Excuse Me, But America Won The War In Iraq

As Internet-based and inside the beltway bloviations continue while some of our would be enemies foolishly celebrate America's alleged weakness because of a civilian report, parts of which may or may not be adopted, it's important to note that, not only did America win the Iraq War; she did so in an amazingly expedient and effective manner, far more efficiently than any expert predicted.

Hussein and his officials responded with defiant public statements. As the bombing began, Iraq's then ambassador to Moscow, Abbas Khalaf, promised that the war would be no "walk in the park" for the Americans. Speaking in Russian, Khalaf said: "I can assure the Americans that this [war] won't be a walk in the park, dear Yankees. I can say they can't begin their land operations in the coming days for a number of reasons. At the top of the list is that they well know that this [campaign] will be a real meat grinder."

"But, in fact, the Iraq war proved to be one of the fastest victories in U.S. military history. U.S. armored columns stunned the Iraqi forces by racing for Baghdad at top speed. The strategy isolated large Iraqi units, further breaking down the regime's ability to command and control its troops. Simultaneously, the Americans and British used their overwhelming superiority of firepower to destroy resistance at long range, often before Iraqi soldiers were close enough to engage them.

The Iraqi Army was long considered to be the fourth strongest army in the world, even after fighting Iran to a stand-off after a deadly and grinding eight year war. The American military, with the help of coalition members, defeated the Saddam's army and won the war in Iraq in just over a month.

From the opening attack:

On March 20, 2003 at approximately 02:30 UTC or about 90 minutes after the lapse of the 48-hour deadline, at 05:33 local time, explosions were heard in Baghdad. There is now evidence that various Special Forces troops from the coalition (led by the Australian SAS but including British SAS, the U.S. Army's Delta Force, U.S. Navy SEALs, U.S. Marine Corps Force Recon and U.S. Air Force Combat Controllers) crossed the border into Iraq well before the air war commenced, in order to guide strike aircraft in air attacks.

To the end of major combat operations on May 1.

On 1 May 2003 George W. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, in a Lockheed S-3 Viking, where he gave a speech announcing the end of major combat operations in the Iraq war.

My point isn't to revive an old glory to displace the current political dissatisfaction with Iraq, or even President Bush. But enemies and potential enemies of America who believe, or simply desire to posture that America is genuinely weak would do well to take stock of just how effective (read deadly when it comes to war) is the American military.

Granted, war fighting eventually comes down to civil and political will in a democracy. I doubt any genuine American would want it any other way. But when all is said and done, any enemy of America believing they can simply do or take whatever they want when it runs dangerously counter to America's interests would do well to think again.

The news that coalition forces had entered Baghdad came after thousands of Iraqi soldiers surrendered yesterday to advancing British and US troops. Six American soldiers died in the fighting, while seven British soldiers were killed after their helicopters crashed.

Coalition forces are expecting the surrender of tens of thousands more Iraqi troops over the next few days as Saddam's regime rapidly crumbles under the weight of allied bombardment. With prisoner-of-war camps being built to house up to 200,000 Iraqi soldiers, senior Ministry of Defence officials said the 'lead scenario' now being worked on was that Saddam's special forces would retreat to one of his major palace complexes in Baghdad for a last-ditch battle.

Comments

[DANEgerus]

The "war" lasted 5 weeks and Mission WAS Accomplished because we ran out of organized formations to eliminate.

It is the 'Peacekeeping' mission that the (D)emocrats oppose.

They didn't go to Rwanda... and we should go to Darfur... why?

[splashtc]

Exactly-our mission was to remove Saddam because of his WMD programs. We had to verify for ourselves
whether or not he had any and was a threat. We found no grave threat-mission accomplished-let the tribes fight it out themselves for the future of their country. F with America and we will lay waste to your cities.
On to Iran and South Korea now.

[yyy]

Um, no that wasn't the mission.

The American public was told there WERE WMD, no ifs ands or buts. The GRAVE THREAT was said to exist as a fact, there was no 'we need to go in and invade the country to find out if he's a threat'

Dick Cheney and Rummy for MONTHS and MONTHS continued to say that there were WMD in Iraq, and then finally attempted to say that the WMD had been in Iraq but were moved right under the noses of over a hundred thousand troops with the technical capability to tell whether the guy in the mountains had an AK 47 or a US made rifle, but this best equipped military force on the planet MISSED a bunch of dumb arabs spiriting out tons and tons of weapons of mass destruction.

