Reply With Quote
The trillion dollar question.
That would be the end of the modern republican party.
The Iranians are either very clever or very insane, but not stupid.
Keep in mind that Iranian moles had a hand in puffing up the evidence of WMD's Bush relied upon to invade Iraq.
They have been setting up their chess pieces for years.
Shah mat.
The trillion dollar question.
That would be the end of the modern republican party.
I'm no fan of this administration, but I do think Condoleeza Rice realizes the stakes at play here. There are many other Republicans in power who aren't happy with how we're proceeding in the Middle East --including some members of Congress, top brass in the military who hate what Rumsfeld has done to the army, people like Powell and Bush Sr. Hopefully they'll get more of Bush's ear than Rumsfeld and Cheney, who imo are in fact bat insane.
I agree entirely.
Condi does not make policy. She can shape it, but she is not the one who makes the decisions.
The crazy ones do that.
Adding up-armored vehicles is reducing risk, but that doesn't equate to overall risk (whatever the that is supposed to be) growing.
Same for changing tactics. I guess it's a bad thing that we're modifying the movement of our troops, etc. so that they don't drive into IEDs every day. That doesn't mean overall risk is growing. It means we're adapting to urban warfare and recognizing the threats before those threats can become realized.
Stupid logic from a stupid poster.
????
Is it stupid because you can't logically refute it?
The overall risk, that is environmental risk, has increased.
Let's say you drive to work every day. You enter a risky environment, and accept some level of risk of death.
You can reduce your exposure to that environment by buying a safer car, driving a little bit slower, and taking uncrowded routes.
If you do all of those things, but the environment changes, then your level of risk exposure changes as well.
Let's say you reduce your exposure of risk in a driving environment, but all of a sudden, the people on your daily commute are almost entirely college students in mustangs, then your overall level of risk goes up, despite what you have done to reduce it.
By your own admission, we have gotten better at protecting our soldiers from risk.
The most logical explanation for a flat (or increasing) rate of casualties is that the insurgency is gaining strength.
HOW THEN DO YOU EXPLAIN THE FLAT RATE OF US TROOP DEATHS?
I am NOT saying that making our troops safer is a bad thing.
I am simply commenting on the fact that the insurgency is not "in its last throes", and that our administration is far from having any solution to this.
"FLAT RATE OF US TROOP DEATHS?"
The US military is having very little effect on the civil war, which is between Shiite and Sunni (3000 - 4000 deaths/month), not vs. US military (10s of deaths/month).
The Shiite militias are waiting for the US to leave, while they work on liquidating the Sunnis. The Shiites are on home terrain with local support and can wait a LOT longer than the invading US military can stay, just like in VN.
Correct on both counts.
Not something administration apologists would admit, though.
Takes a bit of wind out of the sails of "we did it for the Iraqi people" segment.
What is it they say about the the road to ?
I can't logically refute something so illogical as "the US troops have added armor to their vehicles, changed their tactics, and the number of deaths hasn't increased, so obviously it's more dangerous over there.'Is it stupid because you can't logically refute it?
The overall risk, that is environmental risk, has increased.
That's not what I said.
I said, "the US troops have added armor to their vehicles, changed their tactics, and the number of deaths hasn't DEcreased, so obviously it's more dangerous over there."
If you take steps to decrease deaths and those steps don't lead to a reduction in death than SOMETHING else must be at work, yes?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions