Bush Plans to Put More Troops in Iraq

[ronaldo]

When is this guy going to get real. Even his generals are a odds with him.

http://channels.isp.netscape.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1151&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20061219%2F1805907524.htm&sc=1151&floc=NI-nelead

Commets please.

[dmz]

I think hus generals have been asking for this, at least some of them; the gloves are probably about to come off.

[Northgate]

It hit me the other day that what the surge is going to accomplish for Bush and Cheney is to take them through these next two years. By the time they can claim to have the extra troops in Bagdhad it's gonna be May or June. They'll be there a few months till everyone has to admit that it isn't working (though in the interim I would predict the first really horrendous event in which our troops suffer a big loss, like 200 men in one blast), then it will be the end of 2007 and the argument will be about whether we should remove some of the surge troops. That will take a few months, at least, and we'll be in the throes of a presidential election. Bush won't want to do anything too "political" at that point, of course, so he'll happily leave it to the new prez to make shitcakes out of shit. And Bush and Cheney will spin it for all it's worth for the rest of their lives...

Pretty much sums it up for me.

[ronaldo]

[/size]

Pretty much sums it up for me.

I think the Iraqis need to start fighting a little more for thier own freedom. Instead running from the country and letting someone else do thier fighting for them.

[sammi jo]

One sign of insanity is "repeating the same actions, over and over again, and expecting a different result".

More US troops in Iraq just means more targets for insurgents to aim at, more people joining the insurgency, more US casualties, and more chaos.

[SpamSandwich]

The US is there to protect the nation's oil interests. Everyone knows this. Why the hell would the Iraqi's want to sacrifice their lives to keep our cars running... and a civil (religious) war is about to blow up there in a big, big way. For you non-bible-thumpers, remember Iraq used to be called Babylon. Bush & Co. wouldn't mind if a little Armageddon was a side-effect to our involvement there.

[@_@ Artman]

Huh? Well I guess I'll post this here too.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/POLITICS/12/19/bush.troops/story.bush.ap.jpg

We've got a bigger problem.
The 14 permanent military bases.
Strategically located near the wells and refineries.

/plus that whole ideology thing
//my two cents
///or four?

[SDW2001]

Or maybe they think more troops will help the situation? No, that couldn't possibly be the reason. They couldn't actually be doing something because they feel it's the best option...could they? :)

But let's put that aside. It seems to me that anyone opposing more troops or the same levels of troops is basically saying we've lost and let's get the hell out now. That's a perfectly valid viewpoint, though I don't share it.

[@_@ Artman]

Oil fields and pipelines in Iraq...

http://gb2.chinabroadcast.cn/report/showdown_iraq/images/Iraqi_oilfields.gif

Permanent U. S. military bases in Iraq...

http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/iraq-base-map.jpg

Notice how closely related the oil refineries are to the bases.

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter if we put more in or leave the same. We aren't leaving.

[franksargent]

Huh? Well I guess I'll post this here too.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/POLITICS/12/19/bush.troops/story.bush.ap.jpg

We've got a bigger problem.
The 14 permanent military bases.
Strategically located near the wells and refineries.

/plus that whole ideology thing
//my two cents
///or four?

:smokey:

IMHO, it's basically a "resource management" problem. THEIR resources and OUR management!

:smokey:

[jimmac]

Or maybe they think more troops will help the situation? No, that couldn't possibly be the reason. They couldn't actually be doing something because they feel it's the best option...could they? :)

But let's put that aside. It seems to me that anyone opposing more troops or the same levels of troops is basically saying we've lost and let's get the hell out now. That's a perfectly valid viewpoint, though I don't share it.


More troops won't help. It'll just make things worse and put a further strain on our military, economy, etc..

I say go ahead and let him do it! Once everyone sees what a bad idea this was Bush will be hung out to dry for sure!

[spindler]

At this point, George Bush is the closest thing to a dictator that the U.S. has ever had. He doesn't care what the left wing thinks, the center thinks, and even the right wing has their doubts. He isn't really representing anyone and even his political allies want some way out of this.