Give up guys, game over.

It doesn't matter whether Iraq goes down in flames, whether Maliki or some other Shia schill is installed or whatever happens, the invasion of Iraq has been discredited.

It has proven to be exactly the bust that everyone with a brain in their head said it would be, we've birthed a new ME that's for sure, one that is more favorable to Iran, less stable and is about to go up in several separate wars.

This policy was a complete failure.

[griffin]

The mission has changed 7 or 8 times! And guess what, we've LOST them all. It'll be a good lesson for conservatives and the followers of crackpot christianity when it's officially announced that America has LOST the war in Iraq. It's only a matter of time. John Kerry was right after all!!!

[yyy]

There is no 'winning' in Iraq. The best we can hope for is a kinda sorta US friendly Shiite leader who clamps down on violence kinda sorta, followed by a massive exist of Sunnis before the Shia in charge finish them off. Though the logic escapes me of why we think a Shia leader in Iraq who would be generally disposed toward a favorable Iranian policy is a better idea than a secular Ba athis leader who we knew for a fact was hostile to Iran..since Iran is now the 'real enemy' the big, bad dog we need to take down.

If the Sunni's don't leave then Iraq is going to be in civil war for many years to come, a perfect breeding and training ground for terrorists of all stripes.

Mission accomplished alrighty.

And as for the nuts who want us to invade Iran, though I realize this level of logic is beyond them..it might be a cautionary tale that we invaded a country where the majority of residents despised their ruler or at best were ambivalent, with a poorly equipped and poorly trained army and we were not able to keep order.

If we couldn't successfully occupy Iraq, why would we think we could successfully occupy Iran? And if we just want to drop some bombs on them, why would we think they would do anything other than unleash the full furry of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the full furry of Sadr in Iraq??

I guess it stems from the same logic of invading a country that wasn't a threat to establish a democracy where there was no democratic tradition and being greeted as liberators in a part of the country that despises America.

Right on. Go Bush.

[warrenb]

Trust me on this one....America LOST the war.

Your website reads like the ALL SPIN ZONE. Give it up already.

[yyy]

BTW Dan,

The idea that America's enemies think her military is weak is propanda from the neocon nutjobs.

What her enemies and every military strategist on the planet knows is that it is very difficult for conventional armies to win 'wars' against guerilla armies becuase the conventional army wins almost every BATTLE..as we have in Afganistan and Iraq. But, when the guerilla army is supported by the population the battles just keep on coming..so, you have three choices

(a) stay and keep dying..our current strategy.
(b) turn the population against the guerilla army..easier said than done
(c) kill everyone...very effective but hard to put forth in today's moral climate and hard to maintain 'good guy' image when the way to win is to kill women, children, senior citizens and babies so there will simply be no one left to carry on the revenge.

Those are the choices. They are the same choices the Israelis face, the same choices the Lebanese face.

This is nothing new and it isn't rocket science, making the Bush debacle all the more pathetic and tragic.

[Carol_Herman]

Yes. We won the war! It took 3 weeks. And, Mark Steyn, in his book, America Alone, explains that 4 months later he was in Fallujah. Where the fear of America's army gave him a chance to eat without worries. Fallujah happened about 9 months after that.

And, by then the PROBLEMS grow obvious. The Saudis were getting everything they wanted from America's military. Bremer refused to stop the insurgency. Where the 20% of sunnis (That's the Saudi's wahhabist tribe), were never challenged. Even though, instead of participating in government, they UNLEASHED TERROR.

The lessons ahead? The IRaqis FOUGHT BACK! (Not like Americans on battlefields.) The scenes were beyond that. But Blood and Crips. Terror being beating back by Shi'a terrorists. Who HELD A LARGER POPULATION. Including the cooperation of the Kurds.

It's because the Saudis are on the ropes, that Bush is being exposed as a chalatan. Give this time to develop. It's going to unravel with diplomatic-pants-dancing speed. Because no arab country has a military capable of even taking on Israel!

James Baker? In 1991, when Bush #41 took his advice; among other things, "Oslo" happened. And, the Jews were forced to accept back Arafat. Who had been sent OUT of Lebanon, in 1982. And, he had taken refuge in Tunisia. Where he was not in Israel's hair.

You bought "peace?" More like piss.

And, this summer? When nasrallah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, by crossing into Israeli territory; Halutz had the Israeli air force up in the air. To teach nasrallah that power will be enforced. Not the old game of exchanging prisoners for Ron Arad.

