Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sham
|
Ok Sham,
I read the links you put up.
The first one, dated Sept 4, 2005, is no longer current. Circumstances have changed during the interim.
The second one, May 2006, spells out a rationale for the invasion and occupation, "a resource rich region". Why not just say oil? Oh, and it also trots out the "domino theory"...'nuf said.
The third one, Sept 20, 2004...ummm, can we stick to "current events"?
Blair has been replaced by Brown.
Old PR and justifications don't seem to be effective given the circumstances of July 8, 2007.
Question...how can the US military gain "victory" in a civil war, and what will be necessary to sustain that "victory"?