John McCain Flip-flops on Surge in Afghanistan

Puppycow · 19th July 2008, 04:49 PM

John McCain until recently said that we had enough troops in Afghanistan and that Iraq was the central front in the war on terror. There is a trade-off in troops between Iraq and Afghanistan in that we cannot increase troops for one country (without even longer duty-tours) until we reduce them in the other. So McCain has changed his position on this and is now closer to Obama's position.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

chipmunk stew · 19th July 2008, 05:33 PM

The McCain camp trying to paint Obama as a 'flip-flopper' is hilariously hilarious in its hilarity.

MaGZ · 19th July 2008, 05:37 PM

see new thread

Texas · 20th July 2008, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

John McCain until recently said that we had enough troops in Afghanistan and that Iraq was the central front in the war on terror. There is a trade-off in troops between Iraq and Afghanistan in that we cannot increase troops for one country (without even longer duty-tours) until we reduce them in the other. So McCain has changed his position on this and is now closer to Obama's position.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

It's obvious that the EU NATO partners are unwilling to carry their share of the load. No big surprise.

Texas · 20th July 2008, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

The McCain camp trying to paint Obama as a 'flip-flopper' is hilariously hilarious in its hilarity.

In terms of strategic interests for the United States which country is more important, Afghanistan or Iraq? What is more important, finding a man that has been reduced to semi-annual audio tapes or a functioning democracy in the midst of Islamic theocracies? Afghanistan is a NATO operation, let the EU NATO nations finally at long last pull the the wagon instead of riding in it.

Undesired Walrus · 20th July 2008, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by Texas

In terms of strategic interests for the United States which country is more important, Afghanistan or Iraq? What is more important, finding a man that has been reduced to semi-annual audio tapes or a functioning democracy in the midst of Islamic theocracies?

Al Qaeda now as strong as pre 9/11 levels

mrbaracuda · 20th July 2008, 03:45 AM

My goodness, a flip flopping white cracker?

chipmunk stew · 20th July 2008, 04:18 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Al Qaeda now as strong as pre 9/11 levels

That's from the Washington Post, home of Charles Krauthammer, Robert D. Novak, and George F. Will. You can't trust the liberal media to report such things honestly.

chipmunk stew · 20th July 2008, 04:24 AM

Originally Posted by Texas

In terms of strategic interests for the United States which country is more important, Afghanistan or Iraq? What is more important, finding a man that has been reduced to semi-annual audio tapes or a functioning democracy in the midst of Islamic theocracies? Afghanistan is a NATO operation, let the EU NATO nations finally at long last pull the the wagon instead of riding in it.

It's not just Afghanistan. McCain's positions have "shifted" on a variety of topics during this campaign as he's tried to hang on to conservative Republicans. I guarantee there will be a McCain flip-flop video before this election is through that will make John Kerry look like a principled "maverick".

As far as Iraq goes, Obama did change his position on the surge, although being a politician, he'll never admit it. He has admitted that the surge is a tactical success in the midst of a strategic blunder. That contradicts his prediction that the surge would make things worse. It would be nice if he would acknowledge that he was wrong about that. I'm not holding my breath.

Some of the other claims of "flip-flopping" in that video are flat-out wrong and dishonest, though. For instance, the claim that he was ever against supporting the troops. In fact, Obama risked being seen as inconsistent on his opposition to the war by supporting funding for the war because he believes that once our troops are in the field, they should never be left unfunded and unequipped. Clinton's team attacked him for "voting for the war" while saying he was against it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.

moon1969 · 20th July 2008, 04:47 AM

Too bad history will repeat itself and USA will lose in Afghanistan just like Soviet Union lost the Soviet Afghan war in 1979-1989. Or maybe if people listen to Barack Obama history will not repeat itself. If John McCain continues the Iraq war there is no way USA can win in Afghanistan and history will repeat itself.

Megalodon · 20th July 2008, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda

My goodness, a flip flopping white cracker?

Not funny, bad form...

BeAChooser · 20th July 2008, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Al Qaeda now as strong as pre 9/11 levels

Walrus, don't you think it's a bit dishonest to link us to that article with that statement? Afterall, that article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071102443.html ) is dated July 12, 2007 which isn't "now". Even more glaring is that the article you linked states the new report by the National Counterterrorism Center asserts "al-Qaeda is still considerably weaker than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001". Not at all what you dishonestly claimed that article says. Think we wouldn't notice?

