Hell yes, Bush was right to toss aside the Israel Surrender Group report!  Tell me something, what would Israel surrendering the Golan Heights to Syria accomplish in Iraq?  (That provision was to be found in that report you so adore.)

Oh yeah, I forgot.  It would make WhichWing FEEL good.

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

You cheered 'em all the way. Yes, I did! I still am! I iterate--fighting guerrilla style enemies is the toughest fight of all. If, in this country a group of people got together and deided to wage war, bomb and snipe people, it would be a slow fight to find and defeat them. For God's sake man--look how long it took us to find the two shooters in Virginia. Just imagine if they were using C4 explosives.

Instead of posting your inexperienced thoughts here, you should ask BD, Unsane and quite a few others with experience to explain to you the incredibly difficult logistics of finding, fighting and conquering a band of people who look exactly like the friendlies.

Where ’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land?

Sir Walter Scott

Try again WW. "Bush's decision" to put 100,000 troops into Iraq was made by the leadership on the ground. It was their decision to place that many, as it was their battle plan. In Kuwait, the decision was made by Powell. Powell was trained extensively as an Armor commander, as such, his philosophy in wartime was that greater numbers, achieved victory. Tommy Franks, who made the decision on the battle plan concerning Iraq, was trained, initially as Artillery, and later as Infantry. Their battle plan is not massive numbers, but massive strategy. Powell and Shinseki (the liberals' favorite two heads), are both trained Armor, and know little about Infantry tactics. Now, taking that into consideration (and ignoring the fact that Shinseki was one of the worst Chiefs of the Army ever), the battle for Iraq was over very quickly. We entered Baghdad, removed Saddam Hussein from power, and have been there since. At this point, massive numbers in Iraq do us no good. The enemy is non-uniformed, and hiding in the open as such. Putting a dozen guys in a half-block area, will do you no good, if you do not know who your enemy is. Only the thick-headed would think this. The Geneva Conventions protects children and unarmed civilians from being shot and killed. If any of those two pick up a weapon, they lose their status of protection from the Geneva Conventions. There is a problem with this -- the deaths that are occurring in Iraq, are not from AK-47's. The deaths that are occurring are from IED's remotely detonated with cell phones mostly. Since a cell phone is not a weapon under the Geneva Conventions, any child, woman, or man with a cell phone is a very potential terrorist, with no way to take them out of the equation whatsoever.

If you want to talk strategy, we can do that, and believe me, I would have a blast, and openly welcome your attempt to do so. However, the terrorists in Iraq right now have the superior strategy: Turn US public opinion against the war, all the while, killing our men and women with cell phones, non-weapons under the Geneva Conventions. You fools play along, right into their hands, like sheep heading over a cliff because you think you know their minds. News flash for you: They don't give a damn if you're nice to them, they just don't care.

The general population of Iraq, a large majority of them, support the US troops. I know... I saw it. What you read about, is the vast minority of Iraqi people who don't want us there. The terrorists that reside in Iraq, for the most part, are non-Iraqi people. They are imports who are fighting against all people there, American, British, even Iraqis. They kill indiscriminately at will, and if we backed off them, their ability to strike the US would be greatly increased.

"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"