Which way will we go?

[2pac Shakur]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Pentagon panel has outlined three basic options for improving the situation in Iraq -- pull out, send more U.S. troops or reduce the size of the force but stay longer, The Washington Post reported on Monday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061120/ts_nm/iraq_usa_options_dc_2

I'm guessing go home is definitely out.
Go big is most likely.
Go long is a strong 2nd.

Remember, this is about freedumb, not money.

[Judge Dredd]

Like Troy Smith to Teddy Ginn...go long baby.

[Guest]

I don't think there will be a draft, so I think increasing troops is unlikely.

I don't think the nuances of the "stay longer" plan are going to get much support - i.e., it sounds pretty much like "stay the course". Politicians won't support it.

So I think "come home" is most likely. I think it will begin in 6 to 9 months, and we'll be as out of there as we ever will be in two years.

[The President]

McCain will win in 08, and we will go big in 09. Until then, we stay the course.

[Levin]

Like Troy Smith to Teddy Ginn...go long baby.
I love how they took an option that is more analogous to a grind-em-out running game, and tried to make it sound like an 80 yard pass play.

[2pac Shakur]

Let’s not forget that this is Bush’s and Cheney’s war and occupation. It was they who chose not to go to Congress for the constitutionally required declaration of war, no doubt convinced that some sharp members of Congress would challenge their WMD justification for attacking Iraq. It was they who ultimately chose not to go to the United Nations for express authorization to wage war against a member country, no doubt convinced that they could not secure the required unanimous consent of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. It was they who decided not to give the UN inspectors more time to search for what turned out to be nonexistent WMDs. It was they who ignored and disregarded massive anti-war protests around the world. It was they who knew that as soon as they ordered the invasion, Americans would come on board through the skillful use of the "support the troops" mantra.

And the fact is that Bush and Cheney got exactly what they wanted, especially when they openly dared "the terrorists" to "bring it on." They just miscalculated the depth of anger and hatred that people in the Middle East have for the United States after decades of U.S. government abuse and mistreatment of people in that part of the world.

Hanging over the Iraq debacle, however, is that one overriding moral issue that unfortunately all too many Americans have yet to confront: neither the Iraqi people nor their government ever attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. That means that in this conflict, which has killed more than 600,000 Iraqis, the United States is the aggressor nation and Iraq is the defending nation.

Why is that issue so important? Because it involves morality, not pragmatics. Do U.S. troops have the moral right to be killing people, when they are part of a military force that has aggressed against another country? Do they have the moral right to kill people who have done nothing worse than defend their nation from attack or attempt to oust an occupier from their midst? Does simply calling an action "war" excuse an aggressor nation from the moral consequences of killing people in that war?

http://www.uruknet.com/?p=m28431&hd=&size=1&l=e