSE! Who wouldn't want to meet the Prez? I would, and I can't stand the guy. And I'd say: "Can you get us some beer in here? PLEEEEZE?

No beer for our troops. Think of it!

Written like a man who thinks very little of our troops, bryanD.

Apparently the Marines I know are a bit more substantial than the wanna-be's you hang with.

dj, C 1/7 USMC 0331. 1979-1982.

You?

Irrelevent to the question.

Murtha and McCain and Kerry all served, doesn't mean any of them is the same as Sgt. Roy Gonzalez or Maj. William Chesarek

You have the pissing contest all to yourself.

Funny. "Wanna-be" was YOUR guantlet.

Yeah, and it was identified by your description of combat troops as guys with nothing to do but dream of beer, incapable of finding anything to do in their spare time.

For you to describe Marines that way, you either forgot your unit or you served in a piss-poor tour.

I will say this: I have been shot at, have you?

DJ, did you see the 'enthusiastic' reception for Bush at Fort Irwin? Yea, he was really treated like a rock star.

Also, did you catch this from the 'decider'?

Bush on Iraq: "..you know, it's not a civil war; it is pure evil."

Quick send over the Exorcist!