The Choice on Iraq
Feb 25th 2007 | 8:02 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Choice on Iraq
COMMENTARY
By JOSEPH LIEBERMAN
February 26, 2007; Page A19
Two months into the 110th Congress, Washington has never been more
bitterly divided over our mission in Iraq. The Senate and House of
Representatives are bracing for parliamentary trench warfare --
trapped in an escalating dynamic of division and confrontation that
will neither resolve the tough challenges we face in Iraq nor
strengthen our nation against its terrorist enemies around the world.
What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just
how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. There, the
battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David
Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate,
81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into
action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into
the Iraqi capital.
Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we
allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the
ground in Iraq -- or by the unchanging political and ideological
positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters
more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over
here?
If we stopped the legislative maneuvering and looked to Baghdad, we
would see what the new security strategy actually entails and how
dramatically it differs from previous efforts. For the first time in
the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training
indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic
security -- meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian
slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past
year.
Tamping down this violence is more than a moral imperative. Al Qaeda's
stated strategy in Iraq has been to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war,
precisely because they recognize that it is their best chance to
radicalize the country's politics, derail any hope of democracy in the
Middle East, and drive the U.S. to despair and retreat. It also takes
advantage of what has been the single greatest American weakness in
Iraq: the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from
violence and terrorism.
The new strategy at last begins to tackle these problems. Where
previously there weren't enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods
after they had been cleared of extremists and militias, now more U.S.
and Iraqi forces are either in place or on the way. Where previously
American forces were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable to help
secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with
their Iraqi counterparts on small bases being set up throughout the
capital.
At least four of these new joint bases have already been established
in the Sunni neighborhoods in west Baghdad -- the same neighborhoods
where, just a few weeks ago, jihadists and death squads held sway. In
the Shiite neighborhoods of east Baghdad, American troops are also
moving in -- and Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army are moving out.
We of course will not know whether this new strategy in Iraq will
succeed for some time. Even under the most optimistic of scenarios,
there will be more attacks and casualties in the months ahead,
especially as our fanatical enemies react and attempt to thwart any
perception of progress.
But the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from
even just a month ago -- with a new strategy, a new commander, and
more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure
basic security -- and with that, we are in a stronger position to
marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger
position to foster the economic activity that will drain the
insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to
press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone
acknowledges are necessary for progress.
Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of
this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway,
they have already made up their minds about America's cause in Iraq,
declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have
had the time to see whether our new plan will work.
There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress
could end the war, consistent with its authority under the
Constitution: by cutting off funds. Yet this option is not being
proposed. Critics of the war instead are planning to constrain and
squeeze the current strategy and troops by a thousand cuts and
conditions.
Among the specific ideas under consideration are to tangle up the
deployment of requested reinforcements by imposing certain "readiness"
standards, and to redraft the congressional authorization for the war,
apparently in such a way that Congress will assume the role of
commander in chief and dictate when, where and against whom U.S.
troops can fight.
I understand the frustration, anger and exhaustion so many Americans
feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up our hands and simply say,
"Enough." And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in
human life, and of the infuriating mistakes that have been made in the
war's conduct.
But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst
errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-
cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many
opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake --
assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with
impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and
sectarian violence in Iraq.
In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as
virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have
devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops
already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger --
forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the
required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A
precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake,
which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill --
probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a
scale as yet unseen in Iraq.
I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully
about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he
has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the
time and support they need to succeed.
Gen. Petraeus says he will be able to see whether progress is
occurring by the end of the summer, so let us declare a truce in the
Washington political war over Iraq until then. Let us come together
around a constructive legislative agenda for our security: authorizing
an increase in the size of the Army and Marines, funding the equipment
and protection our troops need, monitoring progress on the ground in
Iraq with oversight hearings, investigating contract procedures, and
guaranteeing Iraq war veterans the first-class treatment and care they
deserve when they come home.
We are at a critical moment in Iraq -- at the beginning of a key
battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an
even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of
radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we
may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America's
cause -- the cause of freedom -- which we abandon at our peril.
Mr. Lieberman is an Independent senator from Connecticut
By JOSEPH LIEBERMAN
February 26, 2007; Page A19
Two months into the 110th Congress, Washington has never been more
bitterly divided over our mission in Iraq. The Senate and House of
Representatives are bracing for parliamentary trench warfare --
trapped in an escalating dynamic of division and confrontation that
will neither resolve the tough challenges we face in Iraq nor
strengthen our nation against its terrorist enemies around the world.
