What's Next in Iraq?

[hm0504]

President Bush says he will announce his plans for Iraq in January.

[hm0504]

President Bush says he will announce his plans for Iraq in January.

[Qikdraw]

Bush isn't going to do anything to change. Cheney has said that the administration will ignore the senate and congress if they don't like what is coming from them.

Plus I don't think the democrats will do much. Sure they'll talk abou tit, but in the end nothing will be done. The demcorats are weak on backbone. I think they have a better idea of what is right for this country, but they just don't stand up because the right wing media will hammer them if they do. When that happens they lose their political career, and thats just a no no.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

This administration launched an invasion and occupation of a non-belligerent sovereign nation on flimsy justifications preying on the fears of decent Americans supported by a corporate media cheering section.

Their miscalculations have had catastrophic consequences: 2,900 America GIs dead and more than 20,000 wounded, maimed, burned, crippled, blinded, and dismembered, 50K to 650K Iragi civilians dead, the entire Arab world given proof that their hatred of the U.S. is justified, our Amry and Marines stretched to the breaking point, military equipment depleted, world opinion of the U.S. at a historic nadir, some 50 to 80 billion dollars of taxpayer money blowing across the hot sand in the desert wind, no viable end-game or exit strategy in sight.

Why should we do anything more than a face-saving cosmetic approach of declaring victory; Saddam is gone, Iraq has a constitution, and an elected governemnet a semblence of an armya nd police, so adios MF, our job here is done?

Oh wait, we must stay the course, victory is not yet ours; there's schools to be built and roads to build. And, our gun-point injected contagious democracy has not yet spread across the region.

Hell no, he ain't gonna do much different, he can't--if he does he opens a pandora's box of political consequences.

[Naturist Mark]

Our Saudi masters have decreed that we will stay in Iraq. Therefore we will stay in Iraq.

That is why King Abdullah summoned the Vice President of the United States to Riyadh - to make it clear that he and Bush would put the interests of the Saudi royal family first.

The Iraqi civil war is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran - or more generally between Sunni and Shiite fundamentalists. The Saudi's won't tolerate a Shia dominated Iraq on its borders, which is why they supported Saddam for so long, and why they now will not allow the US to leave Iraq in the power of a Shia majority allied to Iran. They have publicly said they will support the Sunni insurgency if the US leaves (in fact they already do).

[Qikdraw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
This administration launched an invasion and occupation of a non-belligerent sovereign nation </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that is stretching it a bit. Its not like we invaded Switzerland. Saddam wasn't exactly thinking kind thoughts towards the US. However, to say that we attacked a belligerant nation with a complete jerk for a leader that was contained would be more fair.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
This administration launched an invasion and occupation of a non-belligerent sovereign nation </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that is stretching it a bit. Its not like we invaded Switzerland. Saddam wasn't exactly thinking kind thoughts towards the US. However, to say that we attacked a belligerant nation with a complete jerk for a leader that was contained would be more fair.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Iraq had not attacked us, had not offered safe haven to those who did attack us; and in truth, Israel, our "good" friend and ally, has dealt us more belligerent deeds (USS Liberty, & M. Pollard to name a couple) than had Iraq.

You're bright, and should have understood my use of "belligerent" in its diplomatic/military/international law context.

If we played smack-daddy with every country in the world who behaves belligerently toward us then we would be invading France, Germany, Israel and Russia, just to name a few...belligerent states.

[Naturist Mark]

If you are in Iraq ... whatever you do, don't turn in war criminals and profiteers to the FBI, or you could end up detained as an illegal combatant: Former U.S. Detainee in Iraq Recalls Torment (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/world/middleeast/18justice.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all)

If you have ever considered being a whistleblower ... you've been warned.

-Mark

[usmc1]

For once, maybe for the first time in my life, I am rendered absolutely speechless. The man is a drooling moron, a yammering idiot, dumber than a son-in-law, ...I am truly begining to doubt the reality of it all...I was killed in a head on and am now living in an alternate reality.

And at a cost of $100-billion more!

Insecure borders, kids without health care, good-paying jobs drifting off the India and China, oh hell, you know the deal..and this raving mad, moon-barking, nit-wit, wants to stay the course in a different way.

We'll just pump more money and more troops into an impossible situation.

Here's a news flash: If pounding yourself on the head with a ball-peen hammer does not alleviate the headache, switching to a sledge hammer ain't the answer.

I swear, if the man had a brain he'd take it out and roll it in the dirt.

I'll get back to y'awl latter, after I'm no longer speechless.

Anyway, I've got clean off my monitor and keyboard, I blew my coffee out through my nose after reading this it is so insane.

U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time
President Plans to Expand Army, Marine Corps To Cope With Strain of Multiple Deployments

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 20, 2006; A01

President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.

As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."

In another turnaround, Bush said he has ordered Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps, heeding warnings from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill that multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the armed forces toward the breaking point. "We need to reset our military," said Bush, whose administration had opposed increasing force levels as recently as this summer.

But in a wide-ranging session in the Oval Office, the president said he interpreted the Democratic election victories six weeks ago not as a mandate to bring the U.S. involvement in Iraq to an end but as a call to find new ways to make the mission there succeed. He confirmed that he is considering a short-term surge in troops in Iraq, an option that top generals have resisted out of concern that it would not help.

