quote:

IF we have needed more troops in Iraq for a while, and all indications seem to suggest that:

quote:

Can you say or spell: DRAFT?

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

They call the administration monkeyboy and act as though they are all fools, etc

quote:

All that said, I clearly think Sinergy and Co. are incorrect in how they assess this war. They call the administration monkeyboy and act as though they are all fools, etc ...
 
I give them more credit than that. I don't think they are fools and I don't think they are fucking this up. I think they are evil and have exactly the sort of war they want ... one that will go on, and on, and on ... so their buddies can line their pockets. They will send more troops to Iraq, and watch where they send them ... not on the Iranian border where they can do some good ... they will put them in Baghdad where they wll make nice targets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

Forget about the many different faces of Bush, Rumy and Shotgun. Look at the underlying neocon doctrine and the philosophy it was built upon. Look closely.... You'll see a guy by name of Leo Strauss staring back at you.

The Strauss philosophy / doctrine is one built on the principle that wages ''endless war'' { Someone tell me they haven't heard a neocon use the phrase ''the long war'' [8|] } and uses religion and politics as a means of disseminating myths that keep the general population in clueless servitude.

Oh, they've made some pretty dumb mistakes, but they're not stupid by a long shot. Remember, it's not an easy task installing satellite governments and straw men all over the globe ; }

quote:


Maybe we should have figured out a way to give the Iraqis 'balls' instead of training... but then they didn't ask us to go over there in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn





Assuming we were foolish enough to go in the first place, we should have sent enough troops to secure the border with Iran. As was explained to me, the Iranian imported IED's are the real problem child for US troops.
 
The second thing we needed/need to do, is stop emposing self limits that damage the effort. We have done this so many times in our history, always with poor results, and yet we make this mistake again and again. In this instance, we refuse to use air power on the Iranian border, because of fear that a random bomb will fall in to Iran. We shouldn't fear bringing Iran into the conflict. Iran is already in the conflict.
 
All that said, I clearly think Sinergy and Co. are incorrect in how they assess this war. They call the administration monkeyboy and act as though they are all fools, etc ...
 
I give them more credit than that. I don't think they are fools and I don't think they are fucking this up. I think they are evil and have exactly the sort of war they want ... one that will go on, and on, and on ... so their buddies can line their pockets. They will send more troops to Iraq, and watch where they send them ... not on the Iranian border where they can do some good ... they will put them in Baghdad where they wll make nice targets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
The weakness of the Loyalists or protestants was because they were 'loyal' for a reason of a pay off, rather than intrinsically loyal. They wanted the rest of the UK to secure them a tract of land on which they could govern themselves, a protestant land for a protestant people. Well being part of the UK is one thing but expecting the UK to secure them a tract of land where they could discriminate against another group of people was another matter. The protestants had the option of direct rule from Westminster in the early 70s when the nationalists would have probably accepted that arrangement. The protestants rejected it. Then along came the Sunningdale power sharing agreement. The protestant rejected it. Thirty years later came the Anglo-Irish agreement or as some have called it, Sunningdale for slow learners. The protestants got what they did because they rejected everything else.

If the US doesn't want to be in Iraq for the next 30 years, the best they can do is neutralise the best they can the worst violence and then make both sides come to some power sharing agreement even if it takes holding a gun to their heads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
I think Monkeyboy is a fool.  I think he is a self-involved, ignorant, illiterate, easily-angered, vindictive, messianistic, wanna-be dictator who surrounds himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear.  He is a man who holds grudges forever, never forgets a face or a slight, and is easily angered.  People who allow their emotions to control them tend to encounter people who control them using their emotions.  Monkeyboy's entire life is replete with examples of this sort of behavior.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
I think Monkeyboy is a fool.  I think he is a self-involved, ignorant, illiterate, easily-angered, vindictive, messianistic, wanna-be dictator who surrounds himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear.  He is a man who holds grudges forever, never forgets a face or a slight, and is easily angered.  People who allow their emotions to control them tend to encounter people who control them using their emotions.  Monkeyboy's entire life is replete with examples of this sort of behavior.

And that makes him different from almost any other politician in what way????[:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

Everything we professed to want for those people, and the world, will be lost - and at a great price in human suffering, now and for the foreseeable future, there and around the world.
.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I dont recall anybody using the words "illiterate," "wanna-be dictator," or "easily angered" to describe Clinton, Carter, Wilson, Jackson, etc.

These men were all highly educated, did not wish to rule the world, and were more interested in creating consensus than conflict.