| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
| Date: |
11 Jan 2007 09:50:15 AM |
| Object: |
UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush 'strategy' |
Ta Ta George ...
Seems Bush only wants the regional situation to spin completely out of
control. He's handed virtual control of Iraq to Iran. This morning
troops raided the Iranian consulate in Iraq. Brilliant ... although
it's not unlikely Iranians are sponsoring Shi'ite militia's (as the
U.S. once supported foreign insurgents ... what goes around eh) Bush
was the one who allowed the situation to develop in Iran's favour. The
Saud's will back the Sunni's and Turkey will deal with the Kurd's as
they see fit.
All Hail The *****-Up In Chief.
The lead U.S. formations of The Surge are already arriving in Iraq.
You may need to impeach him and Cheney to stop this criminal stupidity.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
--------------------------------------------------
UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush strategy
By Daniel Dombey, Diplomatic Correspondent
Published: January 11 2007 11:48 | Last updated: January 11 2007 11:48
Britain said on Thursday that it would not send more troops to Iraq,
despite President George W Bush's plan to dispatch 21,000 more US
soldiers to secure Baghdad and Anbar province.
In comments that signalled a possible divergence between London and
Washington, Margaret Beckett, British foreign secretary, said the UK
would continue with its current plans, which involve handing over
responsibility to Iraqis in the south of the country.
These plans are widely expected to lead to a drawdown in Britain's
7,200 strong force in Iraq. At the weekend, Gordon Brown, British
chancellor of the exchequer, who hopes to become prime minister in the
next few months, said that "by the end of the year, there may be
thousands less in Iraq than there are now."
"It is not our intention to send more troops at the present time,"
Ms Beckett told reporters on Thursday morning. "We are under way with
a process of handover as the security situation on the ground
improves... That's been the case in the past, it's the case now."
By contrast, in a speech to the American public on Wednesday night, Mr
Bush said: "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in
Iraq."
More ...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9894df4a-a161-11db-8bc1-0000779e2340.html
.
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush 'strategy' |
11 Jan 2007 01:12:23 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"
<marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> Spat the Words
Ta Ta George ...
Seems Bush only wants the regional situation to spin completely out of
control. He's handed virtual control of Iraq to Iran. This morning
troops raided the Iranian consulate in Iraq. Brilliant ... although
it's not unlikely Iranians are sponsoring Shi'ite militia's (as the
U.S. once supported foreign insurgents ... what goes around eh) Bush
was the one who allowed the situation to develop in Iran's favour. The
Saud's will back the Sunni's and Turkey will deal with the Kurd's as
they see fit.
All Hail The *****-Up In Chief.
The lead U.S. formations of The Surge are already arriving in Iraq.
You may need to impeach him and Cheney to stop this criminal stupidity.
The last thing Maliki wants is US troops killing shia militia,
which is what will happen once our troops get into place. That's
when our trained Iraqi police and Iraqi national guard start
turning on us and shooting our boys from behind as we're raiding
sadr city. Nice situation we have there.
Cheers!
Cheers indeed...
-- Marvie
--------------------------------------------------
UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush strategy
By Daniel Dombey, Diplomatic Correspondent
Published: January 11 2007 11:48 | Last updated: January 11 2007 11:48
Britain said on Thursday that it would not send more troops to Iraq,
despite President George W Bush's plan to dispatch 21,000 more US
soldiers to secure Baghdad and Anbar province.
In comments that signalled a possible divergence between London and
Washington, Margaret Beckett, British foreign secretary, said the UK
would continue with its current plans, which involve handing over
responsibility to Iraqis in the south of the country.
These plans are widely expected to lead to a drawdown in Britain's
7,200 strong force in Iraq. At the weekend, Gordon Brown, British
chancellor of the exchequer, who hopes to become prime minister in the
next few months, said that "by the end of the year, there may be
thousands less in Iraq than there are now."
"It is not our intention to send more troops at the present time,"
Ms Beckett told reporters on Thursday morning. "We are under way with
a process of handover as the security situation on the ground
improves... That's been the case in the past, it's the case now."
By contrast, in a speech to the American public on Wednesday night, Mr
Bush said: "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in
Iraq."
More ...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9894df4a-a161-11db-8bc1-0000779e2340.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush 'strategy' |
11 Jan 2007 04:11:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:50:15 -0800, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Ta Ta George ...