A substantial military expansion will take years and would not immediately affect the war in Iraq. But it would begin to address the growing alarm among commanders about the state of the armed forces. Although the president offered no specifics, other U.S. officials said the administration is preparing plans to bolster the nation's permanent active-duty military with as many as 70,000 additional troops.

A force structure expansion would accelerate the already-rising costs of war. The administration is drafting a supplemental request for more than $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the $70 billion already approved for this fiscal year, according to U.S. officials. That would be over 50 percent more than originally projected for fiscal 2007, making it by far the costliest year since the 2003 invasion.

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has approved more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as for terrorism-related operations elsewhere. An additional $100 billion would bring overall expenditures to $600 billion, exceeding those for the Vietnam War, which, adjusted for inflation, cost $549 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

For all the money, commanders have grown increasingly alarmed about the burden of long deployments and the military's ability to handle a variety of threats around the world simultaneously. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, warned Congress last week that the active-duty Army "will break" under the strain of today's war-zone rotations. Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell, a retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on CBS News's "Face the Nation" on Sunday that "the active Army is about broken."

Democrats have been calling for additional troops for years. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) proposed an increase of 40,000 troops during his 2004 campaign against Bush, only to be dismissed by the administration. As recently as June, the Bush administration opposed adding more troops because restructuring "is enabling our military to get more war-fighting capability from current end strength."

But Bush yesterday had changed his mind. "I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines," he said. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates, and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."

In describing his decision, Bush tied it to the broader struggle against Islamic extremists around the world rather than to Iraq specifically. "It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace," he said.

Bush chose a different term than Powell. "I haven't heard the word 'broken,' " he said, "but I've heard the word, 'stressed.' . . . We need to reset our military. There's no question the military has been used a lot. And the fundamental question is, 'Will Republicans and Democrats be able to work with the administration to assure our military and the American people that we will position our military so that it is ready and able to stay engaged in a long war?' "

Democrats pounced on Bush's comments. "I am glad he has realized the need for increasing the size of the armed forces . . . but this is where the Democrats have been for two years," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the new House Democratic Caucus chairman. Kerry issued a statement calling Bush's move a "pragmatic step needed to deal with the warnings of a broken military," but he noted that he opposes increasing troops in Iraq. Even before news of Bush's interview, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told reporters that the military is "bleeding" and "we have to apply the tourniquet and strengthen the forces."

The Army has already temporarily increased its force level from 482,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 to 507,000 today and soon to 512,000. But the Army wants to make that 30,000-soldier increase permanent and then add between 20,000 and 40,000 more on top of that, according to military and civilian officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Every additional 10,000 soldiers would cost about $1.2 billion a year, according to the Army. Because recruitment and training take time, officials cautioned that any boost would not be felt in a significant way until at least 2008.

Bush, who has always said that the United States is headed for victory in Iraq, conceded yesterday what Gates, Powell and most Americans in polls have already concluded. "An interesting construct that General Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing,' " Bush said, referring to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, who was spotted near the Oval Office before the interview. "There's been some very positive developments. . . . [But] obviously the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with."

Asked yesterday about his "absolutely, we're winning" comment at an Oct. 25 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. "Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win," he said.

Bush said he has not yet made a decision about a new strategy for Iraq and would wait for Gates to return from a trip there to assess the situation. "I need to talk to him when he gets back," Bush said. "I've got more consultations to do with the national security team, which will be consulting with other folks. And I'm going to take my time to make sure that the policy, when it comes out, the American people will see that we . . . have got a new way forward."

Among the options under review by the White House is sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq for six to eight months. The idea has the support of important figures such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and has been pushed by some inside the White House, but the Joint Chiefs have balked because they think advocates have not adequately defined the mission, according to U.S. officials.

The chiefs have warned that a short-term surge could lead to more attacks against U.S. troops, according to the officials, who described the review on the condition of anonymity because it is not complete. Bush would not discuss such ideas in detail but said "all options are viable."

While top commanders question the value of a surge, they have begun taking moves that could prepare for one, should Bush order it. Defense officials said yesterday that the U.S. Central Command has made two separate requests to Gates for additional forces in the Middle East, including an Army brigade of about 3,000 troops to be used as a reserve force in Kuwait and a second Navy carrier strike group to move to the Persian Gulf.

Gates has yet to approve the moves, which could increase U.S. forces in the region by as many as 10,000 troops, officials said. The previous theater reserve force, the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, was recently moved to Iraq's Anbar province to help quell insurgent violence. Gen. George W. Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, has called for the additional brigade -- likely the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division -- to be positioned to move into Iraq hotspots if needed.

The additional carrier strike group would give Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the Central Command, more flexibility in a volatile region, said one official. While such a move would certainly send a pointed message to Iran, the official said it would also allow additional strike capabilities in Iraq.

[tiger79]

You Americans get really worked up about these little international difficulties, don't you? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

[usmc1]

Well tiger old chap ever since the British Lion tucked its tail between its legs and hauled *** out of its former colonies we've been left to clean up the mess you left behind, haven't we.

And, furthermore, old boy, some of us Americans have noted that Fleet Street, the British public and Tony Blair have not behaved with complete equanimity vis-a-vis the international scene, now have they.

Cheers, see ya at Whites.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">'We're not winning, we're not losing,' " Bush said, referring to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, who was spotted near the Oval Office before the interview. "There's been some very positive developments. . . . [But] obviously the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with."

Asked yesterday about his "absolutely, we're winning" comment at an Oct. 25 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. "Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win," he said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Can anyone explain to me what 'winning' in Iraq means?

Militarily we won in the first few weeks. We defeated Iraq's armed forces and toppled the government.

But how in the hell can you win an occupation? Apparently 'returning sovreignity' to the people of the nation isn't winning. Successfully holding elections isn't winning (and their elections ran better than our own).

I guess 'winning' an occupation means making them look like us.

Not gonna happen.

I propose a new definition of 'winning' an occupation.

Leaving.

Hey, we did our part, we went to eliminate the threat of WMD's. Done. To punish Saddam for 9/11. Done. To bring democracy. Done. T'aint a pretty democracy, but neither is ours. We won, let's leave.

All we are staying for is to milk the federal teat of more billions for all the war profiteering haliburtons. We aren't there to stop the violence - the violence has increased every single month. The most dangerous month of the occupation was last month, the second msot dangerous was the month before, etc. WE AREN'T HELPING.

Yes, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others are backing various sides in the civil war, but the vast majority of the fighters are Iraqi's - they are fighting for their own reasons - not outsiders. We forced a democratic government on them, a police force, and new army - all were instantly corrupted. What we gave them is obviously not what they want.

At what point do we stop spending the lives of our troops on a fool's errand. Is it conceivable that it will stop being a fool's errand if we spend enough more lives?

Let's get the hell out. And let's make sure Iraq's neighbors stay the hell out. Let the Iraqi's work out their problems in their own ways, they always have. They will either come up with a working compromise or they'll finish their bloodbath. Yes that would be a crime, but the bloodsuckers in Washington already committed it. We can make amends by putting the criminals who started the whole mess on trial.

-Mark

[Liam]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
Cheers, see ya at Whites. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whites is my club. I'll see you there.

[usmc1]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Liam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
Cheers, see ya at Whites. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whites is my club. I'll see you there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wonderful, if you're there before I, tell my old pal, Alan Trewick, I said to "bugger off".

[hm0504]

Here's where we're at presently. Still a good number expecting no major changes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Results (17 votes counted so far):
What do you think will happen during the first half of 2007 in Iraq?
8 (47%)
No major change in direction
5 (29%)
Significant American troop buildup and engagement
3 (18%)
Gradual withdrawal
1 (6%)
Other </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps I'm optimistic, but I still think with a few million troops and and a few trillion dollars more, the U.S. could win in Iraq.

[Liam]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Liam:
Whites is my club. I'll see you there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wonderful, if you're there before I, tell my old pal, Alan Trewick, I said to "bugger off". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Will do! I suspect that I won't get back there for quite some time. I do miss my old haunts.

[nacktman]

Well, the shrub has accomplished one thing in Iraq thus far ... he has murdered more Americans than those that died in the collapsing towers of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 ... in fact he's responsible for more murders than the entire total for that day.

What's next you say?

Well, there's an old tee-shirt slogan that sums it up nicely ...

<span class="ev_code_BROWN">SSDD</span> <span class="ev_code_BROWN">Same Sh!t, Different Day!</span>

[hickory1945]

Mark;
You say lets get the hell out of Iraq. I agree.
Then you say lets make sure their neighbors stay the hell out. How do we accomplish that?
I see that as a huge problem, militants from outside with plenty of money and weapons supplied by other countries will really tear Iraq apart.
Hickory

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">militants from outside with plenty of money and weapons supplied by other countries will really tear Iraq apart. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The number of outside fighters is pretty small, I don't see that changing, with US troops gone the main reason drawing jihadists to Iraq is gone.

Money and weapons from other countries is already tearing Iraq apart. Mostly from our 'ally' Saudi Arabia, and the next nation on our punchlist, Iran.

With US troops gone international diplomacy might finally be able to accomplish something. If not, I assume the US - and other nations - would still have the capability of inflicting consequences upon transgressors. (Of course the current President could never punish his Saudi masters, but the next one might).

-Mark

[usmc1]

Mark, maybe. But, my money would be on the barrels and barrels of "sweet" which say that ain't even goin' to happen.

[hm0504]

"Only grim scenarios left in Iraq":

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
WASHINGTON -- Iraq, rent by bloody and worsening violence, eclipses all else on President George W. Bush's agenda.

Although 2006 dawned amid hopes that democracy would flower into peace and (eventual) prosperity, allowing the unloved U.S. occupation forces to begin heading home, the reality has been grim.

In Iraq, the cost in blood and bullion has soared. De facto ethnic cleansing, driven by death squads, is crudely redrawing the tribal map. The middle class has largely fled Baghdad, where the muddy, meandering Tigris River is being transformed into a grim "green line" between Sunni and Shia. More than 100 Iraqis now die every day, most of them brutally murdered by sectarian killers.
...
The number of U.S. military dead stood at 2,978 yesterday afternoon, which is at least five more than the number of people killed in the Sept. 11 attacks. And the conflict will bleed the U.S. treasury by what will soon be an unfathomable $1-trillion (U.S.). Yet the violence is worse than ever.
...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the rest here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061227.IRAQ27/TPStory/Front

[LamontCranston]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">international diplomacy might finally be able to accomplish something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Right. Those robed and suited wonders of the diplomatic corps can resume the long string of successes they enjoyed from 1991 - 2003.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/idea3.gif

Perhaps if international diplomacy made any progress at all post-Desert Storm, none of this would have been necessary.

