Do I really have to point out that all that stuff you just posted about the autonomous region and the no-fly zones is irrelevant?
JaTo, we are not talking about the limited control Saddam had AFTER he lost the first Gulf War. We all know he had to cede some control over the no-fly zones as a result of the first Gulf War. That is not relevant, however, to the point under discussion. As you know, Saddam controlled Iraq for a long time BEFORE the Gulf War, and he secured it just about like every other country is secured. This proves that there is nothing magic or impossible about securing Iraq; it has been done before, and Bush could have done it too. He failed.
The avalanche of stuff in your last post proves very nicely that perfect security is not attainable. But who's arguing that it is? Not me, of course. We all know that perfect security is not attainable even in the best conditions. Now that we have dispensed with your exaggeration/diversion, let's get back to the real issue: whether Bush has done what he should have done to secure and stabilize Iraq. Are you ready to admit that he has not?
