Go Big, Long, Home. So the first two options require more troops

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)

babylonsister

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-20-06 01:51 PM
Original message

Go Big, Long, Home. So the first two options require more troops

into Iraq. Why would anyone agree to those? Isn't that what we're all trying to prevent, sending more soldiers to be fodder for this illegal war?

Is this a shot across the bow from the Pentagon to get us used to the idea before implementing it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.