Seems Bush only wants the regional situation to spin completely out of
control. He's handed virtual control of Iraq to Iran. This morning
troops raided the Iranian consulate in Iraq. Brilliant ... although
it's not unlikely Iranians are sponsoring Shi'ite militia's (as the
U.S. once supported foreign insurgents ... what goes around eh) Bush
was the one who allowed the situation to develop in Iran's favour. The
Saud's will back the Sunni's and Turkey will deal with the Kurd's as
they see fit.
All Hail The *****-Up In Chief.
The lead U.S. formations of The Surge are already arriving in Iraq.
You may need to impeach him and Cheney to stop this criminal stupidity.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
Bush is only looking to be able keep the spin up for the American sheeple
long enough to get out of office and have it become someone else's
problem. And yes, throwing more troops in for cannon fodder will delay
the complete breakdown into open civil war. The only question is, is
20,000 troops enough to put that off until after the next presidential
election? Time will tell...
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush 'strategy' |
11 Jan 2007 04:29:40 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:50:15 -0800, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Ta Ta George ...
Seems Bush only wants the regional situation to spin completely out of
control. He's handed virtual control of Iraq to Iran. This morning
troops raided the Iranian consulate in Iraq. Brilliant ... although
it's not unlikely Iranians are sponsoring Shi'ite militia's (as the
U.S. once supported foreign insurgents ... what goes around eh) Bush
was the one who allowed the situation to develop in Iran's favour. The
Saud's will back the Sunni's and Turkey will deal with the Kurd's as
they see fit.
All Hail The *****-Up In Chief.
The lead U.S. formations of The Surge are already arriving in Iraq.
You may need to impeach him and Cheney to stop this criminal stupidity.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
Bush is only looking to be able keep the spin up for the American sheeple
long enough to get out of office and have it become someone else's
problem. And yes, throwing more troops in for cannon fodder will delay
the complete breakdown into open civil war. The only question is, is
20,000 troops enough to put that off until after the next presidential
election? Time will tell...
Woods
Time.com had an article where some military types were referring to it
as JEL -- Just Enough To Lose.
I'm still hoping the Dem's look into impeaching him *and* Cheney.
-- Marvin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush 'strategy' |
11 Jan 2007 05:14:26 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"
<marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:50:15 -0800, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Ta Ta George ...
Seems Bush only wants the regional situation to spin completely out
of
control. He's handed virtual control of Iraq to Iran. This morning
troops raided the Iranian consulate in Iraq. Brilliant ... although
it's not unlikely Iranians are sponsoring Shi'ite militia's (as the
U.S. once supported foreign insurgents ... what goes around eh) Bush
was the one who allowed the situation to develop in Iran's favour.
The
Saud's will back the Sunni's and Turkey will deal with the Kurd's as
they see fit.
All Hail The *****-Up In Chief.
The lead U.S. formations of The Surge are already arriving in Iraq.
You may need to impeach him and Cheney to stop this criminal
stupidity.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
Bush is only looking to be able keep the spin up for the American
sheeple
long enough to get out of office and have it become someone else's
problem. And yes, throwing more troops in for cannon fodder will delay
the complete breakdown into open civil war. The only question is, is
20,000 troops enough to put that off until after the next presidential
election? Time will tell...
Woods
Time.com had an article where some military types were referring to it
as JEL -- Just Enough To Lose.
I'm still hoping the Dem's look into impeaching him *and* Cheney.
What I'd like to find out is why I continue to hear that the
Iraqi security, police, national defense units say they don't
ever have enough bullets, weapons, or armor (they're outgunned
by the insurgents). Hell, Iraq is a wealthy country. One day
worth of oil revenue should be enough to supply a large army
for quite some time. Iraqi police need a US military escort
to drive to the gas station to gas up their vehicles... otherwise
they get knocked off on the way to the gas station.
I get the feeling the Bush gang is giving them just enough to get
by, but not enough to take real responsibility for their own
country. In effect he's keeping the American thumb on the place.
The Iraqis are capable of fighting the insurgents just as US
troops are doing currently, but they are not being given the
weapons to do it with. The US army doesn't trust the new
fledgling Iraqi security apparatus, for different reasons (1.
the Iraqis might turn on the Americans and cause some REAL
American casualties. 2. the Iraqis might use such weapons
to further sectarian violence).
The answer ?
