Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Bonnie, Nov 15, 2006.

  1. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Can I assume the Dems read the NY Times?

    By MICHAEL R. GORDON
    Published: November 15, 2006
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html?th&emc=th
     
  2. 90K
    Offline

    90K BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,204
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    in the back of GW in foggy bottom
    Ratings:
    +64
    the dems only scan through it and will miss this artcle on purpose.
     
  3. Rico
    Offline

    Rico Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    223
    Thanks Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +38
    Bwhahhhahaaaaa hhhahhahhaaa So now the hypocrites at the NY Times say not to pull out too soon. Jeeeezz that fishwrap is just garbage, absolute garbage.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Yeah, 'not so fast...' Gag me.
     
  5. Redhots
    Offline

    Redhots Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    507
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +36
    I'll have my experts call your experts.

    Anyway.

    Stupid fucking idea on two fronts.

    1. Prolonged combat tours. Most people would agree there is no upside to that for a number of reasons.

    2. "by perhaps 10,000 (temporarily)" would have the same result as using a wine cork to plug the hole in the Titanic.

    Its too late to salvage this war with band-aid messures. If they're going to go down that route they better go full tilt. Blanket the country with 300,000 troops on the ground and restore order like they should've done on day one.

    But then there are a whole host of problems involved with doing that this late in the game too and don't see it happening.
     
  6. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626

    so are you saying..........

    you are for more troops before you were against more troops?
     
  7. Redhots
    Offline

    Redhots Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    507
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +36
    Hello? Anyone home? Ever hear of Judith Miller?

    Did you ever read anything from the NYT during 2002-2003 specificly?

    The same NYT that still prints bullshit like:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/w...1eb7bebc53e902&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    But we all remember Bush said Saddam was already in possession of huge stockpiles of WMD... not that he "maybe, might" etc... and the world knows that that wasn't the case, but here they are still trying to spin and rewrite it.
     
  8. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    Every Educated Iraqi-War Vet I know thinks we need 20,000 more troops, and perhaps a decade more of high-presence, followed by 30-40 years? of 'a' presence.
     
  9. ekrem
    Offline

    ekrem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Messages:
    7,243
    Thanks Received:
    370
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +375
    Sending more troops in for a limited time will be the right step. Over numbers i can not speak. But this had to come many many months ago.
    The reason why a massive further troop deployment did not happen the years was because of Rumsfeld as this would have meant that his strategy failed.

    The only option is increasing motivated troops in Iraq. Such troops who are ambitious, but not overambitious (Rambo-mentality) , to get the job done. The sooner the better.
     
  10. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438
    Say whaaaa!?

    Our troops are the best educated, most highly motivated, DEADLY fighting force in the world. The word "Rambo" doesn't even belong here.
     

Share This Page