Kthulhut Fhtagn · 20th July 2008, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Walrus, don't you think it's a bit dishonest to link us to that article with that statement? Afterall, that article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071102443.html ) is dated July 12, 2007 which isn't "now". Even more glaring is that the article you linked states the new report by the National Counterterrorism Center asserts "al-Qaeda is still considerably weaker than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001". Not at all what you dishonestly claimed that article says. Think we wouldn't notice?

Hmm; I could swear I heard Bush state that the US was investigating claims that Al Qaeda was at pre 9/11 strength. I'll link you when I find the article...it's impossible to type 9/11 and investigation in a google search engine without being carpet bombed by twoofers.

ETA: Al-Qaida has rebuilt some of its pre-Sept. 11 capabilities from remote hiding places in Pakistan, leading to a major spike in attacks last year in that country and neighboring Afghanistan, the Bush administration said Wednesday.

It doesn't say that it was at pre-9/11 strength but then again Bush only said he was investigating the claim.

chipmunk stew · 20th July 2008, 11:01 AM

nvm

corplinx · 20th July 2008, 11:02 AM

Is Afghanistan really the crumbling failure it appears to be lately for the news or is that just the CNN effect? I have noticed a very positive trend in reporting stories from Afghanistan that make forces there look too small or incompetent. It it real, or is it CNN?

BeAChooser · 20th July 2008, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Kthulhut Fhtagn

It doesn't say that it was at pre-9/11 strength

No, actually it says the opposite:

Quote:

"It has reconstituted some of its pre-9/11 operational capabilities through the exploitation of Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, replacement of captured or killed operational lieutenants, and the restoration of some central control by its top leadership, in particular Ayman al-Zawahiri," it says. Dailey, however, stressed that al-Qaida is still weaker overall than it was before Sept. 11, 2001.

And do you know that the bulk of that article was first published back in July of 2007 by Lee? It's a year old. So we are again not talking about NOW. Democrats like Huffington are getting desperate if they're regurgitating year old news as if it was recent. It's dishonesty by the media ... just as one of the sources I posted noted.

BeAChooser · 20th July 2008, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by corplinx

Is Afghanistan really the crumbling failure it appears to be lately for the news or is that just the CNN effect? I have noticed a very positive trend in reporting stories from Afghanistan that make forces there look too small or incompetent. It it real, or is it CNN?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...n_afghani.html "February 08, 2008, Media Spins Success in Afghanistan as Failure, American and Coalition forces have taken the initiative in Afghanistan, and have the Taliban on the run. Yet major American media outlets, to the extent they cover fighting in Afghanistan, are portraying the Taliban as "resurgent". Going on the offense and succeeding at it always increases violence. But is being spun onto bad news. The increase in fighting in Afghanistan is not a sign of a stronger Taliban, but rather a more desperate one. Despite all the media reports to the contrary it is we who are surging in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. ... snip ... No American media, except for the AP, not even the media that carries AP content, ran the story that NATO officially reported that the Taliban was not resurgent in Afghanistan. Most of the American media buried General McNeill's statement as well while continuing to use the "resurgent Taliban" characterization. Why? It should be painfully clear. To acknowledge that the Taliban is losing instead of winning is to validate the war policy of President Bush in the war against terror. When combined with a surge success in Iraq, the implications are dark for any Democrat nominee for the White House."

http://www.thestar.com/News/Columnist/article/427330 "Taliban 'losing momentum', Canadian UN official says most militants are looking for a way out of war they cannot win, May 19, 2008"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...feat'.html "Afghan insurgents 'on brink of defeat'... snip ... June 2, 2008, Missions by special forces and air strikes by unmanned drones have "decapitated" the Taliban and brought the war in Afghanistan to a "tipping point", the commander of British forces has said. ... snip ... In the past two years an estimated 7,000 Taliban have been killed, the majority in southern and eastern Afghanistan. But it is the "very effective targeted decapitation operations" that have removed "several echelons of commanders"."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4340239.ece "July 16, 2008, US troops poised to cross Afghan border for raid on bases"

Puppycow · 20th July 2008, 10:54 PM

Frank Rich

Quote:

It’s the Economic Stupidity, Stupid
By FRANK RICH
THE best thing to happen to John McCain was for the three network anchors to leave him in the dust this week while they chase Barack Obama on his global Lollapalooza tour. Were voters forced to actually focus on Mr. McCain’s response to our spiraling economic crisis at home, the prospect of his ascension to the Oval Office could set off a panic that would make the IndyMac Bank bust in Pasadena look as merry as the Rose Bowl.

