schnurrbart said:
Red Robin said:
I guess you're right. The ones that stay don't have sense enough to realize they're riding a dead horse.
You need to quit throwing a saddle on it and we'll quit. The dead horse is in the White House and it stinks. Speaking of dead horses, saw today that now there is some confusion about how many 21500 really is. Seems some general questioned whether that was 21500 "combat" troops or 21500 "soldiers". Big difference! 21500 combat troops would require a total of about 50000 soldiers because of the support troops needed. Wish they would explain that to the American public.
Do you want him to explain the exact locations of these troops and exactly what missions they will be going on? Are you going to be at the docks with a clicker to see exactly how many get on and off the boats?
All I need to know is he is sending more troops to try to hold areas that are lost once the fighting moves on to other areas. Good enough! The exact amount should have no stopping point. Just send them until they have enough to contain the areas in question.
Seems people like you only care about the fine specifics because you are looking for something to point a finger at Bush for. I seriously doubt your concern involves the well being of the Troops themselves. :roll: