<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Criticism from the left</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2009/08/18/criticism-from-the-left/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2009/08/18/criticism-from-the-left/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:49:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: bagoh20</title>
		<link>http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2009/08/18/criticism-from-the-left/#comment-331171</link>
		<dc:creator>bagoh20</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:27:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dinocrat.com/?p=11876#comment-331171</guid>
		<description>Has cautious management of a war ever really worked out for the cautious managing party.  I&#039;m really asking.  I don&#039;t remember it working out well for us.  My opinion is if you are going to go to war, then win as fast as possible.  That minimizes the damage to us, and better assures victory which should be job one if you&#039;re gonna go.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Has cautious management of a war ever really worked out for the cautious managing party.  I&#8217;m really asking.  I don&#8217;t remember it working out well for us.  My opinion is if you are going to go to war, then win as fast as possible.  That minimizes the damage to us, and better assures victory which should be job one if you&#8217;re gonna go.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: feeblemind</title>
		<link>http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2009/08/18/criticism-from-the-left/#comment-331047</link>
		<dc:creator>feeblemind</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:59:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dinocrat.com/?p=11876#comment-331047</guid>
		<description>Re Afghanistan: Do we have a strategy to win in A-Stan? From my point of view it has devolved into a low grade war of attrition. A war where our troops are severely hamstrung by rules of engagement. Coupled to this is a fuzzy attempt at nation building. A concept I have never had confidence in. I see no end in sight. IMO the enemy must be convinced that if they oppose us they die. I don&#039;t think that is the case even with the leadership decapitations. If we pull out, then the enemy &#039;wins&#039;.  I don&#039;t know the answer for Afghanistan  and wonder how much longer we can continue on our present course?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re Afghanistan: Do we have a strategy to win in A-Stan? From my point of view it has devolved into a low grade war of attrition. A war where our troops are severely hamstrung by rules of engagement. Coupled to this is a fuzzy attempt at nation building. A concept I have never had confidence in. I see no end in sight. IMO the enemy must be convinced that if they oppose us they die. I don&#8217;t think that is the case even with the leadership decapitations. If we pull out, then the enemy &#8216;wins&#8217;.  I don&#8217;t know the answer for Afghanistan  and wonder how much longer we can continue on our present course?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: feeblemind</title>
		<link>http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2009/08/18/criticism-from-the-left/#comment-331046</link>
		<dc:creator>feeblemind</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:47:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dinocrat.com/?p=11876#comment-331046</guid>
		<description>Re Public Option: I am not so sure it is dead yet. Suppose as part of &#039;health insurance reform&#039;, the dems set up a quasi-public insurance company to cover poor risks. The poor risks pay a percentage of their premiums and the Government picks up the balance. Eventually the spigot of government money is turned up and the number of people accepted into the program is expanded. Then the program grows and grows until it covers everyone.  Sound too farfetched? Well, I have a feeble mind. Perhaps the dems can come up with something more clever, with the same end result?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re Public Option: I am not so sure it is dead yet. Suppose as part of &#8216;health insurance reform&#8217;, the dems set up a quasi-public insurance company to cover poor risks. The poor risks pay a percentage of their premiums and the Government picks up the balance. Eventually the spigot of government money is turned up and the number of people accepted into the program is expanded. Then the program grows and grows until it covers everyone.  Sound too farfetched? Well, I have a feeble mind. Perhaps the dems can come up with something more clever, with the same end result?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