Sure. You see the prisoner exchange program being discussed. But it won't go anywhere. All the lists of who could be exchanged? Wishful fantasies. Because diplomats dance away from words that offer truth. But it's not going to happen, in your lifetime. Israel is NOT Czecheslovakia. Then? They depended on Britain and France for "protection." While the ARABS happen to hate both Britain and France. (Give them credits for long memories.)

The current schtick? James Baker is an idiot. ANd, Bush is in deep doo-doo. And, the train wreck ahead? Why should the democrats stop this? Because you can throw out words like RINO? A lot of good it did ya. WHile the GOP tent shrinks. (Who knew?)

[yyy]

Hey Carol, maybe you didn't notice that Nasrallah is now on the cusp of bringing down the Lebanese government, and possibly turning it into another Iran friendly religious state or starting another civil war.

I wonder if maybe the lesson that Israel intended to deliver is not the lesson that Nasrallah and Lebanon learned.

[Carol Herman]

Why is that Israel's problem?

Nasrallah was not put into Lebanon by Israel! And, when Jim Baker called Olmert, he was asking Olmert to go in after Assad. Well? For 34 days Olmert did a diplomatic dance. But he offered Assad a chance to go up the Golan. Lots of opportunities. But Assad wouldn't bite. ANd, Olmert doesn't trust James baker as far as you can spit. Through a mask. yyy, indeed.

By the way, I noticed Condi went to the french and got #1701 paper. Didn't the UN get guarantees from the french, that if she could "just go into Southern Lebanon, all would be well? Weren't there promises that with the french "halping" the Lebanese army would "remove nasrallah's weapons?"

Israel could care less. It's a bad neighborhood over there. But as far as the Israelis are concerned, they know how to live with the devil they have. (Assad strengthens the Shia.)

This is where Bush went wrong in Iraq. He picked the minority, the sunnis. Who never cooperated with the Iraqi government.

So you see TWO PIECES. Iraq and Syria. Not 'just' given to the saudis. Beause James Baker "sez so."

The whole stinking operation will collapse.

You'll finger the first mistake. We didn't flatten Fallujah. We didn't because it's SAUDI country. Then? For years, Bush went in and dropped American taxpayer billions, and American soldier's lives. ON THE SUNNI STINKERS. Now you know why Maliki "dissed" the dinner in Jordan. Leaving Bush and the jordanian king-let to eat their own stew.

[yyy]

It's my opinion that Israel never wanted a strong, vibrant, secular Lebanon with tourists coming back to Beruit, she views ALL the Arab states as her enemy and rejoices and assists in any type of destabilization.

From that perspective it would be correct that Israel doens't care that Nasrallah came back bigger and better, since destroying Hezbollah was never the real intent, it was to put Lebanon back in ruins.

Same reason Israel supplied us with inf. that supported our stupid premise about WMD in Iraq...they knew full well the country would descend into religious killing...and they welcomed it, because a civil war in Iraq they think is good for them.

But, Israel is wrong about what will keep her secure, she would have done better to support the fledgling Lebanese democracy in hopes that over time the Nasrallah's of the country would be marginalized as the people become prosperous again they would have no need of Hezbollah and would reject it. Just like an Iraq beholdend to the Shia does not in the long run help Israel, nor does keeping the Palestinians in poverty and degradation.

Unfortunately, Israel's idea of a good defense policy is much like Bush's...in the long run it turns around like a snake and bites you.

[Rick]

"...unleash the full furry of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the full furry of Sadr in Iraq??"

This is too funny. Or rather, "two" funny: for the way you meant it (ooh! Scary Arabs), and the way you spelled it.

We're successfully occupying Iraq, up to our level of intent. It's the Iraqis who are failing their chance. Too bad for them. Same would go for Iranians, though I'm guessing they're more homogenous, and would make a better go at representative, peaceful government.

Cordially...

[yyy]

The Iraqi people never asked us to step in and remove Saddam, therefore any failing is on us. The biggest failure of course being the idea that a country divided along religious fault lines with no tradition of democracy would turn into a democracy overnight.

Of course, democracy isn't really what we had in mind, what we had in mind was Chalabi running the country on our behalf, a 'democracy' in name only...but, again, arrogance and stupidity allowes us to think this criminal, liar who hadn't lived in Iraq for 30 years other than to get a bunch of Kurds killed in the 90's with no support inside Iraq was the 'right guy'...now we've got another wrong 'right guy'..a guy tied to the death squads and beholden to them as well.

My spelling isn't going to change a thing.

If this is what you call a 'successful' occupation then its no wonder you numbnuts still want to bomb and invade Iran and Syria.

[de stijl]

Militias in furry gear, aka the Plushy Army. That would be so friggin awesome.

[larry]

certainly we won the war. in stunningly easy fashion: we were fighting arabs, after all. it's how tiny (6 million pop) israel managed to win each and every war they had with the arabs (i billion pop), despite the arabs being self-proclaimed badasses; not afraid to die; etc etc.

what we lost was the occupation. bush and rummy screwed up by trying to do it on the cheap: 125K occupying troops, instead of the 400K that hard-earned historical ratios taught was necessary. and then hamstringing those troops with profoundly stupid, ridiculously PC rules of engagement.

still, did you notice how the liberal swine commenting here all seem to LOVE to proclaim "america lost"? the posts are joyous, almost gleeful. it's disgusting, & deeply offensive. y'know, there is a school of thought that says liberals can't be blamed too much for their idiotic liberalism: "they're just parroting the dogma they learned in school".

i beg to differ. the fact they swallowed the anti-american bilge taught them; without ever once daring to question the teacher; without ever doing some reading on their own (which would prove teacher's anti-american bullshit to be a pack of lies); without ever once noticing that countries governed by leftists are always poor and totalitarian...... just proves that liberals are:
A)gullible
B)cowardly
C)lazy
D)stupid stupid stupid!!

so naturally, these idiots think "america lost the war". what ELSE would gullible lazy cowardly morons think?

[yyy]

Say it from the rooftops AMERICA LOST.

The neocons wanted to remake the ME over in the American image, we went into Iraq to remake Iraq over in the American image of a secular, pro US, pro Israel democracy.

They failed. It is a losing proposition and it always was.

It isn't the admission of how soundly we have failed in Iraq that is hurting America but the fact we went in there and our limits have now been exposed...limits that any sane person would have seen all along.

It it the neocon/Bush doctrine that has harmed America not the people who have been looking reality square in the face all along.

The most cowardly thing any leader can do is to continue to allow his country and his troops to bleed simply out of stubborness and a refusal to admit his mistakes or even change his strategy.

George W. Bush: Coward, stupid and gullible, but I wouldnt' call him lazy.

[larry]

see?

[yyy]

I see that you are an idiot who is too stupid to "see" reality so in order to salvage some kind of positive from the totally discredited neocon theory you decide to separate invasion from occupation to get a "win" out of.

So, we "won" for three weeks and have been losing for three and a half years...okay, have it your way...if that makes you feel better about 3,000 dead American soldiers, tens of thousands of soldiers whose lives are ruined from horrible war injuries $300 billion? $500 billion and all the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis...okay dokey.

It's over. Discredited, done. The Neocons were salivating for their chance to make history and history gave them the 'pearl harbor' they were also salivating for in 9/11 and they got their chance, they took the ball and ran it right over a cliff.

The Iraq invasion was a blunder, is a blunder, it has destabilized the ME and the possible ripple effects are still unknown, it could get even worse than it already is.

[yyy]

PS, it also appears that the one note response to criticism of the person being 'a liberal, coward, lazy, stupid, guillible, anti American, unpatriotic, traitor giving aid and comfort to the enemy' has finally worn thin with the American public.

Nobody is buying that line of crap anymore, just like nobody is buying the idea that if the media would just report the good news it would all work out fine.

How dare you call me anti-American for wanting my country to refrain from foolhardy wars of choice that are destined to fail, destined to hurt American prestige and further limit American influence around the world and give our enemies more reason to harm us??

[larry]

thanks, yyy. nothing proves something uncomplimentary i've said about liberals & liberalism than for a liberal to toodle along and confirm it with his/her very own words. it's the secret of limbaugh's success: he plays the clips of the moronic liberals that the MSM won't.

take your post just above: your glee at proclaiming 'america lost', and 'it's over' is so evident it comes right through the monitor. one can easily see you smiling as you typed it; a little spasm of joy coursing through you as you posted it. teacher would be so PROUD!

just another reason to view you & your ilk with the contempt you so richly deserve.

[yyy]

You can view me and every other sane person on the planet who can see that the Iraq invasion was pure folly with as much contempt as you want to, but it isn't going to change REALITY.

