More Troops in Iraq

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

What the f***?? Are these people nuts? Where are the Dems on this? Pelosi? Jesus H. Christ.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/19/bush.troops/index.html

[JosephH]

They're at the other end of the rope paying it out...

[ericb]

What the f***?? Are these people nuts? Where are the Dems on this? Pelosi? Jesus H. Christ.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/19/bush.troops/index.html

 

pretty sure the second person on your list is a Republican

Edited December 20, 2006 by ericb

[ZimZam]

Reed came out the other day in favor of a troop increase. The truth be told, the US military only has enough troops for a temporary increase, and certainly can't sustain it without putting even more strain on the troops. I'm on my senator and congressman. One's a noob and the other one is/was in Rumsmels pocket. What a bunch of handjobs. I might as well vote Green.

[foraker]

Send the Russians

[JosephH]

No need, the place will be swarming with French and Chinese as soon as we pull out...

[ZimZam]

Unfortunately, it will be a long time before Iraq is stable enough to warrant long term investment. Rule of law is non-existent. Look how long it took to resolve the Balkans. And these folks(sunni/shia politicos)seem much more determined to keep chaos the norm. I pity the everyday man and woman who's having to endure this shit.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Unfortunately, it will be a long time before Iraq is stable enough to warrant long term investment. Rule of law is non-existent. Look how long it took to resolve the Balkans. And these folks(sunni/shia politicos)seem much more determined to keep chaos the norm. I pity the everyday man and woman who's having to endure this shit.

 

And adding troops will solve this how?

 

I love how big gov't always has this solution to every failing program: spend more.

 

[Phil Jones]

It gives the insurgents more targets.

 

Like this:

 

http://theync.com/s121806rpg.shtml

 

 

[chucK]

What the f***?? Are these people nuts? Where are the Dems on this? Pelosi? Jesus H. Christ.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/19/bush.troops/index.html

 

pretty sure the second person on your list is a Republican

 

And what makes you think that? Because Jesus H. Christ hates gays? Is it because Jesus H. Christ wants to cut medicaid funding? Could it be because Jesus H. Christ wants us to lock up a bunch of people without any semblance of justice and thinks torture is a good thing?

 

Or other?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It gives the insurgents more targets.

 

 

Exactly. Let's give 'em less (American) targets.

[chucK]

[chucK]

Where are the Dems on this? Pelosi? Jesus H. Christ.

 

Yep. It's all the stoopid Democrats' fault

[pink]

let's send bob c over to manage and mitigate the danger.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Where are the Dems on this? Pelosi? Jesus H. Christ.

 

Yep. It's all the stoopid Democrats' fault

 

It seems they're pretty damn quiet, notwithstanding a recent sweep of both houses. Was all that talk about Iraq just bullshit to win the election, Chuckie?

 

And McCain is running on this message. I don't get that either. WTF, indeed.

[ZimZam]

Unfortunately, it will be a long time before Iraq is stable enough to warrant long term investment. Rule of law is non-existent. Look how long it took to resolve the Balkans. And these folks(sunni/shia politicos)seem much more determined to keep chaos the norm. I pity the everyday man and woman who's having to endure this shit.

 

And adding troops will solve this how?

 

KK- It won't.

 

Civil wars take years to play out. Pull up a chair and get comfy.

[JosephH]

Force levels in Iraq are purely at the President's discretion - Congress has no say in the matter whatsoever. If I were Pelosi he'd get whatever he asked for - no questions asked - it's his deal start to finish.

[ashw_justin]

Fuck off, Bush Co. I'll defend my country... against you. Bush and his board of directors have done more damage to this country than any terrorist ever could.

 

I'll die on a mountain before I let those fucks send me to their martial sandbox.

 

The tragic thing is that the demented warmongers in power will send only our youngest and most innocent to their deaths, in a hell on earth of our own creation.

[pink]

to bad there aren't any big walls in iraq, it would bring awol a new meaning.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Unfortunately, it will be a long time before Iraq is stable enough to warrant long term investment. Rule of law is non-existent. Look how long it took to resolve the Balkans. And these folks(sunni/shia politicos)seem much more determined to keep chaos the norm. I pity the everyday man and woman who's having to endure this shit.

 

And adding troops will solve this how?

 

KK- It won't.

 

Civil wars take years to play out. Pull up a chair and get comfy.

 

I'd like to see our troops pull up a chair and get comfy. I thought our new policy would involve reducing troop strength, moving them to "safer" bases, training the Iraqi police, and let THEM fight it out. Partitioning the country would be an option as well.

[chucK]

It seems they're pretty damn quiet, notwithstanding a recent sweep of both houses. Was all that talk about Iraq just bullshit to win the election, Charles?

 

Two points!

 

1. They are not yet officially the majority party! You're getting a little ahead of yourself here.

 

2. What the hell are they supposed to do next month when they receive their power? Make a "state of the senate" resolution? Your stupid ass prez is the commander in chief, remember? The only really forceful thing the dems can do is threaten to cut off military funding, and I doubt anyone (except maybe the evil, baby-eating, use-your-kid-as-cannon-fodder Neocons) wants to play that game of chicken, when the losers are the troops, and the game is played with an idiot at the other wheel.

[prole]

What the f***?? Are these people nuts? Where are the Dems on this? Pelosi? Jesus H. Christ.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/19/bush.troops/index.html

 

The Democrats' lockstep with the Bush Admin into the war and later debates being framed around "supporting the troops" and "patriotism" has left them very little room for manouver. Their dissent and strategic prescriptions until very recently have centered on "more troops on the ground" in opposition to Rumsfeld's minimalist approach. The Democratic Party has a nasty habit of trying to show the Americans that they can be more militaristic, fiscally conservative, etc. than Republicans rather than providing any real resistance or meaningful alternatives. Where does that leave Dems now when Bush says "You want more troops, I'll give you more troops"? Picking their asses and picking nits out of each others fur. Spineless and disorganized are characteristics that do not mix well.

Edited December 21, 2006 by prole

[quicker_than_ewe]

 

Send this to Iraq.

[TREETOAD]

No need, the place will be swarming with French and Chinese as soon as we pull out...

 

Is that what that white gooey stuff is?

[ZimZam]

Me thinks "spineless and disorganized" are characteristics of both parties.