It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

After the troop surge what is the next step in Iraq ?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   
OK the way I see it bush has the following options available to him.


  1. Continue the surge by extending the tour of the troops that are already taken part in the extended deployment.
  2. Do the same as above but with other extend the deployment of other troops.
  3. An combination of the above in order to extend the benefits of the troop surge .
  4. An return to pre surge troop levels.
  5. Begin to look at ways of withdrawing US troops over an meduim period of time . Draw up an political agreement with Turkey in order to protect the Kurds.



The first option must surely put the the welfare of the troops in question so it would seem that wouldn't be an good idea.
The second option is quiet likely if the troops are available. The 2nd option would serve two purposes the benefits of the troop surge wouldn't be lost and Bush could ensure that Iraq is made to be someone else's problem after he leaves office.

The third option has the same flaws as the first one. The next option would do nothing other put things back to square one again.
Truth be told the dems aren't interested in an withdrawl from Iraq until after 08 and Bush would never support such an notion so that option can be effectively be ruled out.

The overall problems with the surge is that due to it being an gradual build up the enemy was and his able to change his tactics to suit and that the US military doesn't have enough troops to replicate the strategy in other urban areas of Iraq.

Do members have any thoughts on the topic at hand ?




posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 07:36 AM
link   

posted by xpert11
OK the way I see it Bush has the following options available to him.

  1. Continue the surge by extending the tour of the troops that are already taken part in the extended deployment.
  2. Do the same as above but with other extend the deployment of other troops.
  3. An combination of the above in order to extend the benefits of the troop surge .
  4. An return to pre surge troop levels.
  5. Begin to look at ways of withdrawing US troops over an medium period of time . Draw up an political agreement with Turkey in order to protect the Kurds.


The first option must surely put the welfare of the troops in question so it would seem that wouldn't be an good idea.
The second option is quiet likely if the troops are available. The 2nd option would serve two purposes the benefits of the troop surge wouldn't be lost and Bush could ensure that Iraq is made to be someone else's problem after he leaves office.
The third option has the same flaws as the first one. The next option would do nothing other put things back to square one again.

Truth be told the Dems aren't interested in any withdrawal from Iraq until after 08 and Bush would never support such an notion so that option can be effectively be ruled out. The overall problems with the surge is that due to it being an gradual build up the enemy was and his able to change his tactics to suit and that the US military doesn't have enough troops to replicate the strategy in other urban areas of Iraq. Do members have any thoughts on the topic at hand ?


Exactly! The Surge was too little, too late. Truth be told, we did not have enough manpower before the surge and we don’t have enough now. We were depending all along on ALLIES that never materialized. Supporting the US cost PM Blair his job. Their 10,000 is now down to 5,000. The French and Germans were too smart and had too many years in the Middle East to join a fools errand. In those countries, leaning from the past is institutionalized for the future; here we boast we don’t know the past. Every day is a new day! This is the quandary ideologues produce.

The Surge. Some tours have already been extended, recall a short while ago they wee changed from 12 months to 15 months. The time home between tours has been reduced, too. I believe the US military men/women in uniform is about 1.2 million. My vague recall is Army, 450, Navy 300, AF, 300, and USMC 125. “K” in each case of course.

Whereas in War 2 when we had no private contractors at war and 10 men were required to keep 1 man in the front line, today that ratio may be as low as 3 to 1. But I heard just a day or so ago that we have 150,000 private contractors in Iraq. Not all of them are US types, but most are.

Following on the USSR collapse in 1990s we began to downsize our Armed Forces. That followed the 1970s decision to make it an all volunteer armed forces. We have hired more and more civilian to do what soldier once did. I have never liked that approach because non-military doing military jobs puts the whole system at risk. Civilians have civil rights that military people forego. Arbitrary punishments are not going to work with civilians. Every military person realizes it may be necessary to shoot a comrade on the spot, should a man/woman break and run in the thick of combat. That act, if not halted, can cause panic and flight by all. Civilians will not take kindly to summary justice.

Bush43 has declared “he will not bring the troops home” and he has said clearly that the finishing of our Iraq involvement will fall to the next president. Only Congress, after September, by shutting off funding, can halt the US involvement in Iraq.