You can call me every name you can think of, insult me in every post and none of that is going to change the facts on the ground in Iraq or the fact that it was a completely idiotic idea to invade a sovereign nation that posed no legimitate military threat to the US in the first place.

Diplomacy is not a popularity contest, we don't make war against people just becuase they don't like us, especially when they used to be our friend...but all that actual history of Saddam Hussein and the USA is to 'real' for you I am sure.

Whatever.

[Rick]

All sound & furry, signifying nothing.

Cordially...

[larry]

my my my. you're a persistent, dare i say strident, commenter, yyy. since you seem to like revising history so much, let's play a game. a game that no liberal i have ever seen or heard of ever winning. ready?

ok. it's september 12, 2001. and YOU (god help us) YOU are president of the usa; the strongest, richest, most honorable nation on the planet. 3000 innocent american civilians were killed. more than died at pearl harbor; 3000 AMERICANS - the people you swore to protect & defend - were murdered in a whole new kind of war. a war without precedent.

your question is, how do you respond? bearing in mind that your response to this atrocity must be ferocious & complete enough to (try to) guarantee that such an attack will never happen again. bearing in mind that the entire world is watching, looking for any signs of weakness/cowardice. bearing in mind that people like larry - members of the opposition party - will be watching you like a hawk; will critique mercilessly every move you make; and will ruthlessly obstruct your plans when it seems that they'll make you more popular with the voters. and should your plan take longer than...oh...say, 18 months, we'll squeal like stuck pigs & demand you end your war NOW!! and to hell with the long-term consequences of doing so.

go ahead, gutless. tell us what YOU'D do. i seriously doubt you will - no liberal ever does. amaze us with your geopolitical brilliance, yyy. the world awaits.

[Rick]

larry,

Surely the answer is to cash in on the terribly valuable global sympathy & unity by securing a *real* strongly worded condemnation of the attack from the U.N. General Assembly.

Bin Laden/AQ would subsequently devote themselves to macrame, and bringing clean water to the 3d world poor. And we'd be up to our asses in puppies, bunnies, rose petals and unicorns.

Clearing the decks for mankind to devote itself to the planet's only "reality-based" problem: fine tuning the weather per Kyoto.

Well, that, and insufficient abortions among womyn of color.

Cordially...

[yyy]

Sure, Larry, as soon as you explain to me what invading Iraq had to do with 9/11, since you need to remember that it was known then and its been 'relearned' now that Saddam Hussein had no operational ties to Al Quaida and had nothing to do with 9/11....I would be happy to lay out what I woulda done.

[larry]

whattsa matta, yyy? suddenly shy? gee, that's odd....
so you want me to show you mine first? is that it? then maybe you'll show me yours? (deep manly chuckle) now how did i know that was coming?

ok. why iraq? as you no doubt don't know, when our warplanes were flying over southern and northern iraq, enforcing the un-mandated "no-fly" zones, put in place to keep sweet lovable saddam from butchering kurds & shiites, those planes were (sometimes) fired upon by iraqi sam's. they were also (much more frequently) painted by iraqi sam battery targeting radars. to the tune of 400+ instances in 2002.

each and every one of those 'targeting' or 'firing upon' instances is an act of war. each and every one - whether you like it or not.

so! although i personally disagree with choosing to merely 'invade' iraq, bush's decision to do so is a completely valid & legitimate response to hundreds of acts of war committed by the iraqis, *especially* in light of 9-11. (remember the game parameters: the response must be of scary ferocity, so to dissuade others from trying to attack us.)

your turn, chicken.

[yyy]

It's funny, that Bush never mentioned that in his many false and ever changing rationales for invading Iraq...but I would say that pinging airplanes isn't much of a rationale for invading another country, um, wouldn't that mean that we should have invaded the USSR dozens of times over?? But, um does that mean that Israel's flyovers of Lebanon are also acts of war against Lebanon? The ones the UN forces keep begging them to stop? I guess that's another game.

But, okay, I'll play. However, I have to remind you that the 'others' you believe are trying to attack us don't exist, so all that is needed is a ferocity of sufficient response to indicate that whomever attacks the US will in turn be destroyed, it's a pretty simple formula.

