> He obviously knows that the question isn't whether the American troops
> will succeed in helping the Iraq succeed with democracy and peace but
> whether the American people will give them enough time to do so.
I can see we have quite a different point of view here.
I don't think that Iraq is going to end well no matter how long U.S.
Soldiers stay there
The question that occurs to me is
How many Americans have to die there before you concede that jamming
anything down the Iraqi's throat isn't going to work?
IMHO Their democracy or lack thereof isn't our problem and isn't worth
spending American lives on.
The Insurgency has been growing and growing more violent as time goes on,
mainly due to American arrogance ("They'll welcome us as liberators!") and
mismanagement (The chaos at the end of the war)
Now Iraq is sliding towards breaking up into Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd and
scattered whack-job Militias all fighting over how to make Iraq the perfect
hell-hole. But they all are united on one point
They want the Americans out.
But they'll come around when we smear a few more neighborhoods. Pile up
another trainload of collateral damage. They'll love us then.
> Assuming, of course, that the US adopts the same strategy for Iran that it
> did for Iraq....
The U.S. cannot. It doesn't have enough of a military left outside of Iraq.
I just love it when these guys believe the US press'
> characterization of Bush as an idiot!
Okay. Where are the WMDs? Where are the terrorist ties? They aren't
there.
So it turns out the rationale for the war was false in every specific (and
as an aside the French were correct in about every specific)
So what does he do? he fires the people who warned him in advance he was
wrong.
Does he did for more information or different points of view? No he
systematically eliminates everyone who sends him bad news.
Oh yeah. There's a genius at work.
Iraq is a disaster for the United States. The idea of benevolent hegemony
is the most egregious and vile miscarriage of American policy ever.
American needs to worry about being free inside our own borders. Not about
this "National Greatness" fascism.
9/11 would have been a much shorter event if the passengers on the airlines
had been exercising their second amendment rights.
off course, to defend America - Bush immediately repealed all gun control
laws and encouraged Americans to arm themselves and acquire proper training
to handle their American responsibility of defending themselves and their
neighbors
Sure he did
He also deputized all airline pilots as marshals and issued them service
weapons. I mean they're trust worthy with dozens of lives and tons of
hurtling metal filed with jet fuel, obviously they're trustworthy with a 9mm
pistol right?
Oh, and he immediately set local FBI offices, sheriffs depts. and local
police to investigate suspicious activity instead of tightening down on
centralized command and control, right? I mean several different FBI
offices, including some in Florida and Arizona noticed that something hinky
was going on, but were stalled in their investigations by political concerns
at the J Edgar Hoover building. But Bush fixed that right away didn't he?
The whole Popular conservative line is about increasing central power,
authority and control using the bogey man of terrorism as a straw man to
justify ditching true freedom.
if Bush was serious about the war on Terror why is Osma Bin laden still
sucking on our air?
Because it's not about defending America. it's about establishing control
and rule over folks hither and thither in the world
Free men don't need to rule over foreigners. That's a symptom of the
fascist disease.
--
Jay P Hailey ~Meow!~
MSNIM - jayphailey ;
AIM -jayphailey03;
ICQ - 37959005
HTTP://jayphailey.8m.com
"Although I don't think I had any about myself - even I'm not that vain." -
Gen
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
