|
|
Post by bolverk on Jul 16, 2008 13:34:07 GMT -5
That is right. And no one bothered to even crow about it. Why, because sometimes people do not need political victories. The Story |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 16, 2008 13:42:06 GMT -5
It's still a little bit premature to judge the effectiveness of the surge.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jul 16, 2008 13:43:27 GMT -5
Sorry, but you are wrong. The surge did it's job, and now the focus is shifting back to Afghanistan, like it or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jul 16, 2008 14:03:16 GMT -5
It's still a little bit premature to judge the effectiveness of the surge. In which case is it also too early to be claiming that it isn't working, like the dems did from the first day. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jul 16, 2008 14:23:36 GMT -5
Excellent point there subdjoe.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 16, 2008 14:28:46 GMT -5
Looks like we now need a surge in Afghanistan.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jul 16, 2008 15:37:39 GMT -5
Let this day mark the rebirth of Saunterelle. That's one of the first intelligent things I've read from you.
Now, if we could just get Pakistan in the game....
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Jul 16, 2008 15:57:48 GMT -5
Looks like we now need a surge in Afghanistan. One attack. Spare us from armchair generals who studied their military knowledge at the Sky is Falling Academy. Sheeeesh. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jul 16, 2008 16:48:57 GMT -5
Looks like we now need a surge in Afghanistan. Since I smote you within the past hour, I can not exalt you for stating the obvious, which must be very painful for you, since it is contrary to your belief system. And, when the surge comes in spring, you will be able to say you were on the correct side of the issue. Especially after we decimate the Taliban. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 16, 2008 17:12:33 GMT -5
I've always said we need more troops on the ground in Afghanistan. We need to pull them out of Iraq so we can finish the job there. Imagine, if we could get Osama before the election McCain would have a good chance of winning.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 16, 2008 21:21:50 GMT -5
I've always said we need more troops on the ground in Afghanistan. for some strange reason i find that hard to believe. i can picture you standing on the corner of mendo and 3rd back in the day with your sign saying "no war for oil!" correct me if i'm wrong. i also don't understand how you can be for a surge in afghanistan but against a surge in iraq. they both will serve the same purpose. and the fact that terrorist punks are trying to regroup in afghanistan further illustrates the success of the surge in iraq. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jul 16, 2008 21:45:47 GMT -5
I can understand saunterelle's statement of getting a surge in Afghanistan. That was the original battleground right after 9/11 that was only short of aborted just to go into Iraq. Good thing too, because we can keep an eye on Iran.........funny thing is if we go into Iran, we really can't say we are trying to spread democracy.
|
|
