If you are attempting to refute my use of historical precedent that shows that the type of war we are trying to win is quite winnable, then you will have to do better than "no it isnt". Because that is basically what your argument boils down to. You say that the Philipino insurrection against American control is different than the "Iraqi" insurrection against American control. I imagine that before I mentioned it, you were not even aware of the Phillipine rebellion, and I will venture to take one more step out on this limb of mine, your ignorance of the conflict was not corrected prior to your childlike response. However you sit there and make a blanket statement that the conflicts are totally different. The only difference is that the driving force behind the Phillipine revolution was far stronger (nationalism), and our ability to combat it far weaker. And yet we emerged victorious. Or perhapse you were referring to my mention of the 1st and 2nd world wars. Is that it? If so, than please explain to me why the crux of my argument is faulty. I said that casualty rates are not an accurate barometer of our progress in a conflict. Show me how I am wrong. (that is not the same thing as simply saying "you are wrong")

I feel like I am teaching children how to hold a conversation. No No Billy, you cannot simply say "I know you are but what am I". You must explain to Timmy exactly why you are not a butt face, and back it up with supporting evidence.