Deja Vu. Superficially the story of Vietnam at its end resembles today’s Iraq. Resembles. Not the same. There is one big difference in the two tragedies. We had NO vital interests in Vietnam. We do have very real VITAL interests in Iraq inseparable from the Middle East.

There one question no one asked then or is asking now is: “Will staying longer make it better?” “Better” being from our perspective of course. No one cares to admit it but our goal in Iraq was to replace a non-compliant Saddam with a complaint government in Baghdad. Ahmed Chalabi was our first choice. We wrote Iraq’s constitution, we cherry-picked a 1,500 “candidate” list for the Iraqis to select a parliament from and we have maneuvered our Iraqi supporters - lackeys - into a position of power. But even those lackeys are growing weary of US petulance.

Since Vietnam we have a reputation of not finishing the job. That is why a depleted PM al Maliki said “we could leave anytime!” Bush43 and VP Cheney (along with Scooter Libby) have proved you can rig the Intelligence for domestic purposes but they forgot you cannot rig the world. Yet.

I have said a lot to make my further commentary understandable, as to show where I’m coming from. I pick your last option Mr X11. Because we have “stirred the hornets nest” in the Middle East, and we have failed miserably (since 1981) to restore relations with Iran, and creme de la creme, we allow Israel to rampage at will, we are stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. Those 2 diplomatic failures are based 99% on US domestic political preferences. You cannot run a foreign policy based on domestic preferences. Unfortunately, that is exactly where we are today. We care not a whit about Iraq or Iraqis. We want to be in a position to control China’s and India’s access to Middle East oil. And we want continued easy access to that oil on an as needed basis, just as King Saud and FDR agreed in 1943.

Will the Surge work? Sure, 35,000 well armed, well trained and highly motivated soldiers can do a lot of mischief. They cannot control a city of 7 million people. That would take about 350,000, not 35,000. Just ask the Germans about Vichy France. But can the Surge do what Bush43 says he wants it to do, that is, to give “space” for the current US imposed regime, the al-Maliki government, to “pacify” the country. NO. In any language you care to speak it. For now, we will have to settle on preventing Iran from overtly taking over Iraq via its internal Shia allies. We need Syria to do that but like Iran, we won’t talk to Syria. We must have Turkey onboard, but we really don’t have much to say to them either. Our should-be major ally, Saudi Arabia, is so discombobulated that it can be on not only both sides but all sides at once!

Option 5. We start drawing-down - Pentagonese for withdrawing - in January ‘08 and by election day, November 4, we have all our remaining soldiers in secure enclaves. There is no increase in violence in Baghdad or Iraq. The Iraqi have split into 3 religiously dominated semi-autonomous regions. The central government in Baghdad has no revenues and not much to do. Its Parliament is a debating club. Iran influences the east of Iraq and Syria influences the west of Iraq, Turkey influences the north of Iraq and Saudi Arabia influences the south of Iraq. And America is in its secure enclaves.

[edit on 7/19/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I'll keep it short. My personal opinion is to simply leave after giving them 3-6 months.

Sept rolls around. Head not screwed on straight Iraq? Sorry, you had plenty of time and you failed so we are leaving in 3-6 months. We are no longer policing the streets effective immediatly.

Good luck.

Longer we wait, the longer attention is paid to the US rather than the issues at hand.


[edit on 19-7-2007 by KrazyJethro]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   
They are going to stay in this dead end war until Bush leaves the White House, and if a democrat takes his place they will be withdrawn, and Iraq will become a terrorist sponsoring state like Afgahnistan only worse due to an even greating number of recruits due to the fact that there will be many who lost a son wife father mother daughter brother in this war...and has nothing left but burning hatred. In fact I'm sure many of these bombers are at this point not even in it for the pure religious aspects but to get revenge. I saw a video, a man lost his mother wife and 5 children in one incident, a misplaced american bomb...Im sure it hasnt crossed his mind by now



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   

posted by Tenebrous
They are going to stay in this dead end war until Bush leaves the White House, and if a democrat takes his place they will be withdrawn, and Iraq will become a terrorist sponsoring state like Afghanistan only worse due to an even greater number of recruits due to the fact that there will be many who lost a son wife father mother daughter brother in this war...and has nothing left but burning hatred. In fact I'm sure many of these bombers are at this point not even in it for the pure religious aspects but to get revenge. I saw a video, a man lost his mother wife and 5 children in one incident, a misplaced American bomb...I’m sure it hasn’t crossed his mind by now.


Bush43 has promised more than once that it will be his successor who ends the Iraq war, not him. Or, who gets to be the last man to die in Iraq? Should we not award his family the George Walker Bush Legacy Medal? Even if Congress cut off all funds - it will not do that because the public still loves the soldiers over there - there is enough money laying around in 1000s of Pentagon accounts that could be shifted to current expenses to keep it going for a while. I heard once the US employs 150,000 civilians in Iraq, most from the US. Those $10,000 or $15,000 a month guys we occasionally hear about.

Actually, I do not consider any of the Arab states to be “Terrorist” states. That is a pejorative term employed by our government to describe any state that does not have a contract with ExonMobil or TexacoChevron. Remind: There are NO Afghans fighting in America. There are NO Iraqis fighting in America. There are NO Iranians fighting in America. The are NO North Koreans fighting in America. NO Hamas, NO Hezbollah. We’ve got to stop playing the Pied Piper of Hamelin scene and begin to think for ourselves. It is after all, us bottom-feeders who do the fighting and bleeding “over there” and not the sons and daughtesr of the R&Fs. Rich and Famous.

Any Arab can tell you why there is fighting in Iraq, what brought on the Nine Eleven Event. 1) Jewish occupation of the Temple Mount; 2) American blank check support of Israel as it gradually cleanses old Palestine of Arabs; 3) Propping up totalitarian despots in Arab countries because of oil; and 4) exporting into their culture a culture that is made in hell. Propagating a new Dark Ages. A world where less than 1% of the population will own 80% of the assets. Say hello Robespierre, where are you when we need you?

[edit on 8/3/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
What's next after this latest round of Surge? Given the level of competence at high levels during this excercise in futility, a good number of Americans and Iraqis are going to get killed to little or no purpose...

While good things are slowly happening in Iraq, it isn't happening at nearly the pace it should be, or rather could be. The Iraqi gov't. needs to be dragged, kicking and screaming if neccessary, into doing what they were elected to do, which is rebuild the nation. It's time and past for our boys and girls to come home, but that can't, or at least shouldn't, happen until the Iraqi's can do it themselves.

Given that the chances are good that a democrat will be in the White House next year, changes of some sort are in the air, and the Iraqi gov't. needs to realize this and dig their heads out of their asses and get it done, or at least a good start.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:39 AM
link   
OK I though about giving this idea a thread of its own but since there isnt much to it I thought that I would put it here. So here is option six and how to make the surge more effective by putting more boots on the ground .
There are approx thirty seven thousand US troops stationed in South Korea. Ten to fifteen thousand of those troops should be withdrawn and given counter insurgency training and then deployed to urban areas in Iraq. US troops could be redeployed from Germany in the same manner.

Of course the risk is that with a reduction in US troops in South Korea North Korea might chose to do something insane like invading South Korea.
So how does the US maintain deterrence after the withdrawl of GIs ?
This is a hard question to answer beefing up the presence of US air power in the region could form one piece of the puzzle as well as deploying medium range missiles that can carry nuclear war heads to South Korea and Japan.

Of course there is the issue of getting the permission from the governments of Japan and South Korea to deploy missiles.

[edit on 9-8-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
OK the way I see it bush has the following options available to him.


  1. Continue the surge by extending the tour of the troops that are already taken part in the extended deployment.
This is the political verison of throwning money at the proble.


  • Do the same as above but with other extend the deployment of other troops.
  • Same

  • An combination of the above in order to extend the benefits of the troop surge .
  • An return to pre surge troop levels.
  • Begin to look at ways of withdrawing US troops over an meduim period of time . Draw up an political agreement with Turkey in order to protect the Kurds.

  • That last one seems almost laughable, as the Turks are more likly to attack the Kurds, then just about anyone else in the world


    Do members have any thoughts on the topic at hand ?


    Heres my plan, minus the Extreme details, and some ligistics.

    The idea i would consider the modern siege of a city. We are thankful that these cities in teh impoveresed nations in the world that we are waring with, do not have large amounts of infristucture(ie ROADS). Heres the Bare bones plane.
    1. Have a moble fence, capible of droping its fence froma helicopeter to block off areas of the city, surrounding the city in a temporary wall, with several roads(3-5) that will be built up with man unit forces that funnel people out.
    2. The city would be leafletted, with instructuions of which roads to take, items, and other goods that they can take with them. THey may only procede through the checkpoints and must go through a screening, thus no bad guys get out
    3. UAV's will patrol the areas that have been designated No Move Zones, and these unmanned low altitude would be able to assult and destory any attempt to leave the "siege" other then a check point
    4. The mass amount of buildings will be destroyed in these stronghold cities. Very few buildings should be sparred. Building that are govemnt/education/medical/ect, would be sparred, but each building not destroyed would go through a finnal check later.
    5.After the designated time (100 hours) and all civilains have left and only those who consider themselves enemys of US still in the city, the attack can realy begin. Using heat sensitive smart weapons, the last strong holds of the enemy would littlerly like shhoting fish in a bucket.
    6. After an intesnse bombing campain that could last several days, a ground force would move in and clear the 'safe' buildings.

    This technique could clear enitre cities in the matter of a week, and would not need large ground forces, but rather relying on UAV's and large scale misslies fires from battle crusiers, also making exstensive use of our vast technologlical advantage, This also would fundemeltly change the direction of the war, from a reactionary in the city situation, to one we we could use our might and fource the enemy out of its habbit, once it sees the shear devistaing power of this new attack stratagy.


    Downsides of the plan that i can forsee.
    1. Enemy booby-trapping the city
    2. Enemy launching attacks on civilians that are exiting the city
    3.Lots of Americans in the future will move to these new cities, that will be rebuilt, ushering in western culture into the world.
    4. Enemy tunnels out of the city...

    Idea, please read this, i can't figure out a better way then this... questions... suggestions....



    posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:04 AM
    link   
    TKainZero thanks for your post and I don't want to sound all negative but I feel that I do need to point the flaws out in your plan.


    1. The plan would play out like the battle of battle Fallujah .
    2. The wide spread property damage would turn the local population against the US.
    3. Insurgent leaders would leave the city disguised as innocent locals.
    4. Adequate screening isnt available to avoid the enemy from slipping thou the net.
    5. null


    In a counter insurgency war you cant do anything worse then turn the local population against you. Winning conventional battles doesn't win a counter insurgency war maintaining control of the population centres and winning the hearts and minds battle win however win a counter insurgency war. After US forces have left the area the enemy would re enter the area and there would be no net gain what so ever.

    I throw my support behind option six which I posted above.


    [edit on 9-8-2007 by xpert11]



    posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 10:51 AM
    link   

    posted by KrazyJethro
    I'll keep it short. My personal opinion is to simply leave after giving them 3-6 months. Sept rolls around. Head not screwed on straight Iraq? Sorry, you had plenty of time and you failed so we are leaving in 3-6 months. We are no longer policing the streets effective immediately. Good luck. Longer we wait, the longer attention is paid to the US rather than the issues at hand.


    OK K/J, on leaving at a time certain and that quick! I have asked how staying longer will make it better but I get no response. I remind older posters how we made this same argument - bloodbath - in Vietnam which kept us there from 1969 until 1974. During which time we lost 22,000 KIA and killed about 1 million Vietnamese. After we left there was NO bloodbath. Either our leaders were stupid or were lying to us. It looks as if we have the same problem with today’s leaders. Dumb or CYA lies.

    Problem is we have mucked up the whole Middle East listening to VP Cheney - Old Hallburton - Herr Oberfuhrer Rumsfeld and Designated President Bush43 not to forget the Birmingham Songbird, Condo Rice.

    Now it is up to us and the next president to de-skunk this pile of Neo Con Evangelical trash. We are on the horns of a true dilemma, we can’t go and we can’t stay.

    [edit on 8/9/2007 by donwhite]



    posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 01:07 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by xpert11
    TKainZero thanks for your post and I don't want to sound all negative but I feel that I do need to point the flaws out in your plan.