Answer A. Surge US troops, and stay 1200 years so the ethnic
strife can go away naturally.
Answer B. Draw down US troops and let Iraqis duke it out.
All bloodshed here will be on George Bush's hands.
-- Marvin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush 'strategy' |
11 Jan 2007 05:47:11 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"
<marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:50:15 -0800, Marvin The Paranoid Android wrote:
Ta Ta George ...
Seems Bush only wants the regional situation to spin completely out
of
control. He's handed virtual control of Iraq to Iran. This morning
troops raided the Iranian consulate in Iraq. Brilliant ... although
it's not unlikely Iranians are sponsoring Shi'ite militia's (as the
U.S. once supported foreign insurgents ... what goes around eh) Bush
was the one who allowed the situation to develop in Iran's favour.
The
Saud's will back the Sunni's and Turkey will deal with the Kurd's as
they see fit.
All Hail The *****-Up In Chief.
The lead U.S. formations of The Surge are already arriving in Iraq.
You may need to impeach him and Cheney to stop this criminal
stupidity.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
Bush is only looking to be able keep the spin up for the American
sheeple
long enough to get out of office and have it become someone else's
problem. And yes, throwing more troops in for cannon fodder will delay
the complete breakdown into open civil war. The only question is, is
20,000 troops enough to put that off until after the next presidential
election? Time will tell...
Woods
Time.com had an article where some military types were referring to it
as JEL -- Just Enough To Lose.
I'm still hoping the Dem's look into impeaching him *and* Cheney.
What I'd like to find out is why I continue to hear that the
Iraqi security, police, national defense units say they don't
ever have enough bullets, weapons, or armor (they're outgunned
by the insurgents). Hell, Iraq is a wealthy country. One day
worth of oil revenue should be enough to supply a large army
for quite some time. Iraqi police need a US military escort
to drive to the gas station to gas up their vehicles... otherwise
they get knocked off on the way to the gas station.
I get the feeling the Bush gang is giving them just enough to get
by, but not enough to take real responsibility for their own
country. In effect he's keeping the American thumb on the place.
The Iraqis are capable of fighting the insurgents just as US
troops are doing currently, but they are not being given the
weapons to do it with. The US army doesn't trust the new
fledgling Iraqi security apparatus, for different reasons (1.
the Iraqis might turn on the Americans and cause some REAL
American casualties. 2. the Iraqis might use such weapons
to further sectarian violence).
The answer ?
Answer A. Surge US troops, and stay 1200 years so the ethnic
strife can go away naturally.
Answer B. Draw down US troops and let Iraqis duke it out.
All bloodshed here will be on George Bush's hands.
-- Marvin
Answer C: Shoot anyone that brandishes a firearm in public and take their
weapons and give them to the Iraqi military. When our troops take fire from
snipers, level the block that the fire came from with GPS guided ordnance from
orbiting B-52s. Track down Al Sadr and put a .50 cal round through his black
truban. Pull back twenty miles and call the submarine.
Charly strategies that work
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush 'strategy' |
11 Jan 2007 06:08:52 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Charly the *****
<nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"
<marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:50:15 -0800, Marvin The Paranoid Android
wrote:
Ta Ta George ...
Seems Bush only wants the regional situation to spin completely
out
of
control. He's handed virtual control of Iraq to Iran. This morning
troops raided the Iranian consulate in Iraq. Brilliant ...
although it's not unlikely Iranians are sponsoring Shi'ite
militia's (as the U.S. once supported foreign insurgents ... what
goes around eh) Bush was the one who allowed the situation to
develop in Iran's favour.
The
Saud's will back the Sunni's and Turkey will deal with the Kurd's
as they see fit.
All Hail The *****-Up In Chief.
The lead U.S. formations of The Surge are already arriving in
Iraq.
You may need to impeach him and Cheney to stop this criminal
stupidity.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
Bush is only looking to be able keep the spin up for the American
sheeple
long enough to get out of office and have it become someone else's
problem. And yes, throwing more troops in for cannon fodder will
delay the complete breakdown into open civil war. The only question
is, is 20,000 troops enough to put that off until after the next
presidential election? Time will tell...
Woods
Time.com had an article where some military types were referring to
it as JEL -- Just Enough To Lose.
I'm still hoping the Dem's look into impeaching him *and* Cheney.
