NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I am personally against a timetable. Obviously telling the terrorists when we are planning to leave will only allow them to have free reign to attack Iraq after we withdraw, and such an occurance would drastically reduce our own political ability to fight terrorism.

BUT...I have just had a thought. I want Bush to lie.

I want him to tell the American people that he has set a timetable for a withdrawl of a majority of U.S. military personel by January of 2008.

This will be the lie.

The U.S. will engage in deceptive efforts to make it appear as though we are getting ready to pull out. In reality, we'll simply be lying in wait. This would be difficult, but if the military leaders get a free hand to plan such an operation, I'm sure we could make it seem like we had all but left the country, aside from any "training forces" we left behind.

When the terrorists make their move, we'll be waiting for them. This would certainly allow us to fight an "offensive" in a defensive manner. Coupled with the increased amount of Iraqi Government forces, and proper defense of likely insurgent targets...it just might break the back of the insurgency.

Now granted, the political fallout from not adhering to a publicly announced timetable of withrdrawl could be significant...but if in can be demonstrated that significant damage had been done to insurgents in Iraq, to the point where it has shortened the amount of time the U.S. actually needs to be in Iraq...then it just might mean good things for the Republicans later that year.

Besides, if it doesn't work, it's not like Bush needs to worry about being reelected anyways.

So...any thoughts?

okay, had to post this somewhere...

I realize that since it's from Fox News, many of you might doubt its validity... but the fact is, some 15 or 16 house members went to Gitmo to see how things are run, and this Fox correspondent went with them.

If you scroll down about halfway, she starts talking about two interrogations she witnessed.

one of the detainees was cooperating and everything was apparently fine

another detainee was not cooperating at all... and the method used by the US interrogator was to read a Harry Potter book to him.

So that's one torture method we're using.

Note: Brit Hume does not know how to conduct an interview. lol... notice all the starts and stops in his dialogue.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160919,00.html

If Ms. Lee endorses it then it must be ok. She's liberal and has been an outspoken critic of Gimo and the administration since day one.

So, I am personally against a timetable. Obviously telling the terrorists when we are planning to leave will only allow them to have free reign to attack Iraq after we withdraw, and such an occurance would drastically reduce our own political ability to fight terrorism.

BUT...I have just had a thought. I want Bush to lie.

I want him to tell the American people that he has set a timetable for a withdrawl of a majority of U.S. military personel by January of 2008.

This will be the lie.

The U.S. will engage in deceptive efforts to make it appear as though we are getting ready to pull out. In reality, we'll simply be lying in wait. This would be difficult, but if the military leaders get a free hand to plan such an operation, I'm sure we could make it seem like we had all but left the country, aside from any "training forces" we left behind.

When the terrorists make their move, we'll be waiting for them. This would certainly allow us to fight an "offensive" in a defensive manner. Coupled with the increased amount of Iraqi Government forces, and proper defense of likely insurgent targets...it just might break the back of the insurgency.

Now granted, the political fallout from not adhering to a publicly announced timetable of withrdrawl could be significant...but if in can be demonstrated that significant damage had been done to insurgents in Iraq, to the point where it has shortened the amount of time the U.S. actually needs to be in Iraq...then it just might mean good things for the Republicans later that year.

Besides, if it doesn't work, it's not like Bush needs to worry about being reelected anyways.

So...any thoughts?


What I think is silly about that is the fact that the insurgents are not waiting for anythign to attack. They are attacking daily with no sign of letting up. our politicians at home may be saying that we are winning the war with insurgents and things are getting better but that is just for their popularity contest. Generals in Iraq are saying that we are at a stalemate and nothing is letting up.

Although perhaps you are right that if we say we are going to leave in a couple years no matter what, maybe the insurgents will let up for a while to wait for that time to attack and that will give us time to train more iraqi security forces and time to build up their infrastructure and then when we pull out and the insurgents do try to attack again the security forces will be ready and we will be just offshore with whatever support they may need.

Hmm an interesting idea.. We could tell the Iraqi's we are leaving in 2008 and then leave behind a mysterious giant wooden horse for Zarquawi (sp?) or maybe a camel, and then come nightfall while the giant camel is in the insurgent compound KABLAMO!.

brilliant!