What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just
how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. There, the
battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David
Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate,
81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into
action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into
the Iraqi capital.
Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we
allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the
ground in Iraq -- or by the unchanging political and ideological
positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters
more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over
here?
If we stopped the legislative maneuvering and looked to Baghdad, we
would see what the new security strategy actually entails and how
dramatically it differs from previous efforts. For the first time in
the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training
indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic
security -- meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian
slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past
year.
Tamping down this violence is more than a moral imperative. Al Qaeda's
stated strategy in Iraq has been to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war,
precisely because they recognize that it is their best chance to
radicalize the country's politics, derail any hope of democracy in the
Middle East, and drive the U.S. to despair and retreat. It also takes
advantage of what has been the single greatest American weakness in
Iraq: the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from
violence and terrorism.
The new strategy at last begins to tackle these problems. Where
previously there weren't enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods
after they had been cleared of extremists and militias, now more U.S.
and Iraqi forces are either in place or on the way. Where previously
American forces were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable to help
secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with
their Iraqi counterparts on small bases being set up throughout the
capital.
At least four of these new joint bases have already been established
in the Sunni neighborhoods in west Baghdad -- the same neighborhoods
where, just a few weeks ago, jihadists and death squads held sway. In
the Shiite neighborhoods of east Baghdad, American troops are also
moving in -- and Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army are moving out.
We of course will not know whether this new strategy in Iraq will
succeed for some time. Even under the most optimistic of scenarios,
there will be more attacks and casualties in the months ahead,
especially as our fanatical enemies react and attempt to thwart any
perception of progress.
But the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from
even just a month ago -- with a new strategy, a new commander, and
more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure
basic security -- and with that, we are in a stronger position to
marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger
position to foster the economic activity that will drain the
insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to
press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone
acknowledges are necessary for progress.
Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of
this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway,
they have already made up their minds about America's cause in Iraq,
declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have
had the time to see whether our new plan will work.
There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress
could end the war, consistent with its authority under the
Constitution: by cutting off funds. Yet this option is not being
proposed. Critics of the war instead are planning to constrain and
squeeze the current strategy and troops by a thousand cuts and
conditions.
Among the specific ideas under consideration are to tangle up the
deployment of requested reinforcements by imposing certain "readiness"
standards, and to redraft the congressional authorization for the war,
apparently in such a way that Congress will assume the role of
commander in chief and dictate when, where and against whom U.S.
troops can fight.
I understand the frustration, anger and exhaustion so many Americans
feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up our hands and simply say,
"Enough." And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in
human life, and of the infuriating mistakes that have been made in the
war's conduct.
But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst
errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-
cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many
opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake --
assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with
impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and
sectarian violence in Iraq.
In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as
virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have
devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops
already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger --
forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the
required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A
precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake,
which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill --
probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a
scale as yet unseen in Iraq.
I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully
about what to do next. Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he
has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the
time and support they need to succeed.
Gen. Petraeus says he will be able to see whether progress is
occurring by the end of the summer, so let us declare a truce in the
Washington political war over Iraq until then. Let us come together
around a constructive legislative agenda for our security: authorizing
an increase in the size of the Army and Marines, funding the equipment
and protection our troops need, monitoring progress on the ground in
Iraq with oversight hearings, investigating contract procedures, and
guaranteeing Iraq war veterans the first-class treatment and care they
deserve when they come home.
We are at a critical moment in Iraq -- at the beginning of a key
battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an
even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of
radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we
may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America's
cause -- the cause of freedom -- which we abandon at our peril.
Mr. Lieberman is an Independent senator from Connecticut
Feb 25th 2007 | 8:30 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Choice on Iraq
On 26/02/07 10:02, in article
[email protected] m, "Earl Evleth"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> COMMENTARY
forged posting in my name
[email protected] m, "Earl Evleth"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> COMMENTARY
forged posting in my name
Feb 25th 2007 | 10:35 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Choice on Iraq LIEbrerman would sell your mothers corpse after he screwed it!
he couldn't give a rats ass's about how many americans die................to
save Israel.
save Israel.
Feb 25th 2007 | 11:33 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "HeadMurthaFookerInChargeThirteenSixtyNine" couldn't give a rats ass's about how
On Feb 26, 6:35 am, "HeadMurthaFookerInChargeThirteenSixtyNine" <The
last [email protected]> wrote:
> couldn't give a rats ass's about how many americans die.
last [email protected]> wrote:
> couldn't give a rats ass's about how many americans die.