[LamontCranston]

I don't see what the failure is with withdrawing. Or even if some call it a failure, why that prevents anyone from withdrawing.

Coalition Forces deposed the Regime, installed an elected Parliament, encouraged them to write a Constitution, repaired much of the damage inflicted.

So what else is there to do? Why occupy and babysit and be targets while they argue? Who said anything about training a police force?

Why?

So what if they implode afterwards? What will rise from the ashes is what they self-determine. Plus, Russia, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia... they won't let it implode. There'd be too much oil market instability they couldn't tolerate.

If I were G.W. I'd issue an order to prepare to rotate a division out.

What happens next would be interesting; not the predictable U.S. media crybaby / glee club reaction, but the moves among Middle Eastern leaders.

The Iranian President reached out to the Pope today. Good or bad motive or outcome, it is an example of diplomacy. So was his visit to New York. So was the Pope's visit to Turkey.

All related puzzle pieces I'd say. There are other players in the world. Let them play.

Bring the U.S. troops home. Time's up.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LamontCranston:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">international diplomacy might finally be able to accomplish something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Right. Those robed and suited wonders of the diplomatic corps can resume the long string of successes they enjoyed from 1991 - 2003.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/idea3.gif

Perhaps if international diplomacy made any progress at all post-Desert Storm, none of this would have been necessary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

None of it was necessary. There was no reason to invade Iraq in 2003. Iraq was under close on-the-ground monitoring of its weapons activities and no-fly zones gave peace to the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south. And Iraq was stable and peaceful.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LamontCranston:
I don't see what the failure is with withdrawing. Or even if some call it a failure, why that prevents anyone from withdrawing.

Coalition Forces deposed the Regime, installed an elected Parliament, encouraged them to write a Constitution, repaired much of the damage inflicted.

So what else is there to do? Why occupy and babysit and be targets while they argue? Who said anything about training a police force?

Why?

So what if they implode afterwards? What will rise from the ashes is what they self-determine. Plus, Russia, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia... they won't let it implode. There'd be too much oil market instability they couldn't tolerate.

If I were G.W. I'd issue an order to prepare to rotate a division out.

What happens next would be interesting; not the predictable U.S. media crybaby / glee club reaction, but the moves among Middle Eastern leaders.

The Iranian President reached out to the Pope today. Good or bad motive or outcome, it is an example of diplomacy. So was his visit to New York. So was the Pope's visit to Turkey.

All related puzzle pieces I'd say. There are other players in the world. Let them play.

Bring the U.S. troops home. Time's up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"repaired much of the damage inflicted" -- That's a good one!

Iraq today is, save for the Kurdish north, dominated by Wahabbist/Al Qaeda and Shia fundamentalist Islamists. Though a U.S. cut and run may be the best option today, the ugly fact is that Iraq is now 10,000 times the threat it was when the U.S. invaded in 2003. I would hardly call that a success.

[LamontCranston]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the ugly fact is that Iraq is now 10,000 times the threat it was when the U.S. invaded in 2003. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Wait a sec.. threat to who to do what and with what army? Fact is, Iraq was never a threat to anyone but they're own unarmed civilians.

Wouldn't you call perpetual control of air space and all communications on invasion of soverienty? Name me some other country that would subject itself to that and consider it stable and peaceful.

Phrases like "cut and run" tell me you're not serious about anything going on in Iraq. You're all about assessing blame back home.

This thread ought to be titled "What's Next in the White House?" That's what you're all talking about.

[LamontCranston]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would hardly call that a success. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, so what would you call a success?

Better question: The past few weeks President Bush has been considereing options for a change of policy. This week he's reaching a decision and preparing a speech.

You have a 5-minute audience. What do you recommend?

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LamontCranston:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the ugly fact is that Iraq is now 10,000 times the threat it was when the U.S. invaded in 2003. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Wait a sec.. threat to who to do what and with what army? Fact is, Iraq was never a threat to anyone but they're own unarmed civilians.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, Iraq, in 2003, was not a significant threat -- there was no need to invade.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LamontCranston:
Wouldn't you call perpetual control of air space and all communications on invasion of soverienty? Name me some other country that would subject itself to that and consider it stable and peaceful.

,,,
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, Iraq was certainly not sovereign in 2003; it was under the thumb of the U.S. and the UN. Today, except for the Kurdish north, it is pretty much under the control of Sunni and Shia Islamists. The Baghdad "government" will disappear in a microsecond when the U.S. pulls out.

[LamontCranston]

Good we seem to agree. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Baghdad "government" will disappear in a microsecond when the U.S. pulls out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I want to test this theory and not assume it's a given. Let's do it and see where it leads.

It's a straight line back to our own shores where the U.S. belongs.

And still Albinus, with your "in 2003" "in 2003" you reveal that you're all about assessing blame onto the White House. Iraq and the outcome there is irrelevent to you by comparison.

Yes, it's a mess and a folly. Given.

