jdobbin Posted January 5, 2007 Report Posted January 5, 2007 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,241785,00.html The divisions are starting to emerge quickly. McCain wants a long sustained surge of troops into Iraq and Democrats are saying no to the idea. Quote
Liam Posted January 6, 2007 Report Posted January 6, 2007 The "surge" should have been when it was useful, that is, immediately after Saddam fled Baghdad. They should have had 150,000 soldiers sitting in Kuwait awaiting redeployment to secure the ammo depots, stop the looting, preserve the infrastructure and keep order. This move is entirely political, is destined for failure and should be rejected Quote
White Doors Posted January 6, 2007 Report Posted January 6, 2007 There are alot of shoulda's coulda's and woulda's to focus on. More troops to provide security is defenitely the way to go if they want to come to the preferable outcome. They were great at nwinning the war with less troops they just forgot about winning the peace which always takes alot of troops. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
sharkman Posted January 6, 2007 Report Posted January 6, 2007 What's this? Dems saying no to Bush? Gee, how newsworthy is that, kind of like Christmas is in December this year. Quote
Liam Posted January 6, 2007 Report Posted January 6, 2007 There are alot of shoulda's coulda's and woulda's to focus on. More troops to provide security is defenitely the way to go if they want to come to the preferable outcome. They were great at nwinning the war with less troops they just forgot about winning the peace which always takes alot of troops. The "surge" number I've been hearing, 20,000, is not enough to come even remotely close to a preferable outcome. What Bush hopes to do is get a few weeks' worth of good press about Iraq for domestic political purposes hoping he can then rally his base to face the Dem Congress, but in Iraq it'll be the same old quagmire only with 20,000 more men at risk. Quote
jbg Posted January 6, 2007 Report Posted January 6, 2007 What's this? Dems saying no to Bush? Gee, how newsworthy is that, kind of like Christmas is in December this year. Actually, it's posturing. They'll cave because it is very rare that Congress, in this country, wants to take responsibility for a military defeat. Viet Nam was a rare exception; the Democrats percieved themselves as invincible in the wake of Watergate. Also, because of the draft, Viet Nam affected Americans in such a way that redeployment was just not part of the discussion. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.