2007-07-18 11:06:05 · 17 answers · asked by Matt M 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Of the two, obviously, the serving military man.
If you /really/ wanted to 'win,' though you'd need someone like Major General Arthur MacArthur, who successfully pacified the Philipines a hundred years ago.
(Not that the Philipines are a shining example even today, or anything, just that, yes, you can pacify a hostile population if you're willing to put your humanity in a box and not open it up until you're done...)
2007-07-18 11:19:16 · answer #1 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i do no longer faux to understand greater with regard to the conflict than Petraeus; I in simple terms hear to each thing he says. a million) the army Counter Insurgency instruction manual, authored by way of popular Petraeus, suggested that tension stages for a rustic of 28-30million could be 3 hundred,000+ (possibly as much as 4 hundred,000). we've not got it and shouldn't have it. 2) the popular has suggested there is a few militia progression yet that the militia can in no way win this style of conflict-there could be a political answer 3) The alleviation in violence it particularly is noted seems to be, a minimum of partly, by using the two the civilian sufferers or the insurgents shifting to different areas of the rustic. So even the militia beneficial factors at the instant are not incredibly as rosy as Petraeus says interior the headlines. do you want greater? by way of ways, i'm a liberal.
2016-10-09 00:38:28 · answer #2 · answered by lumley 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a rule government screws everything up it touches. Petraeus hands down.
2007-07-18 11:15:19 · answer #3 · answered by @#$%^ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Harry Reid can't manage the Senate, what makes you think he could manage a war>
2007-07-18 11:11:06 · answer #4 · answered by madd texan 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Wow, what a completely applicable question that in no way insults anyone's intelligence!
By the way... Who's likely to win a game of 1-on-1, Michael Jordan or Dick Cheney?
2007-07-18 11:14:06 · answer #5 · answered by Fretless 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
General Petraeus. What a great question! All Harry knows is how to play sneaky political tricks. That wouldn't work on a war.
2007-07-18 11:10:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Harry potter. BTW General Petraeus is a jack ***
2007-07-18 11:08:46 · answer #7 · answered by trigunmarksman 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I vote for General Petraeus, it's obvious Reid only cares for his far left wing constituents.
2007-07-18 11:26:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
neither. Petraues has failed miserably and Harry Ried doesn't want our troops policing a civil war and therefore would not be effective in managing the iraq war. I'd put my tax dolllars on Harry Potter over that schmuck Petraues.
2007-07-18 11:09:53 · answer #9 · answered by bbbbriggs04 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
We should leave immediately and toss a couple 88's over our shoulders on the way out.
2007-07-18 11:36:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