So, you have 5 minutes to give a reccomendation. What do you say?

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LamontCranston:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would hardly call that a success. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, so what would you call a success?

Better question: The past few weeks President Bush has been considereing options for a change of policy. This week he's reaching a decision and preparing a speech.

You have a 5-minute audience. What do you recommend? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I've said for years, either the U.S. pour in a million or two troops and be ready to spend trillions more dollars
OR
pull out AND get some intelligent people in the White House who actually understand global security.

What would I call a success? Leaving Iraq freer and/or more democratic that when it was first invaded.

[True Brit]

I think with the intended planned execution of Saddam within the coming days, the country will descend into full civil war, the situation on the ground will be an impossible task for the coalition troops and we will have no alternative but to bring them home.

The security and safety of our troops must come first i just hope they do not get sucked into this whole sorry mess.

[Sanslines]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LamontCranston:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">international diplomacy might finally be able to accomplish something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Right. Those robed and suited wonders of the diplomatic corps can resume the long string of successes they enjoyed from 1991 - 2003.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/idea3.gif

Perhaps if international diplomacy made any progress at all post-Desert Storm, none of this would have been necessary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just as an aside, international diplomacy doesn't seem to have done anything about the Sudan genocide. While the men in suits go to their fancy meetings and eat their fancy meals, people continue to be displaced, tortured, and killed in Sudan. Don't hold your breath for anything meaningful from diplomats.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by True Brit:
I think with the intended planned execution of Saddam within the coming days, the country will descend into full civil war, the situation on the ground will be an impossible task for the coalition troops and we will have no alternative but to bring them home.

The security and safety of our troops must come first i just hope they do not get sucked into this whole sorry mess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It will be very interesting what will happen with the execution of Saddam. Maybe Bush will use it as an excuse to leave Iraq.

[hm0504]

I'm guessing Bush will replace the current government in Baghdad with one more amenable to wiping out al Sadr whatever the cost and to supporting the U.S. against Iran -- not unlike the one in Iraq about 20 some years ago under what's his name.

[sw1sweendog]

the crap will hit the fan when sadaam drops,cant wait to see what bushes response will be........

[usmc1]

The wise thing to have done would have to hauled his *** to The Hague and put it on trial before the World Court as was done with Milosovitch.

Well, actually, the truly wise thing would have been not to have been there. But, that aside, we now are open for the American Iraqi puppets hung Saddam after a show trial before a kangeroo court claim by those who despise us.

The veracity of that claim can be debated for years, but the pragmatic matter remains...there is no gain for the US to see Saddam hanged...only more violence and hatred.

Sadly, it has to do with domestic politics in the U.S. more than anything else.

[Naturist Mark]

Bush is considering a 'surge' of 20,000 additional troops in Iraq (from where?), this following a surge of 15,000 that only saw conditions in Iraq worsen on every level.

Meanwhile, lets recall WHY some of us oppose this stupid mistake of war - because we think it was never worthy of the sacrifice of our fine young men and women - and we can't see how it can be worth a single additional sacrifice.

Although there have been some misteps and some atrocities - like Abu Gharaib, Falluja and Haditha (which I blame on poor leadership from the top down), for the most part I am amazed and proud of the service of our troops.

You may have seen this story circulate on the web, it is just a small example that even in hell there are unexpected angels at work. Angels who wear boots.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>"Got a tough, but heartwarming story and a picture of John Gebhardt in Iraq. For those that did not know John, he was our former Med Group Chief, Dave Nordel replaced him. Anyway, his wife talked with mine last evening and sent this picture. Mindy related that this little girl's entire family was executed.They intended to execute her also and shot her in the head but they failed to kill her. She was cared for by John's hospital and healing up, but has been crying and moaning. The nurses said John is the only one she seems to calm down with, so John has spent the last four nights holding her while they both sleep in that chair. The girl is coming along with her healing.

John comes home in early October."


http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f337/ndmark/gebhardt.jpg (http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/gebhardt.asp)
(click the pic for more)
[/list]

[LamontCranston]

Next month it's beginning not to matter what the President wants to do.

Let's spin the chair and focus on what the newly-elected Congress wants to do. The will of the people made a change and a follow-through on promises is coming due.

There's federal funding for the "war in Iraq" that can be put in two categories: one for direct support (equipment, logistics, combat pay, weapons, medical, etc.) of troops in the field, the other for everything else (Haliburton, contractors, rebuilding, security of oil pipelines, etc).

Urge your newly elected Congressmen to shut off funding for the second category.

No more play time.

I'd also like to see a resolution and debate on the floor of the House -- in January -- about why continued occupation in Iraq is a matter of national security.

Not why it was, or more hot air about events three years ago, or speculation about this or that in Baghdad, but why a clear and present danger to U.S. or U.K. soil still today.

Take some immediate concrete action towards shutting it down. They said they would leading up to the elections, so do it.

[NudeAl]

I agree it will be interesting to see what changes the next congress is going to effect. I hope they are up to the task and take the matter head on. I doubt it though, when all is said and done a lot more gets said than gets done.

I see our troop levels remaining the same or going up in the near future. I don't see a strong enough sentiment to bring more of our troops home being reflected in our elected leaders. I'm sure they would like to have it happen but I just don't see any of them making this much of a priority in the coming months. I hope I am wrong but I think we can expect more of the same or even an increase in the number of boots on the ground.

