Greg Roach's Berkshires Blog
Friday, August 24, 2007
  Imagine That!
Reducing US Troops in Iraq's Anbar Province appears to be resulting in reduced violence in that region.

Who woulda' thunk it?!?!

Oh yeah, the 60%+ of the American people who think that our continued presence in Iraq makes things worse.

Too bad W ain't one of them. He's too busy trying to finagle these numbers so they look like they are the result of the troop escalation. I guess he hopes that Americans don't know how to read a map.
Could it be that the troop reduction was because of a reduction in violence-while the troops were there???? as opposed to a violent area- and when the troops pulled out the violence abated???--let's chickne and egg this----is the sectarian violence in Iraq a result of US troop presence?? If the troops pulled out would that sectarian violence cease?--whatch think?? chbpod
Read the articles. Lot's of troops pulled out to "surge" in Baghdad. The reductions are being attributed to tribal leaders taking control of their territories after the Americans left. There is no chicken, only egg.
All i know is that the anti-Bush people would like to have you believe this---and maybe because the tribal leaders were taking control-- there was no further need of US Troops---you can put whatever spin on this you like----but the leftie goal is to get all troops out of Iraq--question would the tribal leaders have taken control without the initial presence of US troops??? of course not that's why US troops were in there in the first place---if there had been control-- US troops would not have been wasted in that area--there are bigger fish to fry--you do know how to fry a fish don't you???? You just put your lips together and whistle-- chbpod
Anonymous --
Is it truly your position, as your post seems to imply by saying, "... the leftie goal is to get all troops out of Iraq...," that our goal is to keep our troops in Iraq? For how long? For what purpose? At what cost?

Our troops originally were sent there to find "weapons of mass destruction" and to prevent "mushroom clouds" from rising from our cities. Are these goals not accomplished after four years of looking?

What is your, or your president's, goal in keeping troops in Iraq? The major purpose of our troops is to do what is best for our country. What benefits can you name that can justify the costs of the war to date? Or the future costs of keeping troops there until an undisclosed or unknown future date?

Clark, If you had read the articles you would have read the analysis that the stability is coming from the tribal/religious factions planning for a post-American-Occupation Iraq. The only thing we did is give them guns.

With less occupation, there is no longer a common enemy.

Based upon the fact that I have seen and read your various past commentaries about how you believe that W is great and bold President for protecting the United States, I take your current views on the subject with grain of salt. Maybe in 50 years your interpretation will prevail, but I highly doubt it.
I personally think that W is an idiot---but I unlike you or Peter May I do not hate the guy--thus my reading of anything that comes before me is somewhat less than whacko prejudiced---of course taht link was to a whacko left wing "progressive" website---why didn;t you link me up to Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan?? --- chbpod
I am so sorry Greg- that in 50 years "my view" may prevail---how nice of you to put an interpretative target date well out of my longevity---of course all that is moot-- according to Al Gore we will all be under water by 2057------so who will be around to care??? chbpod
I know that you love to lump me in with some kind of stereotypical left wing goof, but the fact is that I am quite independent and quite a bit more conservative than you might think - depending on the issue.

I am glad that you think that W is an idiot. That is quite a switch from a couple of years ago.

And I doubt we'll be underwater in 2057, but beachfront property will do. There's a good chance I'll still be around.
It's not really a switch---I never suspected that once Saddam was toppled- which I knew we could do that we would have any success in nation building in a tribal civilization--so Bush was an idiot--but he was my idiot--as predicted by the left our presence would be a magnet for terrorists---if Al Qeada was not present in Iraq during Saddam's rule-- they sure would be there once we got there----and this I found to be a GOOD - thing rather have our military fight them there than have them killing our civilians here--PS I voted for John Kerry and John Olver--maybe in some respects you and I are not all that different in terms of politics---liberal some times conservative others depending on the issue----probably why I group you in with far left moonbats is that much of the political postings here do tend to have a liberal flavor----chbpod
Post a Comment

<< Home
A blog of random thoughts and reactions emanating from the bank of a mountain stream in the farthest reaches of the bluest of blue states.

May 2006 / June 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / September 2007 / October 2007 / November 2007 / December 2007 / January 2008 / February 2008 / March 2008 / April 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / July 2008 / August 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / January 2009 / February 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / May 2009 / June 2009 / July 2009 / August 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / November 2009 / December 2009 / January 2010 / February 2010 / March 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010 / January 2011 / May 2011 / June 2011 / July 2011 / October 2011 /

greg at gregoryroach dot com

"Livability, not just affordability." - Dick Alcombright

My ongoing campaign for North Adams City Council

iBerkshires' Online Event Calendar

Because a Chart is Worth 1000 Words

Congressional Budget Office data

Powered by Blogger