http://gamingtrend.com
September 19, 2014, 12:16:47 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: More Presidential Fun  (Read 2210 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Darkstar One
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 430



View Profile
« on: January 11, 2007, 01:08:32 AM »

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070110/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

I guess this asshole truly doesn't get it.  How many more kids have to die to satisfy him?  Huh?

Here's to hoping the Democrats show some balls and deny funding.


Topic title edited by KSD as per CoC.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2007, 02:47:45 AM by Knightshade Dragon » Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3302


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2007, 01:21:07 AM »

I am not sure how denying funding will stop it. If they cut the military budget, they will just cut back on other things, not the troops going there.
Logged
Kobra
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3240


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2007, 01:21:39 AM »

He's Dictator in Chief, didn't you know?   He doesn't give a rats ass that 80% of Americans want our asses out.  He doesn't care what congress thinks, and he doesn't care what his generals think.  The guy is no better than muppets like Chavez or Castro, hes a tinpot dictator wannabe fuckup.

I suspect he wants to prolong the inevitable "Defeat" and pawn it off on whoever wins in 2009.   I have zero faith in congress having the jewels to cut off funding and shut Bush's failed project down.

I remember reading during lasts years Israeli vs Hezbollah war, Israeli military was saying Bush and his cronies were begging them to escalate the war to Iran and Syria so the US could jump in.  Israeli Generals regarded this as insane, and labeled Bush a lunatic.

I am beginning to think he is a lunatic, and we may not survive his administration.  How did Satan himself get into our highest office?
Logged

All truth goes through three stages: first it is ridiculed: then it is
violently opposed: finally it is accepted as self evident. - Schopenhauer
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2007, 01:30:22 AM »

Since kids can read the site without NFSW warnings, how about we ease off on the expletives in the titles? Just sort of as community service? Thanks DS1!
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2007, 01:34:06 AM »

I fail to see where 21,000 troops can succeed in just a few months where 130,000 troops have failed over 4 years.  That just doesn't make sense to me.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
warning
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7325



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2007, 01:47:03 AM »

Yowza.  Let's keep the language for thread titles clean mmmk?

From El CoC:

Quote
Profanity
We are trying to make this a work-safe environment. This means that we expressly forbid swearing in post titles, usernames, and signatures. It also means that you may wish to throttle back your use of 'colorful' language. While we do not overtly outlaw swearing, we ask that you use it in moderation think FX network, not The Sopranos.
Logged
Hetz
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4217


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2007, 01:48:21 AM »

Quote from: Calvin on January 11, 2007, 01:30:22 AM

Since kids can read the site without NFSW warnings, how about we ease off on the expletives in the titles? Just sort of as community service? Thanks DS1!

I was thinking the same thing when I saw the title. Though I wholeheartedly agree with the subject....you should probably put that kind of language in the post itself. It's not that big a deal to me, but others may read the site with their children or significant others in the room with them. That title could be quite a shock to them.
Logged

XBox Live: Hetz OO
PSN: Hetz76
Steam: hetz_gg
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2007, 01:51:16 AM »

"Stay the Course, 2007 Edition".

Come on, did anyone honestly NOT expect this?



BTW... it seems even Bush lapdog Tony Blair is unwilling to "Stay the Course" any longer.  3,000 Brits heading home by March... out of a 7,000 troop force.  And probably more to follow after that.
Logged
Darkstar One
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 430



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2007, 02:21:18 AM »

Sorry about the original choice of language...

But he is the President frown.
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15424


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2007, 02:29:28 AM »

IF they had sent more troops to begin with, chances are fewer would have been killed overall.

I don't know that it will help now...but woulda coulda shoulda.
Logged
Nth Power
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3451



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2007, 02:49:01 AM »

I was reading a story in the LA Times yesterday, and it was saying Bush's troop increase would mean changing Pentagon policy and having some soldiers go back for a second tour of duty.  IIRC, the current Pentagon policy is 24 months before a 2nd tour. 
I despise the fact that he's sacrificing American soldiers just so he can save some face for his failing plan. 
Logged

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -Voltaire
XBL gamertag: NthPowr
Graham
Managing Editor
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4015


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2007, 02:54:10 AM »

IBTL
Logged

Partial Owner of the World Champion Green Bay Packers
Kobra
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3240


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2007, 03:11:06 AM »

I Tivo'd FoxNews whilst I was watching MSNBC so I could go back for laughs...

FoxNews comes on after the "Speech", ignores the dems response (hell, they don't even SHOW it!), has on that idiot McCain that looks like he a deer caught in the headlights of an onrushing truck.  Next, FoxNews has the friggen audacity to compare Bush to LINCOLN... LINCOLN!!!

Holy shit.
Logged

All truth goes through three stages: first it is ridiculed: then it is
violently opposed: finally it is accepted as self evident. - Schopenhauer
EngineNo9
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11061


I said good day, sir!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2007, 03:11:59 AM »

Quote from: Nth Power on January 11, 2007, 02:49:01 AM

I was reading a story in the LA Times yesterday, and it was saying Bush's troop increase would mean changing Pentagon policy and having some soldiers go back for a second tour of duty.  IIRC, the current Pentagon policy is 24 months before a 2nd tour. 
I despise the fact that he's sacrificing American soldiers just so he can save some face for his failing plan. 

Yeah, going ahead with this plan means that they will have to extend the tours for some troops that are already there and changing the policy to send Reserves/Guards back for a second tour which they currently can't do.  Even the Generals have said that without changing that policy there aren't enough troops/brigades to send there.  

My favorite part is that they created a bipartisan commision whose job was to decide what the best plans of action were, and then completely ignored their recommendations.  That pretty much spells out the Bush administration's mindset.  

Congress (and therefore the Democratic majority) are really in a hard place because if they cut the funding it will affect troops that are already there, which they obviously don't want to do.  One thing I've seen mentioned a couple times is that they could cut spending for non-goverment contractors like Halliburton, which could be a partial solution.  
Logged

Sandwiches do fix everything.
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2007, 03:13:15 AM »

Quote from: Nth Power on January 11, 2007, 02:49:01 AM

I was reading a story in the LA Times yesterday, and it was saying Bush's troop increase would mean changing Pentagon policy and having some soldiers go back for a second tour of duty.  IIRC, the current Pentagon policy is 24 months before a 2nd tour. 
I despise the fact that he's sacrificing American soldiers just so he can save some face for his failing plan. 

I thought it was 12 months before a second tour, but I'm certainly no expert. 
Logged
corruptrelic
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3555


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2007, 03:13:54 AM »

Saddest part is Bush went against the military advisers and this guy HASN'T EVEN BEEN TO WAR before.
He has no problem gambling with other people's lives. It's like it's a big board game to him.

At least it's not without opposition, even from his own party..

Quote
There was criticism from Republicans, as well. "This is a dangerously wrongheaded strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb., a Vietnam veteran and potential GOP presidential candidate.

I'm beginning to think higher and higher of Chuck Hagel lately. He recently said militaries were built to fight wars, not occupy and police countries.

2008 simply can't come soon enough. (Unless of course, Dick Cheney or some other warmongering neocon decides to run, but hopefully by then most of us will have woken up to the dangers of having a madman like Bush in power.)
Logged

"A gladiator does not fear death. He embraces it. Caresses it. Fucks it. Every time he enters the arena, he slides his cock into the mouth of the beast."
EngineNo9
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11061


I said good day, sir!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2007, 03:38:22 AM »

Quote from: Kevin Grey on January 11, 2007, 03:13:15 AM

Quote from: Nth Power on January 11, 2007, 02:49:01 AM

I was reading a story in the LA Times yesterday, and it was saying Bush's troop increase would mean changing Pentagon policy and having some soldiers go back for a second tour of duty.  IIRC, the current Pentagon policy is 24 months before a 2nd tour. 
I despise the fact that he's sacrificing American soldiers just so he can save some face for his failing plan. 

I thought it was 12 months before a second tour, but I'm certainly no expert. 