“In a time of war,” Mr. McCain said last week, “the commander in chief doesn’t get a learning curve.” Fair enough, but he imparted this wisdom in a speech that was almost a year behind Mr. Obama in recognizing Afghanistan as the central front in the war against Al Qaeda. Given that it took the deadliest Taliban suicide bombing in Kabul since 9/11 to get Mr. McCain’s attention, you have to wonder if even General Custer’s learning curve was faster than his.

Mr. McCain still doesn’t understand that we can’t send troops to Afghanistan unless they’re shifted from Iraq. But simple math, to put it charitably, has never been his forte. When it comes to the central front of American anxiety — the economy — his learning curve has flat-lined.

BeAChooser · 21st July 2008, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Frank Rich

Trying to change the subject?

mrbaracuda · 23rd July 2008, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Megalodon

Not funny, bad form...

It was merely an experiment.

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Not funny. Not clever. Simply racist.

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda

I wonder if you were all up in arms if I made some white cracker joke about McCain or a reference to one. Most likely not, or would you?

Originally Posted by Pookster

I would.

I am very disappointed by you racists! Why do you hate the white man?

Pookster · 23rd July 2008, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda

It was merely an experiment.

I am very disappointed by you racists! Why do you hate the white man?

Experiment or not, it's still bad form. It was obvious you were just being an ass about being called out in the other thread. So, I choose to let you wallow in your own mess alone when you made that post.

BeAChooser · 23rd July 2008, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

There is a trade-off in troops between Iraq and Afghanistan in that we cannot increase troops for one country (without even longer duty-tours) until we reduce them in the other.

I'm curious, Puppycow. Why does Obama have to pull all 32 combat brigades (assuming 2 per month over 16 months as he says) out of Iraq if he's only going to put 2 into Afghanistan?

mrbaracuda · 23rd July 2008, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Pookster

Experiment or not, it's still bad form. It was obvious you were just being an ass about being called out in the other thread. So, I choose to let you wallow in your own mess alone when you made that post.

What a strange person you are.

19th July 2008, 05:33 PM	#2
chipmunk stew The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: SE PA Posts: 7,465	The McCain camp trying to paint Obama as a 'flip-flopper' is hilariously hilarious in its hilarity.
	__________________

19th July 2008, 05:37 PM	#3
MaGZ Suspended Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 6,319	McCain will carry the 51st state see new thread
MaGZ Suspended Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 6,319	Last edited by MaGZ; 19th July 2008 at 05:41 PM. Reason: error

20th July 2008, 01:44 AM	#5
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847	Originally Posted by chipmunk stew The McCain camp trying to paint Obama as a 'flip-flopper' is hilariously hilarious in its hilarity. In terms of strategic interests for the United States which country is more important, Afghanistan or Iraq? What is more important, finding a man that has been reduced to semi-annual audio tapes or a functioning democracy in the midst of Islamic theocracies? Afghanistan is a NATO operation, let the EU NATO nations finally at long last pull the the wagon instead of riding in it.
Texas Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,847

20th July 2008, 02:10 AM	#6
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,890	Originally Posted by Texas In terms of strategic interests for the United States which country is more important, Afghanistan or Iraq? What is more important, finding a man that has been reduced to semi-annual audio tapes or a functioning democracy in the midst of Islamic theocracies? Al Qaeda now as strong as pre 9/11 levels
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945

20th July 2008, 04:18 AM	#8
chipmunk stew The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: SE PA Posts: 7,465	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus Al Qaeda now as strong as pre 9/11 levels That's from the Washington Post, home of Charles Krauthammer, Robert D. Novak, and George F. Will. You can't trust the liberal media to report such things honestly.
	__________________

20th July 2008, 03:45 AM	#7
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 3,799	My goodness, a flip flopping white cracker?

