New is in the strategy, the use, they are put to. Before we held no position and were reactive, now there is a proactive plan to increase the security of Baghdad and to increase the speed of Iraqi training...
, is now in order from that Party or they will find themselves shocked that America isn't believing them any longer.
I'm sure it does. It is, however, a definitive change in the past strategy used in Iraq. As I said, there is plenty of reason to argue against it, but pretending it doesn't exist and that it wasn't in the report are both disingenuous, pretentious, and clearly underline the partisan nature of the criticism. You'd have to not understand English to be unable to see the change, and clearly most people in the US do actually speak English. Therefore instead of attempting to spend energy saying what is happening isn't, it would behoove the D party to react to reality and give reasons that the change is a bad idea.
Because in no time have the troops been allowed to enter certain areas of Baghdad or to hold them when they did. They have been working police actions and have been reactionary.
Once again, it is in the implementation. When you were in Viet Nam did you ever wish the Government would get out of it and let the military run the show as they would while trying to actually win? This is basically that... The military will be allowed to enter and take out people who try to kill them rather than having certain areas off-limits and certain people untouchable.
I honestly don't really care if you "buy" it or not. It is clearly a change in strategy to allow them to enter the previously off-limits area and to take the fight proactive rather than solely reactive with certain off-limits targets.
Once again, it doesn't matter that you "don't buy into it", what matters is that people are not so stupid to believe that something that is a change is the same. It isn't. Wo whether or not you think there will be a different result from the change doesn't mean beans if you are attempting to convince the rest of the people of something.I don't buy in to it Damo....
I will give you that this may be skipping instead of hopping, but there is no major change in any strategy and there still is no end in site to president bush's plans with the surge.... there is no end game plan.
it is same ole same ole....
the only thing different is that now they have been given PERMISSION TO KILL SUNNIS or SHIITES in their homes.....including alot of collateral damage deaths, for certain....to come!
and with only 20k more they still will not help the security situation there and it will put them RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of this Civil War....imo!
I am arguing the argument Damo, it is not against you and your statements personally.... ok?
I often see you do this....take it for what it is worth, but no lack of respect is intended!!!!!!
Care
No, spin would be an attempt to make it the "same" as before when it clearly is not. That is spin, and foolish to continue. There are better reasons than, "It is the same thing." (which is all I've heard so far from the Ds) when it isn't and they aren't fooling anyone except the choir.
It can. However, the facts suggest that this is a different strategy, so spin would be attempting to make it 'more of the same'.
Whatever. I gave my warning. When there is a clear difference in tactics attempting to sell the, "it's more of the same" will not work as it has in the past. It isn't 'more of the same' and people will see through that quickly. A different tactic in argument will be necessary for you, otherwise you make the same mistake you attempt to blame Bush for... Not reacting and changing to reality.