(I know what the word means, I’m just saying…what the fuck?)

Seriously though, what’s the deal?

” In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan.

I happen to know Pentagon planners were on their way to the Central Com over the weekend. They haven’t even team B’ed this plan.

And my dear friend Dick Lugar talks about coherence of strategy. There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives.”

Quit bitching about people insulting you. You engage in similar behavior, and thus have little or no room to complain about it.

btw, in my earlier post, I forgot to list you have also called me a “cretin.”

You are a ridiculous, raving idiot, Frank. For the love of everything good in this world, get help.

N G :: The President doesn’t run this country alone. The Democrats are his political adversaries. I realize that you are ignorant of American politics; try not be so blatant about it.

I know all that. It doesn’t explain why you think the opposition party (and until a few weeks ago, minority party to boot) needs to have a plan more than the actual current sitting President of the fucking United States.

This is what explains it: said minority party are the Democrats. That’s it.

Keep acting like a jerk, though, it works for you. And by that I mean, throws your stupidity into even sharper relief. And you can of course eat dick now.

How very lovely. Because if theres any group of people who can put personal differences aside and come together for the betterment of their people, its violent fundamentalist Islamics. For chrissake Frank, youre talking about changing their entire society to be able to get them to acknowledge as much as the basic humanity of each other. Ive pointed so many times to that article about the Sunni military academy graduates refusing to protect the Shi’ite controlled area that Ive forgotten where the link is. They dont just disagree, they want each other Dead! They’re not going to just decide to come together for their own betterment any time soon. It may be cruelly pragmatic, but for their good we have to get out of there and let the most violent factions among all sides self destruct, hopefully leaving enough people to form some kind of government control. It is our absence that will cause whatever peace there may ever be over there, Frank, not our presence. The tragic fact of Bush’s war is that good can only come of our not being there any longer, but since the Pres-o-dent sees leaving as losing, so do you. You see it as surrender to terrorism, chaos, communism, satanism, and worse, Nancy Pelosi.

I read your articles (which you graciously reposted here for easy reference) and like you, and like every war supporting friend of yours, they do not and cannot list a single achievable military objective at this stage of the game, much less one that will be attainable with this troop increase that was not before. All we can do is try to subdue the ever-present violence that will not stop until we get out of there and let it stop itself.

Of course, its possible I may be wrong. You say we dont know what victory means. Tell us Frank, what is victory? What will happen that means we’ve “won” the Iraq war? Peaceful coexistence between bitter ideological enemies? Harmonious calm in a region of the world inherently rife with violence? How about a victory parade complete with flying pigs and ice-skating hellbeasts?

Or maybe smaller scale. Maybe getting these people to agree that they just need to put ideological differences aside so they can get about the business of operating their country fairly and equitably to all. Seriously, what do you give the odds of that happening.

Eat dick, Frank.

The facts are these:
War is messy and chaotic — that will never change.
People die in wars — soldiers, civilians on both sides — people end up dead. To try to engage a suicidal religiously motivated, expecting otherwise is beyond foolishness, and approaching dangerously stupid.

This last push is as politically motivated as an immediate withdrawal, oops, strategic redeployment.

The game plan is to stabilize Baghdad, and cajole the government there to get the shi’ites and sunnis to sort their crap out without bloodshed.
There is another area, whose name I have currently forgotten, that is a similar trouble spot. The plan in both places is for allied forces and Iraqi troops to go “door -to – door”. They have brought in a new general, who has a great deal of experience on the ground in Iraq — he literally wrote the new book n counterinsurgency — and a new strategy will be employed.
But I linked to three articles that made these points weeks ago, when the President when on television to announce the Surge.

I am not surprised no one read them. Insulting me is so much more fun, than using your head for something beside letting the blood run out of your neck, right?

And proud of it!

Didn’t say that. But I will confidently assert that these same “Islamic terrorists” made no promises to NOT attack the U.S. if we stayed in Iraq.

Frank, you’re hopeless. Most of the country figured out long ago that the war in Iraq doesn’t equal the war on terrorism. What’s wrong with you?

Iraq is, as Jon Stewart eloquently puts it, a “catastrophuk” (maybe “catastrofuck”?) Get a goddamn clue, get over yourself, for once in your life, and face the truth.

Finally, I don’t believe I’ve ever unjustly insulted you, per se. I’ve called you an idiot, a moron, and ignorant of science, yes. But as a scientist, I recognize that the evidence strongly indicates that these labels are apt for you. Based on your behavior, I can safely conclude that you’re the dumbest, most hopeless individual on this blog.

You, on the other hand, resort to phrases like “Go fuck yourself” and calling me “chickenIQ” and “shithead”. How old did you say you were, again?

Idiot.

The president needed to have had an exit strategy going into the war in order to minimize damage to our military in case things went horribly wrong. Outlandish hypothetical I know, particularly in the face of its current, obvious success, but there it is. Attacking the Democrats for “not having a plan” (which is to say “not having a precise and agreed upon set of specifics for withdrawl instead of their agreement that it must be done) doesnt alleviate the President of his responsibility to the military.

Further, fighting them there so we dont have to here s not specifically demonstrable for us in the United States, but to our european allies in the war ot terror, particularly Spain and england who have been attacked since the beginning of this war. Not that the war caused those attacks of course, but it certainly didnt do a very god job preventing them either, which begins shooting holes in the theory.

Democratic “support of the troops” doesnt need to manifest itself as supporting the everlasting continuation of an ill-conceived war either, but even you cant be dense enough to have not realized that.

So if the war is not having a negative impact on the terrorists ability to attack citizens, and we keep losing more and more soldiers to a cause that doesnt look likely to turn in our favor anytime soon, why exactly are we there? I’ll ask for the umpteenth time here, what objectives are there or will there be for our military to accomplish so we can leave the region in a victory end-game state? Being as Ive yet to recieve one in all the time I’ve been asking, I’m presuming there are none, which leaves us as a police force for a people who distrustus and have no interest in forming their own, electing to let us get shot at for them, which is in my view the polar opposite of progress.

Also, Eat dick, Frank.

Do we pack it in — again — and imagine, like babies, that if we close our eyes, the bad guys go away? “

By “We” and “Our” hopefully you meant the “U.S.”, because your miserable ass hasn’t been seen around Iraq and in need of withdrawal.

Try to reserve that plural argumentative for soliders, not armchair assclowns.