A positive note seems to be the acknowledgement by the President that we need a larger Army and Marine Corps. However even this has a consequence they are going to investigate the matter looking not at the needs of our military right now but at the future needs of our military to see if the increase is needed in the future. Due to the length of time it will take to recruit and train the additional numbers needed this seems farcical. By the time this takes place we will have done even more damage to the military. Additionally there is bickering among the joint chiefs about one of the proposed methods, a draw down of the Navy and Air Force and putting the number of their forces reductions into an increase for the Army and Marine Corps. I say look at the casualty figures find out who is bleeding and patch the holes. If that service isn't bleeding reduce their numbers and give the surplus to the service bleeding the most. Either that or throw them a rifle and have them get out on a patrol in Iraq.

[nacktman]

We don't need a larger Army or Marine Corps, if the leadership was worth a dead rats arse ... making a stupid move to correct a previous stupid move just means you're even more stupid.

Now, the most stupid of them all, is ousting the top two generals in Iraq in favor of syncophants to further compound the stupidity already going on there.

Can you say 'But_fu_king' because that is what the American people (especially our troops), have been getting for the last 6 years and it still continues.

What's next in Iraq, you ask? Well, for as long as the moron sits in the stolen office of the people just bend over and spread'em it will continue and increase in intensity.

[hm0504]

Well, here's a clever way to increase troop levels in Iraq...

"US Army urges dead to re-enlist":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6237607.stm

[usmc1]

Has anyone checked their Roget's to see if "SURGE" is a synonym for "ESCALATION"?

Has anyone else noticed the similarities to LBJ. From Texas, Big Spender, keeps looking for a bigger hammer to try to bang away the headache, and utterly amoral?

Anyone eelse ever see the cartoon of the two professors entering the History Department, one saying to the other, "The only thing we've learned from history is that no one learns from history"?

[hm0504]

My guess is that come 2008, the Republicans will campaign on the idea that the Iraq war was going brilliantly until 2007 when the Democrats started obstructing the President and causing the U.S. to start losing.

[usmc1]

In today's Editor & Publisher website that except for one singular exception, the media is still shirking its "watch-dog" roll.

Unlike Many, Spokane Paper Takes Strong Stand on 'Surge'

By E&P Staff

Published: January 08, 2007 2:05 PM ET

NEW YORK An article posted on Saturday (and updated Sunday) reported the results of our survey of major newspapers' editorial pages which revealed a rather shocking finding: Very few of them felt compelled in the past week to comment, pro or con, on a decision that could prove absolutely critical in the history of the Iraq war.

This, of course, is President Bush's reported plan to send 20,000 or more additional U.S. troops to Iraq. Reporters, and columnists, at many of the papers have followed the idea for weeks, but the big city editorial pages (as so often true in the past in regard to buildup or pullout plans) have largely punted.

Not so everywhere, of course, as Steve Smith, editor of the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Wash., reminded us in a letter, pointing to his paper's frank editorial on Sunday. So, below, we reprint both his letter and the paper's editorial.

*
To E&P:

Of course I never expect The Spokesman-Review to be surveyed when you look at the nation's "major" papers. But I did want to point out that some of the smaller mid-size papers, including ours, have been much more outspoken about the war, perhaps because we're a bit closer to the ground. Spokane is a military town, but still comments on this Sunday's editorial, copied below, have been uniformly supportive.

We stopped one hair's breadth away from calling for an immediate pullout. But it's a thin distinction. Thanks, Steve Smith.

*
Here is that editorial:

On March 21, 2003, Cpl. Brian Matthew Kennedy of Houston was among the first U.S. soldiers to die in the Iraq war when the helicopter he was riding in crashed in Kuwait, killing three other American Marines and eight British Marines.

Three days before that, the gung-ho Kennedy, 25, called his mother to tell her he was headed into action. After the crash Kennedy’s father said, “He gave his life in an effort to contribute to the freedom of the Iraqi people.”

Indeed, the invasion was called Operation Iraqi Freedom and a plausible argument could be made at the time that war could be waged under that banner. But since then, the original justifications – and enthusiasm – have melted away like insurgents in the night.

Heading into this weekend, at least 3,004 U.S. troops have died in the Iraq conflict. More than 25,000 have been wounded – many grievously. What can political leaders tell the parents of the 3,004th casualty? How can they justify expanding this aimless operation?

Sometime this week, President Bush will answer those questions, or at least attempt to. Early indications are that the president will send a “surge” of troops to help control the uncontrollable. Military leaders don’t want them, nor do they think an escalation will help.

On Nov. 15, Gen. John Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “I’ve met with every divisional commander. General (George) Casey, the corps commander, ([Lt.) General (Martin) Dempsey – we all talked together. And I said, ‘In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?’ And they all said, ‘No.’.”

The generals believe that our very presence on Iraqi soil is part of the problem and that expanding it will only exacerbate the chaotic violence. Bush’s mantra throughout the 2004 election was that he would give the generals whatever they needed to succeed. Soon, he’ll be sending them aas many as up to 20,000 more troops over their objections. Then again, those generals are being replaced with more compliant leaders.