Feb 26th 2007 | 12:16 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Choice on Iraq
On 26 Feb 2007 01:02:48 -0800, "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from
>violence and terrorism.
can anybody remember how many Russians troops failed to control
Afghanistan and how numbers compare to Us in Iraq?
--
Mike Reid
updated Tenerife pics "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/tenerifepics.htm"
Gran Canaria pics "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/grancanaria.htm"
wrote:
> the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from
>violence and terrorism.
can anybody remember how many Russians troops failed to control
Afghanistan and how numbers compare to Us in Iraq?
--
Mike Reid
updated Tenerife pics "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/tenerifepics.htm"
Gran Canaria pics "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk/grancanaria.htm"
Feb 26th 2007 | 12:32 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Choice on Iraq LIEbrerman would sell your mothers corpse
HeadMuthaFookerInChargeThirteenSixtyNine wrote:
> he couldn't give a rats ass's about how many americans die................to
> save Israel.
Thats the problem with some of these Zionist extremists.
As Harry Truman said, they don't care if millions of
others die to save the life of one of their own.
Thats mind-bogglingly, incredible hubris.
--
B3
=Why does the President not represent the will and wishes of the
majority of the US people?
Why do members of congress not represent the will and wishes
of the majority of their constituents?
What does the word "representative" mean to them?
Do we no longer elect representatives, but a feudal system?
People become more liberal as their world knowledge, education and
literacy levels rise. Ignorance is not a virtue, it's a disgrace.
> he couldn't give a rats ass's about how many americans die................to
> save Israel.
Thats the problem with some of these Zionist extremists.
As Harry Truman said, they don't care if millions of
others die to save the life of one of their own.
Thats mind-bogglingly, incredible hubris.
--
B3
=Why does the President not represent the will and wishes of the
majority of the US people?
Why do members of congress not represent the will and wishes
of the majority of their constituents?
What does the word "representative" mean to them?
Do we no longer elect representatives, but a feudal system?
People become more liberal as their world knowledge, education and
literacy levels rise. Ignorance is not a virtue, it's a disgrace.
Feb 26th 2007 | 2:25 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: [email protected]> wrote in message I give head to Sailors for Free. Stupid as
WOW!You really are loser, starved for ATTENTION Eh? [email protected].
Got a lot of
downtime on your hands huh?
That's the problem with Internet access all the lonely malformed disfigured
mentally dysfunctionals who crave any attention,can get on line and pretend
to be smart.
Ya gotta feel sorry for this guy. Having a father who married his own
sister, the
offspring is usually in pretty bad shape, but it looks like he may have a
couple of fingers on his flipper like arms......
So C'mon "[email protected]" wannabe make us all laugh............ wiggle
your
flipper.
Got a lot of
downtime on your hands huh?
That's the problem with Internet access all the lonely malformed disfigured
mentally dysfunctionals who crave any attention,can get on line and pretend
to be smart.
Ya gotta feel sorry for this guy. Having a father who married his own
sister, the
offspring is usually in pretty bad shape, but it looks like he may have a
couple of fingers on his flipper like arms......
So C'mon "[email protected]" wannabe make us all laugh............ wiggle
your
flipper.
Feb 26th 2007 | 3:10 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Choice on Iraq
"The Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 26 Feb 2007 01:02:48 -0800, "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from
> >violence and terrorism.
>
> can anybody remember how many Russians troops failed to control
> Afghanistan and how numbers compare to Us in Iraq?
> --
A max of around 100,000 at any one time, I seem to remember.
Food for thought!
Surreyman
news:[email protected]...
> On 26 Feb 2007 01:02:48 -0800, "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from
> >violence and terrorism.
>
> can anybody remember how many Russians troops failed to control
> Afghanistan and how numbers compare to Us in Iraq?
> --
A max of around 100,000 at any one time, I seem to remember.
Food for thought!
Surreyman
Feb 26th 2007 | 3:14 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Choice on Iraq
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:10:15 GMT, "a.spencer3" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"The Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On 26 Feb 2007 01:02:48 -0800, "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from
>> >violence and terrorism.
>>
>> can anybody remember how many Russians troops failed to control
>> Afghanistan and how numbers compare to Us in Iraq?
>> --
>
>A max of around 100,000 at any one time, I seem to remember.
>Food for thought!
Hint: The situation is different.
--
Martin
>
>"The Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On 26 Feb 2007 01:02:48 -0800, "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from
>> >violence and terrorism.
