The solutions aren't so easy. What defines winning?

Remember, this whole march into hell was launched by a man who ran declaring that the United States was not in the business of nation building. He condemned the Clinton administrations involvements overseas? Remember?

So, thump some bibles, call everyone who disagrees un-American and cultivate fear...then tell me...what is victory? What is a win?

Petraeus on whether a strategy for the future in Iraq could include the word "victory".

He said he did not know that he would ever use the word "victory": "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan."

Well and had anyone of us stopped long enough before this mess got started and thought about the region and it's history of warring with each other, we could have thought things through enough to realize there is no winning this thing so don't go there.

Whenever we decide to leave we will be leaving a legacy of another destructive force they had to deal with, that is all. They will continue to disagree and fight as they have always done.

The problems goes deep there, religion and faith are deep issues. You have a male dominated, prejudice society and add the trumoil of who has the right to power based on the religious beliefs and factions and who is right and who is wrong. One faction will not concede to the other because to concede would be weak and unfaithful to the cause. How do you resolve that?

AT THE TIME THE WE HAD ONLY BEEN ATTACKED ON OUR OWN SOIL 1 TIME AND NOTHING LIKE 9/11.HOWEVER WE WERE ATTACKED SEVERAL TIMES ABROAD.AFTER 9/11 WHEN YOU HAVE A TYRANT WHO HATES THE UNITED STATES,TRIED TO HAVE AN X PRESIDENT KILLED,AND IS TRYING TO MAKE THE WORLD BELIEVE HE IS BUILDING A NUCLEUR PROGRAM.AND YES WE JUST GOT RID OF A VERRY LARGE AMOUNT OF YELLOW CAKE OVER THERE.I SEE SOME LOGIC IN GONG TO WAR.YES BUSH MADE MISTAKES.YES IN HINDE SIGHT IT IS QUESTIONABLE IF WE SHOULD HAVE WENT IN.WE ARE THERE NOW AND WE HAVE TO SEE IT THROUGH.THERE IS TO MUCH AT STAKE.IT WOULD BE CATASTROPHIC FOR IRAN TO TAKE IT OVER OR FOR IT TO BECOME A BREADING GROUND FOR THE LIKES OF BIN LADEN.IF CLINTON WOULD HAVE ADRESSED THESE ISSUES IN THE 8 YRS. HE WAS IN OFFICE WE WOULDNT BE DOING IT NOW.ITS NOT LIKE THE GUY BROKE EVERY UN RESOLUTION AGAINST HIM AND THERE WERE MANY.OR IF THE U.N.HAD ANY GUTS.HUSSIEN BROKE THE TEATY SEVERAL TIMES AFTER THE THE FIRST GULF WAR.SO THE WORLDS A MESS.IT HAS CHANGED SO MUCH IN 8 YRS.THE BIG ISSUE IS NOT JUST TO PUT SOCIAL SECURETY IN A LOCK BOCK ANY MORE.BUT I AM TIRED OF BEING THE WORLD POLICE.WHETHER WE ARE RIGHT OR WRONG NO OTHER COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELP US IN ANYTHING WE DO.ITS BEEN THAT WAY FOR A LONG TIME.THE U.N. IS USELESS WITH CHINA AND RUSSIA ON THE SECURETY COUNCIL. SO WHATS THE ANSWER ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD?

I highlighted the keynote observation by Petreaus.

there is no hill to take when combating terroroists without flag and country to represent their authority for war.

The hills are in the host nations of these anarchistic mercenaries.

or in the streets of any city in the world. hhmmmm.....

Now, the US Military is not going to clandestinely engage in a firefigt in any city that just happens to house these terrorists, are they?

They won't be invading the side streets of Bonn, Germany or Paris , France with light arms and air support, are they?

there won't be house to house searches and strafing block by block in London or New york either.

Any nation tht harbors these terrorists willingly after acknowledging their presence or that presence being made known to that nation runs the risk of assuming the accountability for the deeds of the terorists to be held liable for their responsibility in perpetrating those same terrorist deeds, as an act of war.

Nations declare war, though, not terrorist groups without flag and allegiance.

So why do these groups find safe haven with nation states that pretend to be uninvolved?

how do the host nations get away with avoiding culpability for those given sanctuary?


if these nations want to continue harboring and aiding and abetting these terrorists, then these nations are the "hills" where the American Soldier will plant the flag.


The American Soldier may never leave Iraq, or Afghanistan. These two "hills" are planted with the American flag now.

That is where the enemies of the American flag may bring their complaint now.

If slavic communist terrorists attack from the safe harbor of russian soil with sanctuary given by Putin....

well,.......

another "hill" will have the American flag planted there by the American Soldier, huh?


Putin is not that stupid.

Neither are Europeans.

So the face of these faceless mercenaries are colored in as they appear where they appear.


PLO....Hamas......Hezbollah......


...are they stupid enough to try the US?

Where would the "hill" be in which nation state for the party to come?

But Iran? well.....hhmmmmm......

just let them give a nuke out.

I hope they don't sell the first nuke to a Navy Seal.

hhmmm.......

just saying.


These other groups are being quite quiet lately, aren't they?





yup.

CAPS LOCK FWT

The Europeans aren't stupid? I guess they were when most of them opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Double speak...I love it...

So, you are saying we should need to nuke Iran?

only with the nuke they sell the undercover US Navy Seal.

An Army of One

the Navy likes to pull jokes on the Army.

What better joke than to do it all for them?


semper fi.