I'm not sure about regular military, but I'm pretty sure the policy he mentioned is regarding the National Guard and Reserves (at least that was the policy I read about).  Here in some info from the Wikipedia:

Quote
Prior to the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, the National Guard's general policy regarding deployment was that Guardsmen would be required to serve no more than six months overseas at any time. Due to strains placed on active duty units following the attacks, the possible deployment time was increased to 18 months. Additional strains placed on military units as a result of the invasion of Iraq further increased the amount of time a Guardsman could be deployed to 24 months. Current Department of Defense policy is that no Guardsman will be involuntarily activated for a total of more than 24 months (cumulative) in one six year enlistment period (this policy is due to change 1 August 2007, the new policy states that soldiers will be given 24 months between deployments of no more than 24 months, individual states have differing policies).
Logged

Sandwiches do fix everything.
gameoverman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1422


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2007, 03:39:19 AM »

It's just plain astonishing to me that the public sent a message, loud and clear, "get us out of Iraq" and somehow he's talking about SENDING more troops to Iraq.

 retard
Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3302


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2007, 03:40:39 AM »

Quote from: Kobra on January 11, 2007, 03:11:06 AM

I Tivo'd FoxNews whilst I was watching MSNBC so I could go back for laughs...

FoxNews comes on after the "Speech", ignores the dems response (hell, they don't even SHOW it!), has on that idiot McCain that looks like he a deer caught in the headlights of an onrushing truck.  Next, FoxNews has the friggen audacity to compare Bush to LINCOLN... LINCOLN!!!

Holy shit.

Yeah, we have Fox News on all day at work.  It's embarrassing, my co-workers say that CNN is biased, but it is no where near as blatant as Fox. They don't even make an effort to hide it.
Logged
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5357


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2007, 03:54:24 AM »

You guys do realize that there's a difference between Sean Hannity and the like do when they are giving opinions on a commentary show, and what Brit Hume and Shep Smith do when they just read the news, right?

Can someone actually cite an example of one of their NEWS REPORTERS being biased?  And I'm not talking about the opinion guys, I'm talking about Brit Hume and Shep Smith and their peers on one of their NEWS shows.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2007, 05:37:42 AM »

The problem is they bill themselves as a news station (they are named FoxNews, after all), but they are really an opinion/commentary station, with some news programs peppered in so casual viewers will think it's all news.

News junkies like me and you can split hairs and notice the difference, but most people don't know and don't even consider there might be a distinction.  They just think it's ALL "Fair and Balanced".
Logged
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5357


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2007, 05:41:12 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 11, 2007, 05:37:42 AM

The problem is they bill themselves as a news station (they are named FoxNews, after all), but they are really an opinion/commentary station, with some news programs peppered in so casual viewers will think it's all news.

News junkies like me and you can split hairs and notice the difference, but most people don't know and don't even consider there might be a distinction.  They just think it's ALL "Fair and Balanced".

I agree with you 100%.  CNN and MSNBC are much the same way, though they don't have the "fair and balanced" label attached.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2007, 05:56:56 AM »

Quote from: EngineNo9 on January 11, 2007, 03:38:22 AM

I'm not sure about regular military, but I'm pretty sure the policy he mentioned is regarding the National Guard and Reserves (at least that was the policy I read about). 

Yeah, I think I'm getting two different things confused here-

IIRC, regular military is supposed to have a year "at home" before you can be sent back for another year long tour in Iraq.

And, like you say, you aren't supposed to be able to be called up for more than 24 months consecutively for the reserves. 
Logged
Jimmy the Fish
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1325


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2007, 07:44:34 AM »

What exactly is the PLAN for these 20,000+ additional US troops? Sending more people there without any sort of clear strategy is completely useless. If Bush thinks sending more troops as an additional police presence is going to change the situation, he's even more out of touch with reality than we thought. I like how this move comes not too long after he removed the top two military commanders in Iraq, one of which was General John Abizaid who was NOT in favor of adding more troops. He wouldn't listen to his commanders in the theater of operations so he removed them instead. Smart.
Logged
JLu
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1310


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2007, 01:41:25 PM »

When even folks like me who will defend Bush on some things are thinking "More troops?  What the heck?", there is a problem.  No way we should be sending more people over there.  That said, I am at least glad we have a president who doesn't follow public opinion polls.
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: JLu
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: January 11, 2007, 03:13:02 PM »

I think Bush needs to rethink his plan while munching on a bag of pretzels...... :slywink:
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Eduardo X
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2681



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2007, 04:06:36 PM »

