Say Anything Blog

After 6 ½ years of occupation we need more troops than before the surge because we are winning.

Yep. This is the strategy that’s working.

Welcome to the real world.

After 6 ½ years of occupation we need more troops than before the surge because we are winning. Just look at the force posture levels that are truly conditions based and driven by the mission requirements and the assessments of commanders on the ground.

The presense of more troops is what has caused stability in Iraq and allowed for political progress.

Your snide remarks would seem absolutely foolish if we replaced “military” with “police”, and “reduced casualities” with “reduced crime”.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

Your snide remarks would seem absolutely foolish if we replaced “military” with “police”, and “reduced casualities” with “reduced crime”.

Ya know if I had used those words you might be right.
In fact, if those words were anywhere in the article…oh well…you’re just a bush swallower and I am not.

But good luck to ya!

Excuse me, you were saying?

Ya know if I had used those words you might be right.
In fact, if those words were anywhere in the article…oh well…you’re just a bush swallower and I am not.
But good luck to ya!

OK, let’s put it this way.

You just sound stupid.

We’re reducing forces (what you wanted to begin with) because the mission is working. You complain that the reduced forces are still more than we had originally. Yet, we still have less Iraqi deaths (which you’ve also complained about).

So, you’re griping is counter productive. By your own standards, you’re an absolute idiot.

For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

Kenny,

Yep.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

By your own standards, you’re an absolute idiot.

rbb has standards? Who knew?

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.