And here I was told we are at WAR! Don't tell us that Conservatives know how to fight and Liberals don't. The Iraqi surge didn't happen until the political pressure of the 2006 mid terms made it necessary. That's when the moron Rumsfeld was fired.
His point, despite your mindless knee-jerk reaction, is a fair one.
Do we want lots and lots of the Islamonazis dead? You bet!
But don't we ALSO want to capture SOME of them alive so that we can extract crucially needed information from them?
Well, yeah, we WOULD if only we'd stop giving them Miranda warnings ....
Let's face facts. The child-king is too ignorant to be running this Government.
We are at war. The one we fought against the illicit regime of Saddam Hussein ended promptly in victory. There WAS an ugly aftermath to that war, however. The insurgency was not prepared-for properly and that is (imho) a legitimate criticism of the Bush Administration. But, even so, the long mop-up there is really PART OF the other ongoing war -- meaning the bigger war against the terrorists.
The aftermath of the victory in Iraq happened immediately, not in 2006, by the way and the mid-terms had nothing to do with it.
But your incoherent post still doesn't address the point. While killing the enemy is a generally terrific objective when fighting scum like the Islamo-Jihadist-pigfuckers, it is not the sole goal of fighting those bastards. It is STILL a perfectly valid suggestion that we SHOULD be taking some of them alive to interrogate for crucial information.