    1. The plan would play out like the battle of battle Fallujah .
    2. The wide spread property damage would turn the local population against the US.
    3. Insurgent leaders would leave the city disguised as innocent locals.
    4. Adequate screening isnt available to avoid the enemy from slipping thou the net.
    5. null


    In a counter insurgency war you cant do anything worse then turn the local population against you. Winning conventional battles doesn't win a counter insurgency war maintaining control of the population centres and winning the hearts and minds battle win however win a counter insurgency war. After US forces have left the area the enemy would re enter the area and there would be no net gain what so ever.

    I throw my support behind option six which I posted above.


    [edit on 9-8-2007 by xpert11]


    The siuation for the Iraqi people is apauling, they have an unemployment rate of over 60% unempolyed, a vast majority of the countries populace that had some wealth, have left the country. Complet;y wiping out area of high insugent densities would help move along the country.
    With the clearing of the cites, vast amount of jobs would be created to rebuild the cites and infrastruce.

    The problem of insurgetn leaders leaving insurgetn strongholds, poised as inocne t Iraqi's is not a problem, as if they were to leave thier means of prooducing terror in the city, they are back at square one, if they choose to leave thier new-high-tch weapondry from Russia/Iran/China, that helps us in the long run, and they will be surrendering thier weapons, at the Mere notion that we will bomb them into dust. If this were too happen, with most insurgents dropping thier arms and fleeing

    ___ Xpert11

    You plan of pouring more ground troops into Iraq i can not agree with, at this point Iraqi guard should be doing 99% of the patroling on the ground, with our men only in thier for specific missions, not the "hang around, wait for an axplostion to rock you" mehtod that we are using now.

    We shoulbe be foucusing on taking the man power off the ground, but do not confuse this with a troop withdrawel.

    KrazyJethro, tell an ememy when you plan to retreat an essicialy bad option, and when considering that we are fighting against a mentality, religion, and severaal state entities, that are commited to a generatinal war with the west, this news of our desiction to surrender our posistion would be desatorious, this would inspire more fanaticals, think of last summer, when Hezboula and Isreal had a small scale war, that resulted in Isreal conceding land, and working out a cease-fire, this cease-fire was seen as a huge victory in the war on the west for the Islomofacists.

    The only reason i would ever think of removing all of our miliatary might from the region, would be on a tempory basis to make an evvalatuin on what the other islamic states would do in the power vancantcy, doing this would gauarentee that our forces would return to the area after the enemy has shown its structure.

    Lastly, as to my stratagy turnign out similar to the battle of fallujha, i belive is unlikely, as the methodology is vastly diffrent, the BoF relyed on street warfare, and city fighting that puts our men into the enemys territory, and fighitn in thier backyard, this stat is terrible, and is possibly near some on the worst tatics possible,

    My startagy does not rely on the dangours street warfare that is the staple of our current stratagy, but rather mass amounts of death from above, taking full advantage of our technological superiourities and keepiing the enemy on the run.



    posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 03:01 PM
    link   
    We're waiting till 2009 when the Iraqi people get to democratically elect a government that will kick us. Once that happens the Shiites can have their chosen dictatorship and Sunnis there's. Personally I would rather the Sunni dictator guy controls the whole of Iraq (so be it against the wishes of the Shiite) my reasoning is that this is better than having a Shiite government (of any description) that will almost certainly fully side with they're ideological-genetic "brothers" in Iran.

    In the meantime either Bush wakes up and goes about creating the conditions that will choose a dictatorship that suits Iraqi AND western interests. Or it can carry on with the current government that pretends to support the interests of the Iraqis and West but in actual fact is almost useless to both (bar on a Washington political level of course). The main problem with this last option is that democracy will have her way and elect a dictatorship, only this time it may well be very anti West.
    Arab Democracy in a land where more than 50% of people want women stoned to death for adultery is a stupid imperialistic western idea that is completely debased.

    It’s not that “Brown people don’t do democracy” its that countries "where Muslim fundermentalists are a majority don’t do democracy". The Iraqi people have been tradically radicalised by war poverty and violence, so my advice to Bush is don’t make the prospects of a pro America-Israel dictatorship even harder than it already is. Wake up you stupid crab!!



    posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 11:11 PM
    link   
    Actually I would like to Iraq partitioned along ethnic lines but I want to keep the scope of this thread to ideas and concepts that have a chance of happening . TKainZero I understand what your saying but one issue that people seem to fail to address is that the local security forces can be unreliable with every new batch the undesirables have to be weeded out.

