Willravel

Walk away with something the other party wants and make it clear that had they bent to your will you would have given it to them. They reconsider and decide that the cost of not having that something is too high and agree to your demands. It's an old trick, but I don't see how calling them names and ignoring them has anything to do with this tactic.
Bush is the president and the author of the Iraq War. It's his war more than it is anyone else's. As for losing, I can't imagine how someone can talk about the war without doing continuing research on it. Sectarian violence is on the rise, coalition forces are dying, millions upon millions of civilians are displaced, many in Syria and Iran, As much as or even over a million Iraqis are dead, the puppet president is resisting his masters, and the American people voted in a congress that ran on the platform of ending the war. The only way this could be a bigger failure is if Iran, Syria, and Egypt invaded Iraq and drove the US troops out.
Weapons of mass destruction, peace, any infrastructure, a secular government, control, and power over the region to start.
You know I was talking about Bush (and if you seriously thought I was talking about you, then just wow). He's a bumbling idiot. He is his own worst enemy in that regard in that the cocky idiot isn't a good negotiating point at all. We've seen it fail on TFP before. A new member comes in, guns blazing, without having read the rules. He makes personal attacks and flames and makes really poor (read: stupid) points. What happens? He or she is chastised and then ignored.