Quote from: JLu on January 11, 2007, 01:41:25 PM

That said, I am at least glad we have a president who doesn't follow public opinion polls.
God forbid he run the country democraticaly.
Logged

PSN ID: EduardoX
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #27 on: January 11, 2007, 04:23:50 PM »

Quote from: Eduardo X on January 11, 2007, 04:06:36 PM

Quote from: JLu on January 11, 2007, 01:41:25 PM

That said, I am at least glad we have a president who doesn't follow public opinion polls.
God forbid he run the country democraticaly.
Yeah, I always thought it was absurd to expect the president to serve the people.  We work for him, not the other way around.
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: January 11, 2007, 04:25:58 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 11, 2007, 04:23:50 PM

Quote from: Eduardo X on January 11, 2007, 04:06:36 PM

Quote from: JLu on January 11, 2007, 01:41:25 PM

That said, I am at least glad we have a president who doesn't follow public opinion polls.
God forbid he run the country democraticaly.
Yeah, I always thought it was absurd to expect the president to serve the people.  We work for him, not the other way around.

so we're Bush's Bitches?
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
JLu
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1310


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: January 11, 2007, 04:29:46 PM »

Quote from: Eduardo X on January 11, 2007, 04:06:36 PM

Quote from: JLu on January 11, 2007, 01:41:25 PM

That said, I am at least glad we have a president who doesn't follow public opinion polls.
God forbid he run the country democraticaly.

He's not listening to us on illegal immigration either...  But in any case, the United States is a Republic; not a true Democracy.  I'm more comfortable with a President who is going to do what he thinks is appropriate, versus one who watches which way the wind blows of public opinion -- if the general population disagrees, well, put someone else in office next time.

Quote from: unbreakable on January 11, 2007, 04:23:50 PM

Quote from: Eduardo X on January 11, 2007, 04:06:36 PM

Quote from: JLu on January 11, 2007, 01:41:25 PM

That said, I am at least glad we have a president who doesn't follow public opinion polls.
God forbid he run the country democraticaly.
Yeah, I always thought it was absurd to expect the president to serve the people.  We work for him, not the other way around.

Where did I say that?  I've missed you twisting my words, but aren't you supposed to stay clear of political discussions now?
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: JLu
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #30 on: January 11, 2007, 04:31:07 PM »

Quote from: CeeKay on January 11, 2007, 04:25:58 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 11, 2007, 04:23:50 PM

Quote from: Eduardo X on January 11, 2007, 04:06:36 PM

Quote from: JLu on January 11, 2007, 01:41:25 PM

That said, I am at least glad we have a president who doesn't follow public opinion polls.
God forbid he run the country democraticaly.
Yeah, I always thought it was absurd to expect the president to serve the people.  We work for him, not the other way around.

so we're Bush's Bitches?

And John Romero's.

Quote
Where did I say that?  I've missed you twisting my words, but aren't you supposed to stay clear of political discussions now?
I was speaking rhetorically... and my reply was to Ed, not to you.

And the second issue is none of your concern.
Logged
jblank
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4215


Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2007, 06:05:55 PM »

Quote from: pr0ner on January 11, 2007, 03:54:24 AM

You guys do realize that there's a difference between Sean Hannity and the like do when they are giving opinions on a commentary show, and what Brit Hume and Shep Smith do when they just read the news, right?

Can someone actually cite an example of one of their NEWS REPORTERS being biased?  And I'm not talking about the opinion guys, I'm talking about Brit Hume and Shep Smith and their peers on one of their NEWS shows.

Watch the "news" for 24 hrs and it will show itself. It is sometimes subtle, but trust me, its there.
Logged

XBOX 350 Gamertag = Phobos of Mars
PSN Gamertag = PhobosofMars
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2007, 06:41:59 PM »

Quote from: jblank on January 11, 2007, 06:05:55 PM

Quote from: pr0ner on January 11, 2007, 03:54:24 AM

You guys do realize that there's a difference between Sean Hannity and the like do when they are giving opinions on a commentary show, and what Brit Hume and Shep Smith do when they just read the news, right?

Can someone actually cite an example of one of their NEWS REPORTERS being biased?  And I'm not talking about the opinion guys, I'm talking about Brit Hume and Shep Smith and their peers on one of their NEWS shows.

Watch the "news" for 24 hrs and it will show itself. It is sometimes subtle, but trust me, its there.

People have point out little rhetorical things Fox does all the time which institutionalize the bias even in their standard news reporting... kind of like how they turned suicide bombers into "homicide bombers".
Logged
Laner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4693


Badassfully


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 11, 2007, 06:50:39 PM »

Quote
People have point out little rhetorical things Fox does all the time which institutionalize the bias even in their standard news reporting... kind of like how they turned suicide bombers into "homicide bombers".
Which is no different from any other news organization... witness the morphing of "Illegal Aliens" to "Illegal Immigrants" to "Undocumented Immigrants" to "Undocumented Workers" by the liberal-leaning news outlets.
Logged
pr0ner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5357


Go Flames go!


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: January 11, 2007, 08:05:35 PM »

Quote from: jblank on January 11, 2007, 06:05:55 PM

Quote from: pr0ner on January 11, 2007, 03:54:24 AM

You guys do realize that there's a difference between Sean Hannity and the like do when they are giving opinions on a commentary show, and what Brit Hume and Shep Smith do when they just read the news, right?

Can someone actually cite an example of one of their NEWS REPORTERS being biased?  And I'm not talking about the opinion guys, I'm talking about Brit Hume and Shep Smith and their peers on one of their NEWS shows.

Watch the "news" for 24 hrs and it will show itself. It is sometimes subtle, but trust me, its there.

That's not a citation.   ninja
Logged

XBox Live Gamertag: Pr0ner
Kobra
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3240


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2007, 02:15:02 AM »

We have a pretty big constitutional crisis in this country.. Clearly, we have a president that doesn't feel like the constitution is a relevant item, and merely a "Piece of paper".

The whitehouse is now saying there is "Nothing" anyone can do about stopping their plans for Iraq, because as president, Bush makes the decision, and it is his alone to make.

Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution CLEARLY states that wars can only be declared by congress, and all powers/monies relating to wars are under the jurisdiction of Congress.  Thus, his recent escalation of it, is yet another violation of the constitution, since it was NOT approved by congress!

What I don't understand is why this damn country is tolerating this asshole president who clearly has VIOLATED his oath of office!  So what happens when Congress shuts down this war?  Does the president declare the constitution invalid, and take us into a supreme leader situation?
Logged

All truth goes through three stages: first it is ridiculed: then it is
violently opposed: finally it is accepted as self evident. - Schopenhauer
Kobra
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3240


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2007, 02:19:49 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 11, 2007, 06:41:59 PM

People have point out little rhetorical things Fox does all the time which institutionalize the bias even in their standard news reporting... kind of like how they turned suicide bombers into "homicide bombers".

Its not even debatable that FoxNews isn't incredibly biased, even in their news reporting.
Logged

All truth goes through three stages: first it is ridiculed: then it is
violently opposed: finally it is accepted as self evident. - Schopenhauer
Kobra
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3240


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: January 12, 2007, 05:41:31 AM »

Quote from: Kevin Grey on January 11, 2007, 03:13:15 AM

Quote from: Nth Power on January 11, 2007, 02:49:01 AM

I was reading a story in the LA Times yesterday, and it was saying Bush's troop increase would mean changing Pentagon policy and having some soldiers go back for a second tour of duty.  IIRC, the current Pentagon policy is 24 months before a 2nd tour. 
I despise the fact that he's sacrificing American soldiers just so he can save some face for his failing plan. 

I thought it was 12 months before a second tour, but I'm certainly no expert. 

Just done, question answered.. Guard and Reserves are fuxed.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070112/D8MJEH400.html
Logged

All truth goes through three stages: first it is ridiculed: then it is
violently opposed: finally it is accepted as self evident. - Schopenhauer
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1611


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 12, 2007, 08:06:12 PM »

Quote from: ATB on January 11, 2007, 02:29:28 AM

IF they had sent more troops to begin with, chances are fewer would have been killed overall.

If they had done the right thing, and never gotten us into this unprovoked, pointless war, none of our soldiers would have been killed.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.186 seconds with 101 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.066s, 2q)