But replacing the leadership won’t change the outlook of those doing the fighting. A recent Military Times poll found that active members of the military, who were once strong supporters of the war, have grown pessimistic. Only 35 percent approve of the way the Bush administration has handled the war. Two years ago, 83 percent believed the war would be successful. Now, it’s 50 percent, but even that group thinks it will take at least five years. Only 41 percent said we should’ve invaded.

We could send 20,000 troops or 120,000, but it wouldn’t matter. There is no military solution to a country hopelessly infected with sectarian violence, a ruthless insurgency and opportunistic terrorists. Iraq’s leadership is not enthusiastic about a U.S. escalation, either. In Iraq, there will be no victory, certainly not as the president currently defines it. There will be no graceful exit. Iraq will is going to descend into all-out chaos. It’s just a matter of when. We can’t even be sure that Iraq will end up being a Middle East ally.

It’s time to turn this over to the diplomats and cut our losses. For what do we tell the next group of soldiers and their families when they ask: “What are we fighting for?”

[Naturist Mark]

Now that Generals Casey and Abizaid are no longer willing to claim that Bush is following their recommendations, they are being removed from their duties in Iraq.

Bush has had to look far and wide to find a General willing to toe his line. He finally found one, sort of, in the Pacific. The new CentCom Commander, in charge of the desert war in Iraq, is an Admiral.

I'm sure the Postmaster General is breathing a sigh of relief.

-Mark

[usmc1]

The escalation of a dictator: Bush defies American voters, world opinion, common sense in final years of sad presidency

by Geov Parrish | Jan 9 2007 - 3:53pm |

So this is what a dictatorship feels like. Tens of millions of Americans deliver an absolutely unequivocal message on November 7: Get our troops out of Iraq. And the Generalissimo, who cares more about his Daddy issues than he does about respecting democracy (in the U.S. or anywhere else), responds by ordering an escalation, purging the military command of anyone who disagrees, and illegally executing the guy who (supposedly) tried to kill Daddy. On a Muslim religious holiday. While onlookers chanted the name of the cleric whose U.S.-sponsored death squads have helped tear Iraq apart.

I'm going to be sick.

Polls tell us that up to 70 percent of Americans want our troops out of Iraq. But since there is no mass movement on the streets threatening to shut down business as usual in this country until our participation in this war is ended (and why not?), our only recourse as citizens has been to express ourselves at the ballot box. Which we did. And which is now being ignored, just as it would be in any other country where the whims of the Dear and Beloved Comrade Leader trump all else.

How sad (and frightening) it is that our only hope of mitigation, let alone prevention, of Bush's planned escalation rests with Congressional Democrats who have already pledged not to use their only weapon -- the blocking of budget requests -- to interfere with Bush's war. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can (correctly) blow all the hot air they like about what a horrible idea Bush's escalation is, but unless they and their colleagues back it up with legislative action, their words and press conferences and letters to the White House are meaningless posturing.

The most repugnant piece of this -- aside from the death of American democracy and the additional deaths of more U.S. soldiers and, no doubt, many thousands more Iraqis -- is that the Bush "surge," like every single other aspect of his Iraq policies over the last five years, is solely a PR campaign designed for American audiences. It doesn't matter that it will be militarily counterproductive and deadly. Trying to resuscitate poll numbers here is apparently far more important than living, breathing human beings there. Or, in the longer run, national security, the ability of our military to defend against genuine threats, or America's standing in the world.

In this case, the Rovian "product" is a New! Improved! War in Iraq!, and the feel-good product rollout began with the execution of Saddam, expedited so that it would come just before New Year's Day: out with the old, in with the new, get it? Next, replace those annoying old generals who think escalating U.S. troop presence in Iraq is clinically insane with some new, agreeable apparatchiks, and this week, voila! The big product launch. Full color ads to follow.

The question is, why bother? The American public has seen this all before, and isn't buying. And who cares what the public thinks, anyway? Bush will never run for office again, and legislators and presidential aspirants in both parties are generally running from this stunt as fast as they can. In the end, Bush is only amusing himself. Apparently, in Dubya's Democracy 2.0, that's enough.

Meanwhile, the Bush rollout strategy, like every other time before, has made things infinitely worse, in Iraq and around the world. The Saddam lynching was a particularly disgraceful stunt. The hanging of Saddam Hussein was, in both the near and long terms, a costly exercise in vanity for a White House that controlled every step of the farce that was Saddam's trial, sentencing, and death.

Some of those reasons have been mentioned -- in passing -- in American media. Most have not. They include:

# The timing of the execution for Eid, a holiday celebrated by all Muslims as a time of peace, joy, and reconciliation. By carrying out his act of vengeance at this time, Bush managed to insult and enrage Muslims around the world. And, no doubt, recruit more than a few new jihadists.

# It's not easy to turn a brutal, hated ex-dictator into a region-wide martyr. Dubya just accomplished it.

# Because the U.S. has consistently (and wrongly) held that the Sunni insurgency is motivated by loyalty to Saddam, as loathed as the ex-dictator was, his execution became a stand-in; Sunnis saw not Saddam but themselves as the targets of Bush's lynching. Way to pour gasoline on the fire, guys.

# Saddam's trial was in gross violation of Iraqi, American, and international norms. It was a kangaroo court, set up with American rather than Iraqi structures (e.g., adversarial prosecutor and defense teams) and controlled at every point by the U.S. embassy. In other words, we invaded a country -- illegally and without provocation -- and now, to compound the crime, have arbitrarily executed its leader.

