Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

Subject: mutually exclusive

BC, you wrote:

> Are those positions mutually exclusive?
> If she brings home 130,000 troops and leaves 20,000 there in a non-combat role,
> isn't she bringing the troops home while keeping enough troops there to protect our interests?
Yes, they are. I'm all for the Democratic front-runner, but your responses to any Hillary criticism, 
including valid criticism like that of giants like Helen Thomas, is getting silly.

I assume you'll be able to back that up?
We can't keep the suicide bombers out of Baghdad with 140,000 troops. 

We've never tried.
We're fighting a land war in Asia where they can replenish troops, supplies and suiciders at will.
A ring around Baghdad would stop that.

What are 20,000 going to do except get shot at and probably get run out of the country completely. 

Did you read what I wrote?
Sounds like you read every third paragraph.

Imagine this disaster at the beginning of a Clinton presidency - trying to evacuate a residual force
stupidly left behind, with thousands of soliders dying over the course of a few nightmarish days.

What are you talking about?
How are they going to kill even one solider in the ring around Baghdad?
Since there are no civilians walking in the desert, the troops are free to blast anything that moves.
There's also no buildings to hide behind or cars to fill with explosives.
With infra-red and heat-detection technology - how will they sneak up on us? 
Did you think about what you were going to say before you typed and hit "Send?"

My solution is to get out, period. 

Your solution is to give Al Qaeda $300M a day?
I'm glad you're not the president.

It's going to fly apart anyway as soon as there aren't enough troops to maintain 
what little order there is. Letting it fly apart while you sit in the middle isn't a solution.

Who's sitting in the middle?
Are you crazy?

When you reply to something I've written, you're supposed to use that as a base.
Making up shit I never said and then asking me to defend it is not rational behavior.
The army is cracking under the strain of occupation. 

Because they're occupying a city of 5M people who hate them.
That's not the case in my scenario - one you apparently didn't bother to read 
before you made the decision to shoot your mouth off and call my idea "silly."

When you're down to your last chips, it's time to fold or go all in.

Is giving Al Qaeda $300M a day a valid option?

Send e-mail to Bart  |  Discuss it on The BartCop ForumComment on it at the BartBlog

Back to

Privacy Policy
. .