On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:13:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
I'm just curious about something: You must have some idea of how many years
we'd need to be Iraq, stalled in exactly the same way we are now, before
you'd say something's seriously wrong. How many years would that be?

3

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:13:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:
I'm just curious about something: You must have some idea of how many
years
we'd need to be Iraq, stalled in exactly the same way we are now, before
you'd say something's seriously wrong. How many years would that be?

3

That's not far off. What will you do when it reaches 3?

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:33:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"PocoLoco" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:13:41 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:
I'm just curious about something: You must have some idea of how many
years
we'd need to be Iraq, stalled in exactly the same way we are now, before
you'd say something's seriously wrong. How many years would that be?

3

That's not far off. What will you do when it reaches 3?


I'd say, "Something's seriously wrong."

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:38:26 -0400, PocoLoco wrote:


3

As in 3 more years? Or, 3 total? As we have already been there 2 1/2
years, 3 is a given.

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 07:02:24 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:38:26 -0400, PocoLoco wrote:


3

As in 3 more years? Or, 3 total? As we have already been there 2 1/2
years, 3 is a given.

Read the original question.

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan