Nowhere in this article does it tell you that the troops are scheduled to go back to Iraq in March.
boetsch - 10:05am on 05/06/2008
Nor does Rob mention it.
Others of us want the troops to complete the mission and leave Iraq a strong and stable country with a representative government in the midst of a sea of totalitarianism and oppression in the middle east.
When is that Rob? When will Iraq be strong and stable? Any predictions?
Democrats want it to be quick for the sake of political expediency, but what’s more important? The electoral chances of Democrats or the mission in the middle east which thousands of Americans have died for and millions of Iraqis are counting on?
If the Republicans are so damned set on victory, why don’t they create a draft? I mean, when we were loosing this they STILL wouldn’t create a draft.
I guess what Rob is demonstrating is a bit of projection. Because we all know that Republcians wouldn’t create a draft for the sheer reason it would ruin their chances for a victory in 08.
What is more important? The fair and just treatment of our troops or their power hungry greed?
Hannitized - 10:05pm on 05/06/2008
I mean, when we were loosing this they STILL wouldn’t create a draft.
So if we’re not losing now, why do we need a draft H?
HG - 10:05pm on 05/06/2008
Because the servicemen and women are serving too many terms HG. It’s pretty obvious if you live in a town full of military folk who are serving and bother talking to them.
How many military bases do you live near HG?
Hannitized - 10:05pm on 05/06/2008
Sorry....i meant tours.
Hannitized - 10:05pm on 05/06/2008
Because the servicemen and women are serving too many terms HG.
You posted nothing of “too many terms”. You said to achieve victory we should institute a draft. You then said that we were losing which clearly implies we no longer are losing, that is, we are winning. So rather than go off half-cocked and shifting your position to avoid what you just said, why don’t you tell me how a draft is going to achieve victory if we aren’t losing?
HG - 11:05pm on 05/06/2008
You posted nothing of “too many terms”.
You are right. I didn’t. I didn’t because it wasn’t necessary to explain every detail. You want clarifications, you ask for them......just dong go off “half-cocked” when you get the answer.
You seem to not understand now communication works. Why is that?
You said to achieve victory we should institute a draft.
Sort of. That is what I implied, but not what I said.
Anyway, yes, I think we should....if we are serious about “winning”.
You then said that we were losing which clearly implies we no longer are losing, that is, we are winning.
Yes.
So rather than go off half-cocked and shifting your position to avoid what you just said, why don’t you tell me how a draft is going to achieve victory if we aren’t losing?
You are funny. I already answered the question. You simply didn’t like my answer. Apparently because you think I should state every opinion I have in detail when commenting. Odd.
Whats up HG?
Hannitized - 11:05pm on 05/06/2008
Whats up HG?
You tell me. If we are winning why institute a draft? Will a draft make our current strategy which has put us on the winning side any better? If we are winning with current troop levels what makes you think the more troops the better?
But ultimately, why is a reluctance to mess with a winning strategy via a draft evidence of the same sort of political expediency practised by those on the left?
In other words H, you don’t know what your talking about.
Nowhere in this article does it tell you that the troops are scheduled to go back to Iraq in March.
Nor does Rob mention it.
When is that Rob? When will Iraq be strong and stable? Any predictions?
If the Republicans are so damned set on victory, why don’t they create a draft? I mean, when we were loosing this they STILL wouldn’t create a draft.
I guess what Rob is demonstrating is a bit of projection. Because we all know that Republcians wouldn’t create a draft for the sheer reason it would ruin their chances for a victory in 08.
What is more important? The fair and just treatment of our troops or their power hungry greed?
So if we’re not losing now, why do we need a draft H?
Because the servicemen and women are serving too many terms HG. It’s pretty obvious if you live in a town full of military folk who are serving and bother talking to them.
How many military bases do you live near HG?
Sorry....i meant tours.
You posted nothing of “too many terms”. You said to achieve victory we should institute a draft. You then said that we were losing which clearly implies we no longer are losing, that is, we are winning. So rather than go off half-cocked and shifting your position to avoid what you just said, why don’t you tell me how a draft is going to achieve victory if we aren’t losing?
You are right. I didn’t. I didn’t because it wasn’t necessary to explain every detail. You want clarifications, you ask for them......just dong go off “half-cocked” when you get the answer.
You seem to not understand now communication works. Why is that?
Sort of. That is what I implied, but not what I said.
Anyway, yes, I think we should....if we are serious about “winning”.
Yes.
You are funny. I already answered the question. You simply didn’t like my answer. Apparently because you think I should state every opinion I have in detail when commenting. Odd.
Whats up HG?
You tell me. If we are winning why institute a draft? Will a draft make our current strategy which has put us on the winning side any better? If we are winning with current troop levels what makes you think the more troops the better?
But ultimately, why is a reluctance to mess with a winning strategy via a draft evidence of the same sort of political expediency practised by those on the left?
In other words H, you don’t know what your talking about.