No, I'm talking about the nation in general refusing to surrender.

"Surrender" what exactly, and to whom?

Answer that simple question and maybe you'll have something to actually add to the discussion.

Until then, all you're blowing is methane out your backside, and are worth even less.

It seems someone mistakenly discharged The Major.

It's just like Glen to exept at "face value" ANYTHING that doesn'r fit in with his

Clearly the last round of meds didn't do anything for his incoherence or paranoia, either.

Everyone thinks they're Barzun, Lapham, Berlin, etc.

Your point being what? That you cannot make a coherent point? Or that your chosen side have a tendency to run off at the mouth and prove themselves wrong about everything?

Please quote for me, with specific examples that highlight such things as "I agree with..." or "Such and person is someone I support....."

My comment was about your general incoherence. Now I'm quite at a loss as to what you're asking about this time.

You claimed to have proof and what I do and do not support and advocate.

I claimed nothing of the sort. Your comments here have put you rather firmly in the 'contrarian' column, which of course gives no clear indication of what your true thoughts on any given issue are. Your insulting tone and generic squealing suggests you hold common cause with their (admittedly low) standard, and nothing you've written has given a reason to reconsider you as but their fellow traveller.

Consider yourself "shrouded" for the remainder of the semister.

I could have sworn I heard you folks claiming first hand deity given absolute proof. For years. And years.

The build-up of US naval assets in and around the norther Indian Ocean are a matter of public fact, as is the increasingly bellicose pronouncements against Tehran from the Vice President and notable neoconservatives such as Krauthammer. Neither serve any rational or pratical purpose beyond constraining options for dealing with Iran in the near term.

The fact these idiots haven't apparently absorbed the lessons learnt from the 2003 invasion of Iraq and are seemingly driven by a messianic vision untethered to reality doesn't encourage one that they recognize either their limits nor appreciate the consequences of proposed action.

At some point even you folks have to admit that you're engaging in the same kind of fearmongering as Bush.

When exactly did simply pointing out the obvious turn into 'fearmongering'? Are we not rational people here, able to discuss matters in an intelligible fashion?

Well, most of us here can, at least. Feel free to join us at some point.

For more than 3 years I've heard nothing but drumbeats from your quarter that we're absolutely positively going to be invading Iran tomorrow, 7am sharp.

I've no idea where you've been getting your news, but as I clearly stated in my previous comment the Administration and its supporters are moving in a direction that appears orchestrated expressly for a confrontation with Iran. Fortunately for us all, nothing has happened as yet.

But as they say, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

We may well see the Administration initiate such a confrontation within the 20 months, which would be a folly on the order of Varus's march into Teutoburg Wald in 9 CE. In that case the Romans lost just 15,000 or so men; our risk is 100 times that, particularly given the tenuous nature of the logistics chain our troops depend upon within Iraq.

Has it happened yet? No.

Could it happen? Certainly.

Will it happen? I've no idea. But neither have I any illusions that it "can't" or "won't".

Your comment above is the most important. The potential consequences of retreat from Iraq are not an "unquestionable Article of Faith", they are grounded in geopolitical realities that you conveniently ignore.

One is tempted to dismiss the many "geopolitical realities" listed in the link you provide as so much dross and fever dreams from the AEI, except that would be too generous an assessment of the intellectual deficit involved.

Your inability to specifically address the substance of each of the devastating potential consequences of surrender in Iraq reveals the complete impotence of your advocacy of retreat with no serious consideration of the associated risks.

First, Iraq is not ours to "surrender". It is a country the United States and its allies knowingly and deliberately invaded for reasons that even now, four years on, remain unclear.

Second, your portrayal of "pro-withdrawl" side of the argument is grounded in a series of cliches worthy only of Rush Limbaugh, not a serious consideration of the reasoning involved. Ditto with the "con" side of the discussion, which reads like every sad talking point supporters of the occupation have depended upon the last four years.

News flash: Iraq already serves as a recruiting and fundraising engine for regional radicals of all stripes, the occupation has clearly demonstrated the limits of US military power to careful observers, and basically empowered Iran by allowing it bill itself as a counterweight to the intrusive USA.

The United States have real enemies in the world. This insane occupation merely empowers them more every day by portraying us as thugs and imperial bullies, while it likewise drains both our treasury and our moral authority in the world.

Until you understand that the dangers we face cannot all be solved with military force alone, and that not every country on the planet want to be exactly like us, your 'case' for 'staying the course' is as laughable as expecting George W Bush to ever be considered as anything other than a disaster.