Short term:
1. Track down Al Quada leaders/destroy capability for similar hit.
2. Impress on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that if they didn't also track down and apprehend Al Quada operatives they would pay a steep price.
3. Remove Afganistan as an operational base for Al Quada.
4. Commission an internal investigation to determine how such a significant breakdown of intelligence occured and ask for changes.
5. Put the country on high alert.
**Dubya actually did all of this, but it was in the long term that he lost his way

Long term

1. Force Israel and Palestine to make peace, period and use all the power and sympathy from post 9/11 to wring out the needed Arab and European money and troops needed to make the peace stick.
2. Make the development of native arab speaking intelligence operatives the top priority for counter terrorism units.
3. Reorganize counter terrorism units to work as cohesive unit, eliminating bureacratic hurdle.
4. Upgrade $$ for technology to detect bombs and install in all airports and naval ports. This money that to date has NOT been spent would have been a lot more effective than what homeland security has spent the money on.
5. Retool aid to the ME to countries that are real partners in the war on terror and that are actively working toward human rights/free market systems.

In my opinion all the rest would have flowed from there, there is and was no need to upend the Constitution or turn innocent air travelers into criminals, spy on Americans, invade country's that aren't threats or foster hate and hsyteria against the arab world.

If the Israel/Palestinian issue is resolved then radical islam's two best recruiting tools are gone in one fell swoop...the palestinians being abused by Israel and America being controlled by the jews.

Taking this issue off the table then allows one to look at the ME in terms of pure strategic issues and then determining who/how to work with..

Saddam Hussein would have been at the bottom of the list, after cleaning house in Egypt and the House of Saud.

But I'm quite sure this is way too underwhelming a response for you, not enough blood and guts or spitfire.

Also you might want to remind yourself that Bush is also LOSING the war on terror, since terror attacks are up, radical islam is up, Al Quada has rejiggered itself as a cadre of independent cells and the ME is teetering on the brink of total meltdown...but, we got Saddam in jail so yeehaw.

[Rick]

"It's funny, that Bush never mentioned that in his many false and ever changing rationales for invading Iraq...but I would say that pinging airplanes isn't much of a rationale for invading another country, um, wouldn't that mean that we should have invaded the USSR dozens of times over??"

You don't know anything about the past, so you *should* be doomed to repeat it. If only to get a passing grade:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

About a third of the way down the long list of particulars (or, if you prefer, bi-partisan long list of false & ever changing rationales):

"...Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;..."

Pinging...firing at aircraft. Same diff. You seem to believe that we were in a state of peace with Iraq, when it fact is was suspended hostilities. Well, sorry Saddam, but recess ended.

It always a great idea to smash dictatorships, particularly when it's a low-hanging fruit. Thus, Mission Accomplished in three weeks. Too bad the Iraqis in basically three of the (I believe 18) provinces feel compelled to fight each other, but who are we to judge?

For a really successful occupation, we should turn Halliburton loose on the oil fields, suck them dry, and then vamoose. Maybe by way of Damascus.

Cordially...

[larry]

nice post, rick. i just peeked in to check on ol' yyy's answer before going out to dinner. your response is a most excellent rebuttal to his (her? those posts DO have a distinct feminine tone to them)(but then, so do all LW posts)(not sure what a psychiatrist would make of that....) to his/her tired old horseshit. so good, i see no need to add to it.

besides, i was running out of synonyms for "stupid" to use when describing what passes for liberal 'thought', and 'logic'. when you get down to "australopethicene", you know it's bottom-of-the-barrel time.

besides, then ya have to explain what it means to the befuddled liberal it was directed at, which tends to soften the impact of the sting. ("it means you're doubleplusungood stupid")

regards.

[yyy]

Just what I would expect from you fools.

On to Syria and Iran...let's bomb them back to the stoneages, that will teach them not to be friendly to us...if at first your dopey plan doesn't succeed, pull it out again and try on yet another country that hasn't attacked the US and wasn't involved in 9/11. Kill, kill, kill, that's what we need to win the hearts and minds, sow the seeds of democracy with blood.

Thankfully, you all are in your last pathetic gasps before your worldview hits the dustbin of history.

Adios, amigas.

[larry]

yyy - sugar - apologies for not including answer adressed to you. that big long word above means "you're doubleplusungood stupid".

my bad. sorry about that.

[Rick]

"Thankfully, you all are in your last pathetic gasps before your worldview hits the dustbin of history."

While sharia law is indeed a danger, I don't think it's that close be being imposed here. Yet. So the dustbin can collect the U.N. first, let's say.

Cordially...