20th July 2008, 04:24 AM	#9
chipmunk stew The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: SE PA Posts: 7,465	Originally Posted by Texas In terms of strategic interests for the United States which country is more important, Afghanistan or Iraq? What is more important, finding a man that has been reduced to semi-annual audio tapes or a functioning democracy in the midst of Islamic theocracies? Afghanistan is a NATO operation, let the EU NATO nations finally at long last pull the the wagon instead of riding in it. It's not just Afghanistan. McCain's positions have "shifted" on a variety of topics during this campaign as he's tried to hang on to conservative Republicans. I guarantee there will be a McCain flip-flop video before this election is through that will make John Kerry look like a principled "maverick". As far as Iraq goes, Obama did change his position on the surge, although being a politician, he'll never admit it. He has admitted that the surge is a tactical success in the midst of a strategic blunder. That contradicts his prediction that the surge would make things worse. It would be nice if he would acknowledge that he was wrong about that. I'm not holding my breath. Some of the other claims of "flip-flopping" in that video are flat-out wrong and dishonest, though. For instance, the claim that he was ever against supporting the troops. In fact, Obama risked being seen as inconsistent on his opposition to the war by supporting funding for the war because he believes that once our troops are in the field, they should never be left unfunded and unequipped. Clinton's team attacked him for "voting for the war" while saying he was against it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess.
	__________________ Last edited by chipmunk stew; 20th July 2008 at 04:31 AM.

20th July 2008, 04:47 AM	#10
moon1969 Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,288	Too bad history will repeat itself and USA will lose in Afghanistan just like Soviet Union lost the Soviet Afghan war in 1979-1989. Or maybe if people listen to Barack Obama history will not repeat itself. If John McCain continues the Iraq war there is no way USA can win in Afghanistan and history will repeat itself.

20th July 2008, 09:28 AM	#11
Megalodon Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,522	Originally Posted by mrbaracuda My goodness, a flip flopping white cracker? Not funny, bad form...
Megalodon Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,522	__________________ Stupid is depressing...

20th July 2008, 10:17 AM	#12
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus Al Qaeda now as strong as pre 9/11 levels Walrus, don't you think it's a bit dishonest to link us to that article with that statement? Afterall, that article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071102443.html ) is dated July 12, 2007 which isn't "now". Even more glaring is that the article you linked states the new report by the National Counterterrorism Center asserts "al-Qaeda is still considerably weaker than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001". Not at all what you dishonestly claimed that article says. Think we wouldn't notice?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

20th July 2008, 10:58 AM	#13
Kthulhut Fhtagn Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Somewhere in time and space... Posts: 1,939	Originally Posted by BeAChooser Walrus, don't you think it's a bit dishonest to link us to that article with that statement? Afterall, that article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071102443.html ) is dated July 12, 2007 which isn't "now". Even more glaring is that the article you linked states the new report by the National Counterterrorism Center asserts "al-Qaeda is still considerably weaker than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001". Not at all what you dishonestly claimed that article says. Think we wouldn't notice? Hmm; I could swear I heard Bush state that the US was investigating claims that Al Qaeda was at pre 9/11 strength. I'll link you when I find the article...it's impossible to type 9/11 and investigation in a google search engine without being carpet bombed by twoofers. ETA: Al-Qaida has rebuilt some of its pre-Sept. 11 capabilities from remote hiding places in Pakistan, leading to a major spike in attacks last year in that country and neighboring Afghanistan, the Bush administration said Wednesday. It doesn't say that it was at pre-9/11 strength but then again Bush only said he was investigating the claim.
	Last edited by Kthulhut Fhtagn; 20th July 2008 at 11:02 AM.

20th July 2008, 11:01 AM	#14
chipmunk stew The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: SE PA Posts: 7,465	nvm
	__________________

20th July 2008, 11:02 AM	#15
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Is Afghanistan really the crumbling failure it appears to be lately for the news or is that just the CNN effect? I have noticed a very positive trend in reporting stories from Afghanistan that make forces there look too small or incompetent. It it real, or is it CNN?
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

20th July 2008, 02:41 PM	#16
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Kthulhut Fhtagn It doesn't say that it was at pre-9/11 strength No, actually it says the opposite: Quote: "It has reconstituted some of its pre-9/11 operational capabilities through the exploitation of Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, replacement of captured or killed operational lieutenants, and the restoration of some central control by its top leadership, in particular Ayman al-Zawahiri," it says. Dailey, however, stressed that al-Qaida is still weaker overall than it was before Sept. 11, 2001. And do you know that the bulk of that article was first published back in July of 2007 by Lee? It's a year old. So we are again not talking about NOW. Democrats like Huffington are getting desperate if they're regurgitating year old news as if it was recent. It's dishonesty by the media ... just as one of the sources I posted noted.
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

20th July 2008, 02:44 PM	#17
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by corplinx Is Afghanistan really the crumbling failure it appears to be lately for the news or is that just the CNN effect? I have noticed a very positive trend in reporting stories from Afghanistan that make forces there look too small or incompetent. It it real, or is it CNN? http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...n_afghani.html "February 08, 2008, Media Spins Success in Afghanistan as Failure, American and Coalition forces have taken the initiative in Afghanistan, and have the Taliban on the run. Yet major American media outlets, to the extent they cover fighting in Afghanistan, are portraying the Taliban as "resurgent". Going on the offense and succeeding at it always increases violence. But is being spun onto bad news. The increase in fighting in Afghanistan is not a sign of a stronger Taliban, but rather a more desperate one. Despite all the media reports to the contrary it is we who are surging in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. ... snip ... No American media, except for the AP, not even the media that carries AP content, ran the story that NATO officially reported that the Taliban was not resurgent in Afghanistan. Most of the American media buried General McNeill's statement as well while continuing to use the "resurgent Taliban" characterization. Why? It should be painfully clear. To acknowledge that the Taliban is losing instead of winning is to validate the war policy of President Bush in the war against terror. When combined with a surge success in Iraq, the implications are dark for any Democrat nominee for the White House." http://www.thestar.com/News/Columnist/article/427330 "Taliban 'losing momentum', Canadian UN official says most militants are looking for a way out of war they cannot win, May 19, 2008" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...feat'.html "Afghan insurgents 'on brink of defeat'... snip ... June 2, 2008, Missions by special forces and air strikes by unmanned drones have "decapitated" the Taliban and brought the war in Afghanistan to a "tipping point", the commander of British forces has said. ... snip ... In the past two years an estimated 7,000 Taliban have been killed, the majority in southern and eastern Afghanistan. But it is the "very effective targeted decapitation operations" that have removed "several echelons of commanders"." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4340239.ece "July 16, 2008, US troops poised to cross Afghan border for raid on bases"
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

20th July 2008, 10:54 PM	#18
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,764	Frank Rich Quote: It’s the Economic Stupidity, Stupid By FRANK RICH THE best thing to happen to John McCain was for the three network anchors to leave him in the dust this week while they chase Barack Obama on his global Lollapalooza tour. Were voters forced to actually focus on Mr. McCain’s response to our spiraling economic crisis at home, the prospect of his ascension to the Oval Office could set off a panic that would make the IndyMac Bank bust in Pasadena look as merry as the Rose Bowl. “In a time of war,” Mr. McCain said last week, “the commander in chief doesn’t get a learning curve.” Fair enough, but he imparted this wisdom in a speech that was almost a year behind Mr. Obama in recognizing Afghanistan as the central front in the war against Al Qaeda. Given that it took the deadliest Taliban suicide bombing in Kabul since 9/11 to get Mr. McCain’s attention, you have to wonder if even General Custer’s learning curve was faster than his. Mr. McCain still doesn’t understand that we can’t send troops to Afghanistan unless they’re shifted from Iraq. But simple math, to put it charitably, has never been his forte. When it comes to the central front of American anxiety — the economy — his learning curve has flat-lined.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

21st July 2008, 07:47 AM	#19
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Puppycow Frank Rich Trying to change the subject?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

23rd July 2008, 07:45 AM	#20
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 3,799	Originally Posted by Megalodon Not funny, bad form... It was merely an experiment. Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus Not funny. Not clever. Simply racist. Originally Posted by mrbaracuda I wonder if you were all up in arms if I made some white cracker joke about McCain or a reference to one. Most likely not, or would you? Originally Posted by Pookster I would. I am very disappointed by you racists! Why do you hate the white man?

23rd July 2008, 08:22 AM	#21
Pookster Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Southeast USA Posts: 1,788	Originally Posted by mrbaracuda It was merely an experiment. I am very disappointed by you racists! Why do you hate the white man? Experiment or not, it's still bad form. It was obvious you were just being an ass about being called out in the other thread. So, I choose to let you wallow in your own mess alone when you made that post.

23rd July 2008, 08:26 AM	#22
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716	Originally Posted by Puppycow There is a trade-off in troops between Iraq and Afghanistan in that we cannot increase troops for one country (without even longer duty-tours) until we reduce them in the other. I'm curious, Puppycow. Why does Obama have to pull all 32 combat brigades (assuming 2 per month over 16 months as he says) out of Iraq if he's only going to put 2 into Afghanistan?
BeAChooser Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,716

23rd July 2008, 09:26 AM	#23
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Germany Posts: 3,799	Originally Posted by Pookster Experiment or not, it's still bad form. It was obvious you were just being an ass about being called out in the other thread. So, I choose to let you wallow in your own mess alone when you made that post. What a strange person you are.