Can anyone think of a comparable situation in American history where the president was was pursuing such a risky plan that the American people and even his own political base weren't interested in?

[jimmac]

I hate to say this but I've been saying this for close to a year now. It's been really clear how he thinks. I've also said that if you thought the first term was bad wait until the second gets going. Then the gloves will be off. And here we are.

Once again Bush is bad for democrats, bad for republicans, bad for america.

[@_@ Artman]

At this point, George Bush is the closest thing to a dictator that the U.S. has ever had. He doesn't care what the left wing thinks, the center thinks, and even the right wing has their doubts. He isn't really representing anyone and even his political allies want some way out of this.

Can anyone think of a comparable situation in American history where the president was was pursuing such a risky plan that the American people and even his own political base weren't interested in?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/viet4.jpg

[Mac on a Mac]

This war can not be won by the power of the military (unless we kill them all). Will Bush and his buddies every figure that out? This is not WWII. The probelms go much deaper than defeating an enemy army. We are not going to enforce our will on the people of Iraq. I suggest Bush read Steinbeck's "The Moon is Down".

[MacRR]

Hell- why not? When I have a problem I just throw more money at it until it's fixed. If I had soldiers, i'd throw more of that expendable resource as well. If it doesn't work out I'll lag and recheck it out in about a year because it's too much to deal with when I'm having fun doing other things like- well, like anything else that's FUNNER.

This way it looks like I am doing something about the problem and not have to deal with it. Then I can play more XBOX360!

w00t!

[Northgate]

I absolutely love this new rhetoric coming from the right-wing. The new excuse-de-jour is that Iraqi's need to stand up and defend their country.

Love it.

It's not like we didn't just run in there, fuck up the place, destroy its infrastructure, create a breeding ground for an insurgency and sit on our hands while the place decends into civil war.

Nope. Not our fault. Those dirty Iraqi's need to show some goddamn nationalistic pride and take control of their shit!

[Mac on a Mac]

I'm amazed that these guys don't get laughed off of the podium.

[SpamSandwich]

Horrific.

[SDW2001]

At this point, George Bush is the closest thing to a dictator that the U.S. has ever had. He doesn't care what the left wing thinks, the center thinks, and even the right wing has their doubts. He isn't really representing anyone and even his political allies want some way out of this.

Can anyone think of a comparable situation in American history where the president was was pursuing such a risky plan that the American people and even his own political base weren't interested in?


:lol: A dictator? Seems to me Congress authorized the President to use force. Seems to me that they have continually voted to fund the war, even while disagreeing with it and saying we should leave. Just watch...all those heroric and victorious dems will end up voting for the $100 Billion funding bill because they don't want to be seen as not supporting the troops.

Like it or not, Bush is CIC of the US military. Secondly, why does he have to listen to the left wing? Or the center? Or even the right? He's not required to do that at all, certainly not by the consitution.

I think it just drives you batshit that he doesn't care what the wack-a-doos on the left think.

[MacRR]

And it's a shame Bush has no leadership qualities and no military strategy to speak of.

[SDW2001]

I hate to say this but I've been saying this for close to a year now. It's been really clear how he thinks. I've also said that if you thought the first term was bad wait until the send gets going. Then the gloves will be off. And here we are.

Once again Bush is bad for democrats, bad for republicans, bad for america.


What have you been saying exactly? How does he "think" exactly?

[@_@ Artman]

This is a test...this is only a test of The Selective Service System... (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/12/22/2931388-ap.html) :wow:

[addabox]

:lol: A dictator? Seems to me Congress authorized the President to use force. Seems to me that they have continually voted to fund the war, even while disagreeing with it and saying we should leave. Just watch...all those heroric and victorious dems will end up voting for the $100 Billion funding bill because they don't want to be seen as not supporting the troops.

Like it or not, Bush is CIC of the US military. Secondly, why does he have to listen to the left wing? Or the center? Or even the right? He's not required to do that at all, certainly not by the consitution.

I think it just drives you batshit that he doesn't care what the wack-a-doos on the left think.