What I'd like to find out is why I continue to hear that the
Iraqi security, police, national defense units say they don't
ever have enough bullets, weapons, or armor (they're outgunned
by the insurgents). Hell, Iraq is a wealthy country. One day
worth of oil revenue should be enough to supply a large army
for quite some time. Iraqi police need a US military escort
to drive to the gas station to gas up their vehicles... otherwise
they get knocked off on the way to the gas station.
I get the feeling the Bush gang is giving them just enough to get
by, but not enough to take real responsibility for their own
country. In effect he's keeping the American thumb on the place.
The Iraqis are capable of fighting the insurgents just as US
troops are doing currently, but they are not being given the
weapons to do it with. The US army doesn't trust the new
fledgling Iraqi security apparatus, for different reasons (1.
the Iraqis might turn on the Americans and cause some REAL
American casualties. 2. the Iraqis might use such weapons
to further sectarian violence).
The answer ?
Answer A. Surge US troops, and stay 1200 years so the ethnic
strife can go away naturally.
Answer B. Draw down US troops and let Iraqis duke it out.
All bloodshed here will be on George Bush's hands.
-- Marvin
Answer C: Shoot anyone that brandishes a firearm in public and take
their weapons and give them to the Iraqi military. When our troops take
fire from snipers, level the block that the fire came from with GPS
guided ordnance from orbiting B-52s. Track down Al Sadr and put a .50
cal round through his black truban. Pull back twenty miles and call the
submarine.
Charly strategies that work
Thank you Charly, but we were trying to avoid solutions that
involved mass murder (that's what Saddam was doing, remember ?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "mukyuk" |
|
| Title: Re: UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush 'strategy' |
11 Jan 2007 06:49:14 PM |
|
|
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98B5AE6FFB73Errfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Thank you Charly, but we were trying to avoid solutions that
involved mass murder (that's what Saddam was doing, remember ?)
Perhaps 'they' could do an experiment and taint the Iraqi water supply with
a 'love drug' like MDMA. It's worth a try, and I don't think as many will
die!!!.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush 'strategy' |
11 Jan 2007 06:59:13 PM |
|
|
mukyuk wrote:
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98B5AE6FFB73Errfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Thank you Charly, but we were trying to avoid solutions that
involved mass murder (that's what Saddam was doing, remember ?)
Perhaps 'they' could do an experiment and taint the Iraqi water supply with
a 'love drug' like MDMA. It's worth a try, and I don't think as many will
die!!!.
Make Love Not War.
Interesting thought there Mondo! Taint the water supply with
mood-altering drugs -- has a lot of possibilities for prankish laughs
-- 'The Lighter Side Of War, Death and Occupation'.
-- Marvin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush 'strategy' |
12 Jan 2007 12:36:50 AM |
|
|
"Marvin The Paranoid Android" <marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1168563553.765474.229230@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
mukyuk wrote:
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98B5AE6FFB73Errfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Thank you Charly, but we were trying to avoid solutions that
involved mass murder (that's what Saddam was doing, remember ?)
Perhaps 'they' could do an experiment and taint the Iraqi water supply
with
a 'love drug' like MDMA. It's worth a try, and I don't think as many
will
die!!!.
Make Love Not War.
Interesting thought there Mondo! Taint the water supply with
mood-altering drugs -- has a lot of possibilities for prankish laughs
-- 'The Lighter Side Of War, Death and Occupation'.
-- Marvin
If the American people and their representatives can't get these insane
corrupted turds outta' office, withdraw the troops ASAP, then America will
forever regret the events to transpire in the last two years of the loony
lame duck's term. I mean, really, really regret it...so far, it's been,
sans those thousands dead and maimed, of course, largely an academic
exercise in ideological debate or a strategic armchair quarterbacking
game, as our supposedly terrorist-seiged society trots off uninterrupted,
untouched to their jobs and shopping malls every week. When Iran and
others acquire more firepower, with or without WMD, and align with major
powers, the greedy lying fanatical *****'s that's occurring, and has
occurred, because of these terrible leaders, will eventually be a major
contributing factor that begins a global war. But, even before that, comes
the economic collapse, as it did in the USSR...MDMA for the Iraqis?? Hell,
let's distribute that smiley-face stuff freely to all of us
NOW...especially our fucking leaders.It just might turn the tide...who
knows?