    See this old thread of mine.

    Winning the hearts and minds battle by providing security and services is hardly doing nothing. Your strategy is differnt but just like after the battle of Fallujha there would be no net gain.



    posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 04:38 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by xpert11
    Actually I would like to Iraq partitioned along ethnic lines but I want to keep the scope of this thread to ideas and concepts that have a chance of happening .
    See this old thread of mine.

    Winning the hearts and minds battle by providing security and services is hardly doing nothing. Your strategy is differnt but just like after the battle of Fallujha there would be no net gain.


    I think that the Kurds in the north should be "given" a piece of Iraq, and be given a chance to be recongnized as a sovergin Country, Kudistan. The Kurds have demostraed thier allience to the US, they helped us at the start of the war, the same can not be said of our Turkish 'allies' who refiused to allow us to fly mission out of Turkey.

    The truth is there is no easy way out, and the problems are not going to go away until the sourece of the problem goes away. And the source of the problem is being feed into the country through Iran.

    OUr stratagy right now is working, slowly but it is working. The worst thing we could do is pull the troopsout right now.

    Also, the Iraqi Security forces are making strides, but it is time for them to step up, our soilders shouldn't be on partols, these patrols should be done by the ISF.

    Another thing is why don't we just claim Iraq as a US territory??? Like Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, ect.?



    posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 01:03 PM
    link   

    posted by TKainZero

    posted by xpert11
    Actually I would like to Iraq partitioned along ethnic lines but I want to keep the scope of this thread to ideas and concepts that have a chance of happening. Winning the hearts and minds battle by providing security and services is hardly doing nothing. Your strategy is different but just like after the battle of Fallujah there would be no net gain.


    I think that the Kurds in the north should be "given" a piece of Iraq, and be given a chance to be recognized as a sovereign Country, Kurdestan. The Kurds have demonstrated their alliance to the US, they helped us at the start of the war, the same can not be said of our Turkish 'allies' who refused to allow us to fly mission out of Turkey. The truth is there is no easy way out, and the problems are not going to go away until the source of the problem goes away. And the source of the problem is being feed into the country through Iran. Our strategy right now is working, slowly but it is working. The worst thing we could do is pull the troops out right now.


    CSpan is re-playing the report by Anthony Cordesman before the CSIS - Center for Strategic and International Studies - not a right wing pseudo think tank - an oxymoron - which can also be got at www.csis.org.

    Cordesman just returned from Iraq on an investigative tour authorized reluctantly by the White House. He is informed and speaks convincingly, unlike our 5 to 4 designated president who I watched yesterday as he stumbled through the soft questions by embarrassed reporters with his usual unprepared and uniformed answers. Texas Bull Crapola. We’re stuck with this bumfuzzled cowboy until January 20 2009.

    “I’m sorry GOD, that we made you so mad at us!”


    Also, the Iraqi Security forces are making strides, but it is time for them to step up. Our soldiers shouldn't be on patrols, these patrols should be done by the ISF. Another thing is why don't we just claim Iraq as a US territory? Like Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, etc.?


    “Making strides.” Just what does that mean? Who declared “Mission Accomplished” on May 1, 2003? If May 1 was transmuted to December 7, 1941, do you realize that August 15, 1945, the last fighting day of World War 2, would transmute to January 9, 2007? That we fought and won the Greatest War in History in less time than Bush43, VP Cheney on loan from Halliburton, Herr Oberfuhrer Rumsfeld and the Birmingham Songbird, Condo Rice have lollygagged in Iraq? While 3,700+ GIs have gone KIA! And more than 100,000 Iraqis. Collateral damage. Thx, B43. You are bequeathing America one fine legacy. I do hope we NEVER forget you. Like Benedict Arnold.

    “Making strides” Mr TKO? I don’t think so.

    You propose to "claim" Iraq as our own? Well, the Puerto Ricans are still evenly split on that issue and we took PR as our own in 1898. Guam is a workers American Gulag. A place the Vietnamese would be ashamed of. The VI is of course, a Federally subsidized recreational area for the R&Fs who deny you the same socialized fun-sites here in the homeland. Besides, out of 24 million Iraqis, 23.9 million hate us.

    [edit on 8/10/2007 by donwhite]




    top topics



     
    2

    log in

    join