>>
>> can anybody remember how many Russians troops failed to control
>> Afghanistan and how numbers compare to Us in Iraq?
>> --
>
>A max of around 100,000 at any one time, I seem to remember.
>Food for thought!
Hint: The situation is different.
--
Martin
Feb 26th 2007 | 6:17 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Choice on Iraq
On 26 Feb 2007 01:02:48 -0800, "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>For the first time in
>the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training
>indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic
>security -- meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian
>slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past
>year.
Dream on.
wrote:
>For the first time in
>the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training
>indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic
>security -- meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian
>slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past
>year.
Dream on.
Feb 26th 2007 | 7:22 am
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Choice on Iraq
You must be the real forger
Beware the name is copyrighted
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
C208675E.D285C%[email protected]...
> On 26/02/07 10:02, in article
> [email protected] m, "Earl Evleth"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> COMMENTARY
>
> forged posting in my name
>
Beware the name is copyrighted
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
C208675E.D285C%[email protected]...
> On 26/02/07 10:02, in article
> [email protected] m, "Earl Evleth"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> COMMENTARY
>
> forged posting in my name
>
Feb 26th 2007 | 7:43 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Choice on Iraq
shut up ignorant
"Martin" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:10:15 GMT, "a.spencer3" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"The Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> On 26 Feb 2007 01:02:48 -0800, "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from
>>> >violence and terrorism.
>>>
>>> can anybody remember how many Russians troops failed to control
>>> Afghanistan and how numbers compare to Us in Iraq?
>>> --
>>
>>A max of around 100,000 at any one time, I seem to remember.
>>Food for thought!
>
> Hint: The situation is different.
> --
>
> Martin
>
>
"Martin" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email protected]...
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:10:15 GMT, "a.spencer3" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"The Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> On 26 Feb 2007 01:02:48 -0800, "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from
>>> >violence and terrorism.
>>>
>>> can anybody remember how many Russians troops failed to control
>>> Afghanistan and how numbers compare to Us in Iraq?
>>> --
>>
>>A max of around 100,000 at any one time, I seem to remember.
>>Food for thought!
>
> Hint: The situation is different.
> --
>
> Martin
>
>
Feb 26th 2007 | 9:01 am
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Choice on Iraq
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:17:10 -0500, Viking <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 26 Feb 2007 01:02:48 -0800, "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>For the first time in
>>the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training
>>indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic
>>security -- meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian
>>slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past
>>year.
>
>Dream on.
You must be another Democrat hoping for defeat. Too bad - our guys
are killing your friends right and left over there. Did they get your
Daddy yet?
Regards,
wrote:
>On 26 Feb 2007 01:02:48 -0800, "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>For the first time in
>>the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training
>>indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic
>>security -- meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian
>>slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past
>>year.
>
>Dream on.
You must be another Democrat hoping for defeat. Too bad - our guys
are killing your friends right and left over there. Did they get your
Daddy yet?
Regards,
Feb 26th 2007 | 9:23 am
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Choice on Iraq
Let is be knownst that on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:14:32 +0100, Martin
<[email protected]> writted:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:10:15 GMT, "a.spencer3" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"The Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> On 26 Feb 2007 01:02:48 -0800, "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from
>>> >violence and terrorism.
>>>
>>> can anybody remember how many Russians troops failed to control
>>> Afghanistan and how numbers compare to Us in Iraq?
>>> --
>>
>>A max of around 100,000 at any one time, I seem to remember.
>>Food for thought!
>
>Hint: The situation is different.
Notably the Russians didn't need to give a shit, and the Afghanis had
nothing to lose.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
<[email protected]> writted:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:10:15 GMT, "a.spencer3" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"The Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> On 26 Feb 2007 01:02:48 -0800, "Earl Evleth" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from
>>> >violence and terrorism.
>>>
>>> can anybody remember how many Russians troops failed to control
>>> Afghanistan and how numbers compare to Us in Iraq?
>>> --
>>
>>A max of around 100,000 at any one time, I seem to remember.
>>Food for thought!
>
>Hint: The situation is different.
Notably the Russians didn't need to give a shit, and the Afghanis had
nothing to lose.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Feb 26th 2007 | 9:54 am
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: No Choice on Iraq - time to stop Bush's illegal invasion
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:01:58 -0600, Charlie Wolf <[email protected]> wrote:
>...hoping for defeat....
You're hoping the USA is Enronized by Kennyboy Lay's followers, no less.
>...hoping for defeat....
You're hoping the USA is Enronized by Kennyboy Lay's followers, no less.
