Troop Surge

Discussion in 'Politics' started by BSAM, Jan 9, 2007.

  1. BSAM


    I wonder if anyone ever believed that Little George was ever going to do anything but escalate the war? He's been saying all along, for the past couple of months, that he was meeting with people and considering their views. Bullsh#t.

    Then when he started saying that it would take him until after the new year to make a decision, you had to know what was up. He had his mind made up all along.
    #11     Jan 9, 2007
  2. lindq


    Here's the bottom line, citizens. George Bush will do WHATEVER it takes to avoid admitting defeat...and to pass the problem along to the next administration. And if that takes putting 20,000 more lives and limbs at risk, then so be it. He will do it.

    And because he is a creation of the republican party, they are equally happy to pass the problem along.

    To put it clearly in trading terms, he is ready and willing to double down on his lost bet, so that he can avoid the emotional and political fallout from a defeat. He'd make a terrible trader.

    A truly sad result, IMHO, is that he will ride off into the sunset and go fishing, leaving a historically disasterous mess to others to clean up, and he will pay no penalty whatsoever.
    #12     Jan 9, 2007
  3. 20,000 troops, thats not escalating the war, thats supplying more chefs and bureacrats to deal with what's already there.

    Its a practically meaningless ccommitment, maybe just as many as he thought he could get support for?
    Virtually an ambit claim, if you like?
    #13     Jan 9, 2007
  4. 20K extra bodies in Iraq equals about 4000 of whom are in a position to fight within a combat arms MOS.

    Does anyone of sound mind think that an additional 4000 triggers are gonna do jack squat in the attempt to stem the tide in the Iraqi Civil War?

    This is joke wrapped in a cream puff served from the Bush Administration to the American consumers of retail news outlets in the great hope of placating the idiot rabble in this country.

    Nut and all.

    #14     Jan 10, 2007
  5. Well, i object to being called a nutbag. Or a creampuff.

    This situation is much more like a jelly donut, wrapped in a bagel, surrounded by a sponge cake,
    in a larger blancmange of truffles and , perhaps, some sort of smelly cheese.

    With a surprisingly large extra sprinkling of chocolate chips, due entirely to the original recipe being so damn awful.

    #15     Jan 10, 2007
  6. Well do please Pardon me. Yes, .........where are my manners. I quite defer to your Baker's medley....especially when done in some sort of smelly cheese.

    By all means...carry on. And do make us prowd.

    #16     Jan 10, 2007

  7. Hmmmm, you know..........i think i shant, such is the gorgonzola policy demonstrated thus far.

    But it does demonstrate, no matter how much bread you got, you leave it ferment long enough,
    your only gonna be left with smelly cheese and mouldy bread, spread too thin at that, to make a cohesive ahhh.........
    um, thing, out of it.
    #17     Jan 10, 2007
  8. BSAM

    This has been suggested in the past. First off, your #4 wouldn't really be a criterion for a win in Iraq since it would happen as a result of a win. This is shown by suggesting that we pull all the troops out now - that wouldn't be a win, right? Re: #2 and # 3, my view is that it is next to impossible to achieve these goals through military action. The key is the misunderstanding of the historical enmity between the various factions there. Saddam's Iraq was (relatively) free of sectarian violence because everyone knew that he would simply eliminate anyone who got too rowdy, and more importantly, their mothers and fathers and children. He had the entire power of the state behind him.

    The presence of the US is an irritant in Iraq - it will only prolong the violence. It will not serve to reduce it, ever (unless the US is willing to go in with 500,00 as you have said, and make it a police state, and even then it wouldn't shut down the violence completely).
    #18     Jan 10, 2007
  9. The Bush Surge, and his speech tonight are probably Dead On Arrival.

    While the Dems don't know wtf to say -- some key, seasoned Republican Senators are now opposing him.

    Think of the mid term campaign last fall as a trial which the administration lost. Any presumption of innocence and competence is now gone in the court of US public opinion. Only 26% or near that approve of the Iraq policy. About all he can do tonight is try to tell the truth in his appeal to us. Any deception or jive this evening and his numbers go lower so he better give the speech of his life.

    Can't believe that cocksucker Haig on CNBC thought this will work. In his day, they could get away with losing 1-200 men a week. Not anymore.
    #19     Jan 10, 2007
  10. Pekelo


    Since it looks like we can't have both at the same time, most Americans would go for stable, which probably doesn't mean democratic.

    Philosophically speaking, what is this big obsession with democracy anyway?
    #20     Jan 10, 2007