She didn't f*ck me.JudgeKing wrote:Sarah Palin admits to f**king everyone.
![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
Don't worry - if McCain and Palin are elected, we'll all be f*cked.Nutso wrote:She didn't f*ck me.
Yeah, and then they won't even call.Mikey wrote:Don't worry - if McCain and Palin are elected, we'll all be f*cked.Nutso wrote:She didn't f*ck me.
Tsukiyumi wrote:Yeah, and then they won't even call.Mikey wrote:Don't worry - if McCain and Palin are elected, we'll all be f*cked.Nutso wrote:She didn't f*ck me.
Whereas if Obama's elected Iraq in the sort term, and the west in the longer term will be fucked.Mikey wrote:Don't worry - if McCain and Palin are elected, we'll all be f*cked.
There isn't a specific line. The key to Iraq, as with any counterinsurgency, isn't completely ending the violence, but reducing it to a level manageable by civilian security forces. In the case of the coalition, the point at which a proper withdrawal could realistically begin would be once the Iraqis are in control of day-to-day operations in all provinces. Even then, it would have to be carefully managed, to maintain overwatch support and to be ready to move back in in force if the Iraqis requested it.Grundig wrote:I can't see any clearly-drawn line we'll have to cross in order to say we've 'won.' Iraq's own goverment has started suggesting some sort of draw-down of US forces, haven't they?
I can accept this explanation. In Iraq's case though, I just don't see how long-term stability and autonomy can be achieved without huge reconciliation between the opposing Iraqi sects. However that ends up happening, our occupation doesn't seem to be a step in that direction.Captain Seafort wrote:There isn't a specific line. The key to Iraq, as with any counterinsurgency, isn't completely ending the violence, but reducing it to a level manageable by civilian security forces. In the case of the coalition, the point at which a proper withdrawal could realistically begin would be once the Iraqis are in control of day-to-day operations in all provinces. Even then, it would have to be carefully managed, to maintain overwatch support and to be ready to move back in in force if the Iraqis requested it.Grundig wrote:I can't see any clearly-drawn line we'll have to cross in order to say we've 'won.' Iraq's own goverment has started suggesting some sort of draw-down of US forces, haven't they?
Agreed!That idiot is the single serious concern I have about McCain. Her appointment raises serious questions about his judge of character, and raises the spectre of what would happen if he kicked the bucket mid-term.Palin scares the living hell out of me though, and I really want to keep her and those like her away from DC.
Agreed. However, the long-term stability of the country isn't something that can be achieved in the middle of a civil war. Therefore the insurgency has to be gripped before a political solution can be hammered out. Take the Sunni tribes for example. Their insurgency was stopped dead by a combination the surge, a decent wage to help maintain security in Anbar, and AQ outstaying their welcome. Mainly the latter. That couldn't have been achieved without the US presence to act as an intermediary. The next stage is to integrate the militias into the Iraqi security forces - something al-Maliki is dragging his heels on, and needs to be given a clip round the ear for. Al-Sadr poses a similar problem, especially as the Mahdi Army is the largest and best organised militia in the country. Integrating him and his band of thugs into the government and security forces won't be easy.Grundig wrote:I can accept this explanation. In Iraq's case though, I just don't see how long-term stability and autonomy can be achieved without huge reconciliation between the opposing Iraqi sects. However that ends up happening, our occupation doesn't seem to be a step in that direction.