Ah yes, the "wack-a-doos" of the left.

Would that be the 89% of everybody (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003523154) that opposes this "surge" idea?

Or maybe you're thinking of the majorities that want us out within the year, or the three quarters of everybody that think that Bush's policy needs a complete overhaul?

Fucking hippies.

[Northgate]

Dirty fucking hippies.

[SDW2001]

Ah yes, the "wack-a-doos" of the left.

Would that be the 89% of everybody (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003523154) that opposes this "surge" idea?

Or maybe you're thinking of the majorities that want us out within the year, or the three quarters of everybody that think that Bush's policy needs a complete overhaul?

Fucking hippies.

So the way a President is not a dictator is that he listens to the majority of the people...follows their will? The fact is that there's nothing that requires the President to do what the majority of country thinks is right. That's not his role, as we've discussed before. If I were you, I'd be way more pissed at Democrats who vote for "Bush's war" by opening the government's wallet.

[SDW2001]

This is a test...this is only a test of The Selective Service System... (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/12/22/2931388-ap.html) :wow:

Oh stop. There isn't going to be a draft. You shoudl hear yourself...jesus.

[@_@ Artman]

Oh stop. There isn't going to be a draft. You shoudl hear yourself...jesus.


I did, I did hear myself as I typed mine. :smokey:

I'm not stirring anything up. It's just funny actually with the timing of it.

This quote especially.

"Meanwhile, the secretary for Veterans Affairs (Jim Nicholson) said that "society would benefit" if the United States were to bring back the draft and that it shouldn't have any loopholes for anyone who is called to serve. VA Secretary Jim Nicholson later issued a statement saying he does not support reinstituting a draft."

We need a head spinning smilie...:err:

[ronaldo]

Dirty fucking hippies.

Damn Flower Children & Pinko Commie Fags

[franksargent]

:smokey:

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/billbam_1927_7681171

:smokey:

[@_@ Artman]

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/SIGN/10014~Hippies-Use-Back-Door-Posters.jpg

[addabox]

We're all dirty fucking hippies now. It's Bush and Fox and a couple of right wing bloggers against everybody.

The entertaining thing is that this group is so used to using a bullying mob mentality as the ultimate authority to silence dirty fucking hippies that they'll never let go of their "out of step with America" rhetoric, no matter how small their numbers and how out of step they become.

Even as Fox's ratings continue to fall, shrieking at an ever shrinking number of belligerent hippy haters, absolutely confident in their status as the voice of "real Americans".

[Benton]

Relying on the Reserves and National Guards was supposed to support the active duty military not supplant it. Relying on citizen soldiers with families with deep roots in the communities across America was to be a way to stifle an administration with over zealous military ambitions. When the military was down sized it was believed the families, friends, employers and communities would resist the misuse of their own. It seems the administration has not bled and maimed enough of our citizens to cause the families, friends, employers and communities to say No More! It can not take anymore of our own!
It is past the time for these rooted citizens to say, Your Not Going To Fill More Body Bags With Our Own. We are loyal and patriotic but not stupid and gluttons for punishment. WE ARE NOT AFRAID of those religious fanatics.
It is past the time for Congress to provide Restricted funding to protect our troops, return them to their barracks, rebuild and train our military with lessons learned, build better materiel to protect them from hostilities in the future.
Our troops deserve a Commander in Chief who is as worthy to lead as they are to follow. Bush does not deserve their loyalty.

[jimmac]

:lol: A dictator? Seems to me Congress authorized the President to use force. Seems to me that they have continually voted to fund the war, even while disagreeing with it and saying we should leave. Just watch...all those heroric and victorious dems will end up voting for the $100 Billion funding bill because they don't want to be seen as not supporting the troops.

Like it or not, Bush is CIC of the US military. Secondly, why does he have to listen to the left wing? Or the center? Or even the right? He's not required to do that at all, certainly not by the consitution.

I think it just drives you batshit that he doesn't care what the wack-a-doos on the left think.

