Results 21 to 30 of 54
-
12-08-2005 #21
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- The United States of kiss-my-ass
- Posts
- 8,004
Originally Posted by fishman33
-
12-08-2005 #22
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Posts
- 667
Gen. John P. Abizaid, the senior commander in the Middle East, stated that they need more troops to secure the borders of Iraq to minimize the flow of foreign insurgents, but Bush rejected the notion for more troops. General Shinseki briefed Rumsfeld that "he can't win this war, if they insist on invading Iraq, he can't win this war with less than 300,000 soldiers." Rumsfeld reportedly ordered Shinseki to go back and find a way to do this with 125,000 to 130,000, but Shinseki came back and said they couldn't do the job with that number. "What did Rumsfeld do?" Karpinski asked rhetorically. "If you can't agree with me, I'm going to find somebody who can. He made Shinseki a lame duck, for all practical purposes, and brought in Schoomaker. And Schoomaker got it. He said, 'Oh yes sir, we can do this with 125,000.'"
Bush: No More Troops For Iraq
Now Democrats ask for reducing troops and he rejects the notion. He rejects timetable, while he said the oppose during his 2000 campaign issue. Asked Clinton to have an exit strategy and timetable for Kosovo. Sounds like he is continuing to play both sides. Sounds like a flip flopper.
I am starting to get sick of listening to Bush about rebuilding Iraq, when he should be talking about rebuilding New Orleans, if it is feasible. I am sick of listening to Bush talk about Iraq freedom, while he continues to deny U.S. basic freedoms to a U.S. Citizen (right to see his lawyer and right to a speedy trial - took 3 years to make an indict him and never mentioned anything about Al Qaeda or dirty bomb in the indictment), Jose Padilla, while he goes after the Adult Industry, while he wants to continue sneak and peek search warrant without notice or showing of probable cause, while he voids out the Geneva Convention, says America does not torture, yet threats a veto on McCain's bill on torture. Where are his priorities? They continue to sound like he cares more about Iraq than the American people that elected him.
Personally, I hope that they reduce the number of troops in Iraq gradually, since Iraqi forces are over 200,000 now. If they have a problem with their development of Iraq security forces, he should state the issue instead of continuing to deny with no explanation why we don't need to withdrawl troops or increase the number of troops. With the reduction of troops, they should use the same number of troops to hunt down the top Al Qaeda leadership, especially Osama Bin Laden. I continue to see the clip of him telling New Yorkers that the build that knocked down these building, we hear from us. Four years later I am still waiting to see some action.
-
12-08-2005 #23
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
- Location
- Central Florida
- Posts
- 645
It's like you guys are hoping against hope, that Al Qaeda will win in Iraq, so you can say I told you so. With the Shiite Iranians on one side, and the Sunni Syrians on the other, and the rest of the world against them, it was just a matter of time before that country went into total civil war. A vacuum would have formed there, just like in Somalia. Give it a chance for the elections to happen. Live with it boys.....W ain't a quitter, like Slick Willie. 2 more years, 2 more years, 2 more years.
-
12-09-2005 #24
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Posts
- 667
The national media focuses on polls and the rising deaths toll in Iraq.
Let's focus on the other Iraq news:
Growing GDP is good for those with access to the twin golden rivers flowing through Iraq—not the Tigris and Euphrates, but oil revenue and foreign aid. The rest of the economy is, on the whole, weak. Unemployment remains in the 30 to 40 percent range, and the psychologically most critical type of infrastructure—electricity—has barely improved since Saddam Hussein fell. Iraqi security forces are getting better, but they are also losing more than 200 men a month to the insurgency. Civilian casualties in Iraq from the war are as high as ever; combine that with the region's highest crime rates, and Iraq has clearly become a much more violent society since Hussein fell. Tactically, the resistance appears to be outmaneuvering the best military in the world in its use of improvised explosive devices. And politically, every move forward toward greater Sunni Arab participation in the political process seems to be accompanied by at least one step back.
-
12-09-2005 #25
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Posts
- 667
-
12-09-2005 #26
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 982
Originally Posted by Felicia Katt
-
12-09-2005 #27
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Posts
- 982
Originally Posted by chefmike
I have a Vietnamese friend who immigrated from Vietnam during the war and he said, "America could have easily won that war. America just didn't want it bad enough." He also said, "In my country, we kill the enemy. We kill all of them. That's how you win."
-
12-09-2005 #28
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- The United States of kiss-my-ass
- Posts
- 8,004
faux news...we distort, you decide
-
12-09-2005 #29
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- The United States of kiss-my-ass
- Posts
- 8,004
John Kerry, like John Murtha, is a decorated veteran who served his country in a time of war. shrubya, cheney, limbaugh, rove, wolfowitz et al are chickenhawks....aka draft-dodging war-mongers...
-
12-09-2005 #30
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- NY
- Posts
- 106
Originally Posted by yourdaddy
I am far a Dubya fan. But he had the right intentions in acting to Iraq. He really believes it's the right thing to do. Unfortunately he is faily clueless, and was used by Cheney in making many decisions. Cheney has push his agenda through Bush. And Bush thinks it's his idea.
Did we go there for right reasons? I say Yes. Do we have a good and affective stratagy? NO. Will Iraq be better off after this? 10 years from now, we will say wow what a waste, when it is apparent that Iran has established its policy in Iraq.