# The deaths Saddam was "convicted" of were actually carried out within the Iraqi legal system. After a plot against Saddam's life, 152 people were tried as accomplices in a preordained legal proceeding, and then executed. In other words, Saddam was executed in exactly the same capricious way as his victims were, an "irony" lost on no Iraqi (or other Muslim). Nice advertisement for American democracy. (Oh, never mind. We don't do that any more.)

# The glee with which the execution was carried out -- by loyalists of Moktada al-Sadr, the radical anti-American Shiite cleric who the U.S. has inexplicably allowed to seize control of much of the country -- and the leaked video of the hanging underscored the barbarity of this lynching in particular. One result: an enormous global backlash against capital punishment. The scheduled execution of two more Saddam aides last Thursday has been postponed due to "international pressure," and Italy, a new Security Council member, has introduced a measure in the U.N. General Assembly calling for a global halt to executions. The unmistakable subtext is widespread global revulsion over America's barbarity.

All this for a product rollout. And so George W., who always enjoys a good execution, could avenge his Daddy.

Now, Junior is in the process of thumbing his nose at Daddy's advisors and trying to prove that Daddy was wrong for not invading Iraq in 1991. In the process, he has so completely divorced himself from reality that it makes one yearn for the days when Richard Nixon was walking the halls and talking with paintings. Unlike Bush's chats with God (or whomever is providing those voices in his head), at least the paintings weren't talking back, let alone directing a war effort in defiance of an overwhelming majority of military experts, the political establishment, and the American public. (That was Kissinger's job.)

Rather than Nixon, the better analogy for Bush's Iraq behavior is the last years of Mao Zedong. Mao's Iraq was the Cultural Revolution, a successful gambit to maintain his grip on power (as Bush did in 2004) that threw his country into chaos and resulted in the deaths of countless millions of Chinese. As the country unraveled, Mao staved off a number of challenges to his policies, including what was probably a coup attempt by his designated successor, Lin Biao, in 1971. As Mao's health declined, various factions, including the more radical elements Mao had increasingly surrounded himself with, vied for power. The Cultural Revolution didn't officially end until Mao's death in 1976 and the expulsion of the radicals, led by the so-called Gang of Four. (Think Cheney et al.)

Mao, in other words, wielded absolute power, was oblivious to the real-life consequences of his policies, was surrounded by acolytes, and was impervious to criticisms from even his closest allies. As a result, he is today thought of as one of the great butchers of the 20th century, and these days is rarely mentioned even by the government he founded and ran for 27 years. So how appalling is it that his story now seems so vaguely familiar?

In a parliamentary system -- the kind most of the world's democracies outside the U.S. use -- Bush would have been expelled from office two months ago. Had that somehow not happened, his "surge" plan would surely provoke a vote of no confidence, and at this point his government would collapse.

But instead, we live in the United States, with a chief executive who believes in his own unlimited "unitary" power and a single "opposition" party that rarely provides any true opposition. How many more Iraqis, and Americans, will die as a result? Or, as Emma Goldman noted nearly a century ago: "Poor as we are in democracy, how can we give it to the world?"

[hm0504]

Bush announces the new Iraq strategy tonight. Results of our poll this January 10 are as follows:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Results (24 votes counted so far):
What do you think will happen during the first half of 2007 in Iraq?
11 (46%)
No major change in direction
8 (33%)
Significant American troop buildup and engagement
3 (13%)
Gradual withdrawal
2 (8%)
Other
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Sanslines]

Lets' get serious with Iraq. We need to immediately relocate 20 million Americans to Iraq and start spending at least 1 trillion dollars. We have too many people in the USA as is and so we can start a lottery to decide who is going to be relocated to Iraq. This is all for starts. If the violence continues then we will send in an additional 10 million and keep sending people to Iraq until we are the majority in Iraq. We can also keep spending more and more on Iraq as NO country on this planet can outspend the USA - deficits be damned! Iraq problem solved!

[Sanslines]

More seriously........

The troop level has been fluctuating up and down. Back around October and November of 2005, there were about 160,000 troops. That number subsequently dropped in December 2005 and then over the year 2006 went up and down. As of last November 30, there were 140,000 troops. If 21,000 troops are eventually sent to Iraq over the next 6 months, then we will bring the number back up to what it was a bit over a year ago. How can this be considered a surge? Why is there so much media hype about 'insufficient' numbers of troops availible to send to Iraq and how a surge will 'crack' the military? There have been at least two other troop surges in the past without such fanfare. Also, troops levels have been going up and down over the course of the Iraq war and yet each year the cost of this war increases substantially. What is all of this money being spent on?

[sw1sweendog]

or how bout we have the iraq army and police get off thier a$$es and do there job.you can take a kid outta high school and train him or her in 12 weeks.seems to me the iraqi people are really stupid,or a bunch of chickens.hell if they really love thier country they'd step up to the plate and prove it.

[Baron Lake]

It sure ain't being spent on the vets or their families so maybe companies like GE and Halliburton....?"
Ya think if they couldn't achieve "victory" before with 160,000 troops they will have any better luck now with even greater popular resistance?
b.l.