Bush doesn't care what anyone thinks! That's the problem. I was going to put this in Chris's thread about government but this seem more to the point. The role of the president when you distill it down to the basics is much like any kind of manager you hire to well ....... manage! You know like a motel or trailer court. Yes it's a simplistic example but basically the same thing. If the manager doesn't do his job well he's fired. This will continue until you can find someone who can manage well. Another example is where I work . Some are on administrative contract. If you don't perform well your contract isn't renewed. In this case Bush can't be relected. However there is time for hearings on the matter. Also the way this reflects on the republican party isn't exactly positive so the chances of a republican president next time are greatly diminished. The owner of this trailer court isn't without recourse! If you have someone who's not serving the wishes of the country and ignores every other branch of government what do you have? It sounds pretty close to a would be dictator to me.

It's pretty clear now to everyone who wants to see the truth that Bush hasn't been performing well at all.

[jimmac]

So the way a President is not a dictator is that he listens to the majority of the people...follows their will? The fact is that there's nothing that requires the President to do what the majority of country thinks is right. That's not his role, as we've discussed before. If I were you, I'd be way more pissed at Democrats who vote for "Bush's war" by opening the government's wallet.


You just don't get it! Or don't want to get it.:no:

" The fact is that there's nothing that requires the President to do what the majority of country thinks is right. "

Uh, why do you think he's elected by a majority? Your logic or lack thereof is amazing!

You just don't get it. He's a president not a king!

[Aurora]

And it's a shame Bush has no leadership qualities and no military strategy to speak of.
This is what it boils down to. Real leaders have no need to talk about leadership.. Bush got us in a needless war, and then wants to continue it? Absurd to have your forces wedged between two forces who want to kill you and their opponet. Then with all this roadside bombs you would think some iraqi woould notice the installation of these things. Bush/Cheney have their Vietnam. They have turned a country of millions of iraqi's into a country of millions of insurgents or the administrations next spin term. It will take a new congress and new president to get us out of this clusterF... of Bush's.

[BR]

So the way a President is not a dictator is that he listens to the majority of the people...follows their will? The fact is that there's nothing that requires the President to do what the majority of country thinks is right. That's not his role, as we've discussed before. If I were you, I'd be way more pissed at Democrats who vote for "Bush's war" by opening the government's wallet.

You know very well that all of the bills up until now would have passed anyway with the Repubs signing off on whatever Bush put in front of them. I'm not happy about the way the political system works but just imagine what the election results would have been like if the Repubs had been given the opportunity to play the "YOU DON'T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS WITH YOUR VOTING RECORD" card more than they already did.

[MarcUK]

Bush plans on more troops for iraq and has just asked for another $100 billion.....knowing that...um....it will likely be voted against by the dems....so, come next election....the reason for the Iraq mess is because the dems voted against these measures....therefore you shouldn't vote for them because they messed iraq up.

Evil genius?

[Gilsch]

Evil genius? We're beyond that. More like predictable MO.

[Aurora]

Bush plans on more troops for iraq and has just asked for another $100 billion.....knowing that...um....it will likely be voted against by the dems....so, come next election....the reason for the Iraq mess is because the dems voted against these measures....therefore you shouldn't vote for them because they messed iraq up.

Evil genius?

Someone just needs to get our troops home and have em ready for the next war. Iraq war is over its up to the iraqi's to either figure it out or kill off each other.

Like vietnam neither democrats or republicans would do the right thing for fear of politics. Here we are again, a stupid president,a war for no reason costing us billions and neither democrats or republicans with enough balls to hang the ones responsible for this mess. So they just keep it going. We are still one more election away from ending this nonsense.

[sammi jo]

Bush plans on more troops for iraq and has just asked for another $100 billion.....knowing that...um....it will likely be voted against by the dems....so, come next election....the reason for the Iraq mess is because the dems voted against these measures....therefore you shouldn't vote for them because they messed iraq up.

Evil genius?

If he asks for $100 billion, he will get $100 billion. How many democrats are there who have the spine to vote for what is best for the USA, rather than being on their knees to their corporate owners and their agenda?