Docrodile
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush 'strategy' |
12 Jan 2007 04:20:15 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Docrodile"
<swampthing@hellsbayou.com> Spat the Words
"Marvin The Paranoid Android" <marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> wrote
in
message news:1168563553.765474.229230@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
mukyuk wrote:
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns98B5AE6FFB73Errfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
Thank you Charly, but we were trying to avoid solutions that
involved mass murder (that's what Saddam was doing, remember ?)
Perhaps 'they' could do an experiment and taint the Iraqi water supply
with
a 'love drug' like MDMA. It's worth a try, and I don't think as many
will
die!!!.
Make Love Not War.
Interesting thought there Mondo! Taint the water supply with
mood-altering drugs -- has a lot of possibilities for prankish laughs
-- 'The Lighter Side Of War, Death and Occupation'.
-- Marvin
If the American people and their representatives can't get these insane
corrupted turds outta' office, withdraw the troops ASAP, then America
will
forever regret the events to transpire in the last two years of the
loony
lame duck's term. I mean, really, really regret it...so far, it's been,
sans those thousands dead and maimed, of course, largely an academic
exercise in ideological debate or a strategic armchair quarterbacking
game, as our supposedly terrorist-seiged society trots off
uninterrupted,
untouched to their jobs and shopping malls every week. When Iran and
others acquire more firepower, with or without WMD, and align with major
powers, the greedy lying fanatical *****'s that's occurring, and has
occurred, because of these terrible leaders, will eventually be a major
contributing factor that begins a global war.
So what are you trying to say, doc ? Come on now, I don't want
you to mince words with me... just lay it all out for me, give me
the ugly details.
But, even before that, comes
the economic collapse, as it did in the USSR...MDMA for the Iraqis??
Hell,
let's distribute that smiley-face stuff freely to all of us
NOW...especially our fucking leaders.It just might turn the tide...who
knows?
Docrodile
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush 'strategy' |
11 Jan 2007 06:30:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:08:52 -0600, Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Charly the *****
<nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"
<marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:50:15 -0800, Marvin The Paranoid Android
wrote:
Ta Ta George ...
Seems Bush only wants the regional situation to spin completely
out
of
control. He's handed virtual control of Iraq to Iran. This morning
troops raided the Iranian consulate in Iraq. Brilliant ...
although it's not unlikely Iranians are sponsoring Shi'ite
militia's (as the U.S. once supported foreign insurgents ... what
goes around eh) Bush was the one who allowed the situation to
develop in Iran's favour.
The
Saud's will back the Sunni's and Turkey will deal with the Kurd's
as they see fit.
All Hail The *****-Up In Chief.
The lead U.S. formations of The Surge are already arriving in
Iraq.
You may need to impeach him and Cheney to stop this criminal
stupidity.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
Bush is only looking to be able keep the spin up for the American
sheeple
long enough to get out of office and have it become someone else's
problem. And yes, throwing more troops in for cannon fodder will
delay the complete breakdown into open civil war. The only question
is, is 20,000 troops enough to put that off until after the next
presidential election? Time will tell...
Woods
Time.com had an article where some military types were referring to
it as JEL -- Just Enough To Lose.
I'm still hoping the Dem's look into impeaching him *and* Cheney.
What I'd like to find out is why I continue to hear that the
Iraqi security, police, national defense units say they don't
ever have enough bullets, weapons, or armor (they're outgunned
by the insurgents). Hell, Iraq is a wealthy country. One day
worth of oil revenue should be enough to supply a large army
for quite some time. Iraqi police need a US military escort
to drive to the gas station to gas up their vehicles... otherwise
they get knocked off on the way to the gas station.
I get the feeling the Bush gang is giving them just enough to get
by, but not enough to take real responsibility for their own
country. In effect he's keeping the American thumb on the place.
The Iraqis are capable of fighting the insurgents just as US
troops are doing currently, but they are not being given the
weapons to do it with. The US army doesn't trust the new
fledgling Iraqi security apparatus, for different reasons (1.
the Iraqis might turn on the Americans and cause some REAL
American casualties. 2. the Iraqis might use such weapons
to further sectarian violence).
The answer ?
Answer A. Surge US troops, and stay 1200 years so the ethnic
strife can go away naturally.
Answer B. Draw down US troops and let Iraqis duke it out.
All bloodshed here will be on George Bush's hands.
