You really gotta give the GOP credit where credit is due on this emergency vote...

[Mavafanculo]

Replace American contractors with Iraqi businesses, that way there is less resentment and a larger personal stake in the continued well-being of Iraq.

I like this alot, but its the one thing that will never happen. all the wheeler dealers had their own selfish interests in getting us into iraq. I'll leave it for 75th to deal with why the neo-cons wanted us there, but cheney was looking out for halliburton and his other biz friends. in chaos there is opportunity. he'll never allow a transition to iraqii contractors. of course if he's indicted or impeached after libby flips on him.......

Increase the role of the Iraqi security forces in internal security, use the US forces for border interdiction and mop-up operations.

We can draw-down our forces smartly, but a complete pullout is an asinine option that would only increase the bloodshed.

yup

 

[Gambino]

I like this alot, but its the one thing that will never happen. all the wheeler deakers had their own selfish interests in getting us into iraq. I'll leave it for 75th to deal with why the neo-cons wanted us there, but cheney was looking out for halliburton and his other biz friends. in chaos there is opportunity. he'll never allow a transition to iraqii contractors. of course if he's indicted or impeached after libby flips on him.......



yup

lol @ haliburton being used to further left-wing arguements...you do realize how many americans benefit from haliburton doing well...one of the bigger oil field employers in my area, i bet their blue collar employees would greatly disagree with your dismissal of their company

 

[Mavafanculo]

Re: You really gotta give the GOP credit where credit is due on this emergency vote..

2) whats the BrothBill proposed solution?

 

[Mavafanculo]

Re: You really gotta give the GOP credit where credit is due on this emergency vote..

BUT HOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW???????????????? lolololol
Cmon, man, what we redploy in Fallujah?? Go house by house in what areas???
What strategic differences are you offering???????

Cool, send more troops in, how would you suggest we use them??????
Answers bor, answers, not some silly, duh, more troops will solve the problem.
It its occupation questions that will only imflame the situation.
Think it through, thinkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Then tell us what the extra couple hundred thousand troops mission would be. Hand out food and water, search and destroy missions.
Stand by IED infested roadsides causing more American lives.
NOT SO EASY WHEN YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISIONS IS IT?????????lolololol

Bwahahahahaha - this article came out after I gave you my answer yesterday. The Senate Armed Services Committee got tired of getting "everything is peachy" answers from the pentagon brass, so they called in some ranking field commanders instead.

GUESS WHAT THEY SAID THEY NEEDED???
MORE TROOPS.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

They also had the same description of the problem I highlighted weeks back about the lack of troops causing us to give back villages we had already won because the troops were needed elsewhere. we're fighting a show war at this point. they're afraid to start the draft to get the manpower they need till after the 2006 congressional elections.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1132782,00.html

Sunday, Nov. 20, 2005
Getting the Lowdown on Iraq
By SALLY B. DONNELLY
If the republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee wants to get a second opinion on how the war in Iraq is going, where does he turn? To the Pentagon, but not to the top brass this time. In an unusual closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill last week, Virginia's John Warner, joined by Democratic Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Mark Dayton of Minnesota, sat across the table from 10 military officers chosen for their experience on the battlefield rather than in the political arena. Warner rounded up the battalion commanders to get at what the military calls "ground truth"—the unvarnished story of what's going on in Iraq.

"We wanted the view from men who had been on the tip of the spear, and we got it," said John Ullyot, a Warner spokesman who declined to comment on what was said at the meeting but confirmed that some Capitol Hill staff members were also present. According to two sources with knowledge of the meeting, the Army and Marine officers were blunt. In contrast to the Pentagon's stock answer that there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq, the commanders said that they not only needed more manpower but also had repeatedly asked for it. Indeed, military sources told Time that as recently as August 2005, a senior military official requested more troops but got turned down flat. There are about 160,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq, a number U.S. commanders in the region plan to maintain at least through the Iraqi national assembly elections on Dec. 15. But the battalion commanders, according to sources close to last week's meeting, said that because there are not enough troops, they have to "leapfrog" around Iraq to keep insurgents from returning to towns that have been cleared out. The officers also stressed that the lack of manpower—rather than of protective armor or signal jammers—posed one of the biggest obstacles in dealing with roadside bombs, which have caused the majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq. The commanders, according to the meeting sources, said there are simply "never enough" explosives experts on the ground. So far, no officer has been willing to go on record to complain about the need for more troops. But there is one positive sign: the Army recently decided to double the number of explosives experts to 2,500 over the next few years.