Count them on the fingers of two hands, at best.

:(

[ronaldo]

If he asks for $100 billion, he will get $100 billion. How many democrats are there who have the spine to vote for what is best for the USA, rather than being on their knees to their corporate owners and their agenda?

Count them on the fingers of two hands, at best.

:(

You got that right.

[jimmac]

What have you been saying exactly? How does he "think" exactly?


Read the last sentence in your quote of me.

How he thinks is obvious!

[ronaldo]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/4378

This makes sense to me. Although the article is only an opinion, I think the author hits the nail on the head.

Bush will not give up in Iraq until he is forced to.

By the way, according to NBC. Bush will announce a surge of at leat 20,000 additional troops one week from today.

[sammi jo]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/4378

This makes sense to me. Although the article is only an opinion, I think the author hits the nail on the head.

Bush will not give up in Iraq until he is forced to.

By the way, according to NBC. Bush will announce a surge of at leat 20,000 additional troops one week from today.


Of course he's not going to give up on it. He's a self-righteous character who is scared witless about admitting being wrong. Facing up to reality, losing face and changing course is an alien concept to him. If he pubicly admitted the mistake of the invasion,left the fate of Iraq up to the Iraqi people, and plugged the endless corporate welfare gravy-train that is the Iraq war, then history will look a little less harshly upon his presidency.

[Aurora]

This is nothing more then stay the course with more Americans getting killed for absolutely nothing but our cheese in charge reputation of not knowing what the hell he is doing. Glad Im not in the Military anymore for this guys spin,lies and Bulls.... I know one thing and thats I wont be voting for Any Republican for years after him & this congress.

[SpamSandwich]

Of course he's not going to give up on it. He's a self-righteous character who is scared witless about admitting being wrong. Facing up to reality, losing face and changing course is an alien concept to him. If he pubicly admitted the mistake of the invasion,left the fate of Iraq up to the Iraqi people, and plugged the endless corporate welfare gravy-train that is the Iraq war, then history will look a little less harshly upon his presidency.

That's too easy an answer. Look, the US would be ruined if the flow of oil to this country were interrupted at this point. You might say, "Good! Then we could finally get off our dependence on violent foreign nations"... That's not going to happen for a good 20 to 50 years, if in any of our lifetimes. Oil will remain the fuel of choice for a long, long time.

The invasion of Iraq was a calculated risk and a means of appeasing some of our Middle Eastern allies and their political and oil interests.

[100mph]

I'd rather bike/walk to work than see innocent people blown apart for my gas (http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm). :no:

[SpamSandwich]

I'd rather bike/walk to work than see innocent people blown apart for my gas (http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm). :no:

Truly terrible. It's no wonder so many people abhor our politics (I guess that includes Americans who detest our politics as well).

[100mph]

"Sacrifice" (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010307A.shtml) :no:

" ...

If in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American serviceman or woman, would you intervene?

Would you at least protest?

What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them?

What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them - and then announced his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?

... "

[sammi jo]

Truly terrible. It's no wonder so many people abhor our politics (I guess that includes Americans who detest our politics as well).

Yes, agreed. It is truly appalling that the U.S., on the pretense of fighting a "war against terrorism", is committing acts of terrorism on a daily basis against unarmed civilians, on a far greater scale than anything 'al qaeda', 'hamas', or whatever other State Dept. designated group you care to name, has done.

:(

[jimmac]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/06/dems.iraq.radio.ap/index.html

The latest.

[jimmac]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16516531/

Like this is going to slow down if they send more troops.

[jimmac]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16501204/site/newsweek/#anc_nwk_070106_ov_iraq

In case anyone has any doubts about the public's opininon on this.

[@_@ Artman]

As I've stated in another thread (Blood for Oil) the amount of soldiers to guard and operate the 14 permanent US military bases in Iraq (http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases_text.htm) could exceed 15,000 troops. We won't pull out and we aren't leaving. This is going to be a long, protractive occupation.

Which will only increase the anger of the insurgents and terrorist networks.