Anybody here believe we should put 20,000 more troops in Iraq? I don't. I'd come way more near supporting 500,000 more troops going into Iraq than a mere 20,000. My stance is fight to WIN or bring 'em all home!
20000 more soldiers deployed to Iraq - undoubtedly with their hands tied, I am wondering with this commander and chief: will they even be armed??
Democracy? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAA!!! If you get in the way of the War Machine profits, you are the enemy! Vote all you want, they won't listen to us. It just keeps us passive. ----------------------------------------------------------- Public Opposes Troop Surge by 61% to 36% Margin" January 09, 2007 Public Opposes Troop Surge by 61% to 36% Margin Support primarily among Republican base by Frank Newport GALLUP NEWS SERVICE PRINCETON, NJ -- President Bush http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26080
I think General Abizaid leaving is a good move. You donât put a guy in charge all because heâs an Arab. Stupid. Political Correctness is established in every aspect of government, which is scary. PC is the ONLY reason we are having trouble in Iraq, and itâs a difficult thing to undo, even as president, when itâs firmly entrenched systemically in every level of bureaucracy. To me, the change of the generals is far more important than the 20,000 troops. And yet, even the generals probably canât break the shackles of Institutional PC. Adding 100,000 more troops may have a calming effect since Iraqis respond to a presence of authority. But we have to have more control, otherwise Iran will always be interfering. But we need enough people in power to give the Global Left and their PC the middle finger and look at the history books and study the success stories of British imperialism. Letâs face it, Iraqis canât govern themselves unless Iran does it for them, have another Saddam, or a large American presence controlling the highest levels of government and infrastructure. Iraq has a shit load of oil and the natural resource geopolitics is going against Americaâs favor in a BIG way.
In my opinion an win in Iraq will be when the Iraqi people will live in relative peace and harmony (better off then under Saddam as a benchmark), stable economy (before the Gulf War 1 as a benchmark) and will have a secular govt. I am not sure if the US can help Iraq achieve those goals, but if we can then I will consider the US has won in Iraq.
A total win in Iraq goes like this: 1, Removal of Saddam Hussein. 2. A stable democratically elected government. 3. Huge decrease in violence in Iraq. 4. U.S. troops out of Iraq. I think that pretty well sums it up. Numbers 2,3, & 4 not looking too good.
Allowing Big Oil pocket 75% of Iraqi oil profit? http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={09CFDDFD-E299-4659-A8C3-5ADE6E26579E} "A draft of this controversial law, which the U.S. government has been helping to craft and has been seen by the Independent, ... would allow Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. However, opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95% of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty, the Independent reported." I guess once this law is passed by the Iraqi parliarment (probably under the gun), our troops have to stay there to enforce this law.
In my view, this just reveals more about who Little George Bush really is. How many press conferences has he stood up there and said over and over, that he will do what his generals suggest? Then, when those generals disagreed with him, it all of a sudden got time for them to "go". So, he had to suddenly reshuffle his generals. Made him look even more like a dictator. As to the PC problem, yeah, that's what I too believe is a major stumbling block to victory in Iraq.