spanone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-02-08 08:54 AM
Original message |
lied to again....u.s special ops were in basra all along |
|
as i was leaving the house this morning barbara starr on cnn said the pentagon just had a press conference where they admitted that u.s. troops were in basra all along......
so this tells us that even with u.s. troops in basra the iraqis couldn't defeat al sadr
|
gratuitous
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-02-08 09:01 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Well, fog of war and all that |
|
Hard to tell who's where all the time. And it wasn't a loss, it was a TIE! And Al Sadr isn't brokering a peace, he's, uh, surrendering. Or something.
|
Solly Mack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-02-08 09:06 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Keane said several days ago...at the start of the recent blow up |
|
that the US was already looking to be in Basra...and hoping to "urge" Britain to "surge" there
that they were going to finish an offensive in Mosul and then move to Basra...which meant that US troops (forward and others, specialty forces) were already in Basra. US troops don't generally move into any region/area "cold"... there's almost always a forward advance(special forces, intelligence, psy-ops).
Keane created the "surge", by the way.
Also, his talking point was "there is no political strategy"..."Iraq needs a security strategy" ...which boost Bush's and McCain's "stay the course" talking point...and belittles any person calling for a "political strategy" in Iraq.
|
butterfly77
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Apr-02-08 09:14 AM
Response to Original message |
3. and the British were too.. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:34 AM
Response to Original message |