In this 'strategy', Pelosi proposes that we basically take our army as if it were in a dog fight, the US army being our dog, and basically shoot it in the leg so that it gets it's @$$ kicked before we throw in the towel. She proposes we cut funding by huge amounts (this being while we still have our troops in Iraq) and then spend the funds on other stuff, during war-time nonetheless.
In response, just simply tell me one adjective to describe this so-called strategy. I'm putting my vote in for "Irresponsible"
2007-03-10 18:50:54 · 8 answers · asked by The Crow 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Okay Rhio, so it's brilliant to get more of our troops killed over in Iraq and then vote for someone cruel enough to do such a thing?
2007-03-10 19:29:49 · update #1
Idiotic, uneducated, uncaring, thoughtless, dangerous, homicidal, insane, moronic, sucidal . . . I could probably keep going, but I just came home from work and my brain wants to shut down for the evening (it's 3am here in the Midwest).
2007-03-10 19:02:33 · answer #1 · answered by Angie P. 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
bear in mind that each thing Nancy Pelosi says is a lie. there is not any longer too plenty to be produced from the elections. Virginia has a honest sort of Republicans. over the previous few years the two events have taken turns in power. there is not any longer something unusual approximately this result. New Jersey's governor is a dolt. The Republicans ought to be embarrassed approximately ever dropping to him interior the 1st place. The enormous apple race became into going to the Democrats anyhow, the version being could or no longer it somewhat is a precise Democrat or a Republican that looks, walks, and talks purely like a Democrat.
2016-12-18 19:52:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let's give ol' George W. some credit! Do we want to fight the terrorists over here or over there? I personally vote for over there. Look what happened in 9/11! As Staples says,
"that was easy"! And, it could be just that easy next time around! Let's do what we can in Iraq and Afganistan to rid the world of these a**holes and get on with life. Nancy hasn't got a clue along with the rest of the liberals!!!
2007-03-10 19:11:03 · answer #3 · answered by rockyboyrussell 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Unfortuanately, making some sort of appeasement to nutjobs is part of her job.
Cutting funding in such a manner gives Bush more than enough time to develop an exit strategy. So ah--what's the plan???????????
To prop up a minority puppet Government that will perpetuate genocide by all means in order to maintain our military presence and protect our Big Oil Conglomerate's financial interests?
That's what happening and everything he's done so far regarding a solution points in that direction. Too bad, that's not the solution, nevermind what ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND SEES AS AN IMPOSSIBILITY--but we'll just keep on killing and maintaining the ability to kill until it works out--I gotcha--that'll work.
2007-03-10 19:15:50 · answer #4 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
George Bush doesn't have to send the U.S. troops home and Pelosi could completely threatening the whole Democratic Party in the upcomming presidential elections. She could be voted out of her position be the Democrats if she kept those ideas up.
2007-03-10 19:07:54 · answer #5 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The word I would choose for YOUR description for what she is proposing is "inaccurate". You setup a "straw man" and knock it down.
What is your proposal? We should stay in Iraqi and bleed money and American lives for the next 5 decades with no coherent strategy because it remains "true" to the "spirit" of the poor unfortunate souls that George W. already sent to their demise in Iraqi for no good reason?
2007-03-10 19:04:42 · answer #6 · answered by Casey88 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Treason.
2007-03-10 18:58:28 · answer #7 · answered by Lt. Dan reborn 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Let's see..........."brilliant" comes to mind.
2007-03-10 19:16:20 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