"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
NOYB wrote:
And there is no "insurgency" in Iraq.


And the Easter Bunny lays colored eggs.

NOYB wrote:
It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties than
1 fateful day in September '01.

??

You equate mass murder with military casualties?

Another question: if Iraq is "hostile" then how can anyboidy say we won
the war?

Parts of L.A., Detroit, Atlanta, NY, and Chicago are "hostile"...and nobody
is keeping a score card for those cities and saying we're losing the war
there.


And if the surrounding countries are 'enemy' then why did we
invade Iraq and not them?


Because the surrounding countries were not as geographically strategically
important. Look at a map and you'll understand. Iran is surrounded on
three side now by US troops. Syria is surrounded on two sides. Saudi
Arabia is surrounded on three sides. We can hit terror cells in any country
in the region as long as we have troops in Iraq.

If you keep doing stupid things, you always get bad results.

... It wasn't insurgents who killed those 3,000 Americans on 9/11...and
it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US troops and countless Iraqi
civilians since March 2003.


So, if you want to eliminate the terrorist problem, you redefine the word
'terrorist.' I remember a while back there was a raging debate over the
meaning of the word 'is'....