-- Marvin
Answer C: Shoot anyone that brandishes a firearm in public and take
their weapons and give them to the Iraqi military. When our troops take
fire from snipers, level the block that the fire came from with GPS
guided ordnance from orbiting B-52s. Track down Al Sadr and put a .50
cal round through his black truban. Pull back twenty miles and call the
submarine.
Charly strategies that work
Thank you Charly, but we were trying to avoid solutions that
involved mass murder (that's what Saddam was doing, remember ?)
Well, there's only 3 outcomes to a civil war: the parties involved duke
it out until they're sick and tired of it, one of the parties wins and
takes over (probably the Shiites), someone comes to power and squelches
the fighting by being a big old baddie (a la Saddam). There is no
other outcome possible. Now, other parties from the outside (like Saudi
Arabia and/or Iran) may get themselves involved, but the list of
possible outcomes doesn't change, just the scope of the final outcome.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush 'strategy' |
12 Jan 2007 06:24:18 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Charly the *****
<nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"
<marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:50:15 -0800, Marvin The Paranoid Android
wrote:
Ta Ta George ...
Seems Bush only wants the regional situation to spin completely
out
of
control. He's handed virtual control of Iraq to Iran. This morning
troops raided the Iranian consulate in Iraq. Brilliant ...
although it's not unlikely Iranians are sponsoring Shi'ite
militia's (as the U.S. once supported foreign insurgents ... what
goes around eh) Bush was the one who allowed the situation to
develop in Iran's favour.
The
Saud's will back the Sunni's and Turkey will deal with the Kurd's
as they see fit.
All Hail The *****-Up In Chief.
The lead U.S. formations of The Surge are already arriving in
Iraq.
You may need to impeach him and Cheney to stop this criminal
stupidity.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
Bush is only looking to be able keep the spin up for the American
sheeple
long enough to get out of office and have it become someone else's
problem. And yes, throwing more troops in for cannon fodder will
delay the complete breakdown into open civil war. The only question
is, is 20,000 troops enough to put that off until after the next
presidential election? Time will tell...
Woods
Time.com had an article where some military types were referring to
it as JEL -- Just Enough To Lose.
I'm still hoping the Dem's look into impeaching him *and* Cheney.
What I'd like to find out is why I continue to hear that the
Iraqi security, police, national defense units say they don't
ever have enough bullets, weapons, or armor (they're outgunned
by the insurgents). Hell, Iraq is a wealthy country. One day
worth of oil revenue should be enough to supply a large army
for quite some time. Iraqi police need a US military escort
to drive to the gas station to gas up their vehicles... otherwise
they get knocked off on the way to the gas station.
I get the feeling the Bush gang is giving them just enough to get
by, but not enough to take real responsibility for their own
country. In effect he's keeping the American thumb on the place.
The Iraqis are capable of fighting the insurgents just as US
troops are doing currently, but they are not being given the
weapons to do it with. The US army doesn't trust the new
fledgling Iraqi security apparatus, for different reasons (1.
the Iraqis might turn on the Americans and cause some REAL
American casualties. 2. the Iraqis might use such weapons
to further sectarian violence).
The answer ?
Answer A. Surge US troops, and stay 1200 years so the ethnic
strife can go away naturally.
Answer B. Draw down US troops and let Iraqis duke it out.
All bloodshed here will be on George Bush's hands.
-- Marvin
Answer C: Shoot anyone that brandishes a firearm in public and take
their weapons and give them to the Iraqi military. When our troops take
fire from snipers, level the block that the fire came from with GPS
guided ordnance from orbiting B-52s. Track down Al Sadr and put a .50
cal round through his black truban. Pull back twenty miles and call the
submarine.
Charly strategies that work
Thank you Charly, but we were trying to avoid solutions that
involved mass murder (that's what Saddam was doing, remember ?)
My bad. A friend's kid got a deployment order the other day. It's 'Nam again,
passed on to the next generation. Nam was an oil war too; onshore and offshore
reserves to rival the Gulf of Mexico. Check the back issues of "The Petroleum
Journal" for articles on leases and test hole results from the late '60s and
early '70s. Ideal, or oil deal?
Charly
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: UK sticks to Iraq plan despite new Bush 'strategy' |
12 Jan 2007 06:26:14 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Charly the *****
<nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, Charly the *****
<nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Marvin The Paranoid
Android" <marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> Spat the Words
Woodswun wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 07:50:15 -0800, Marvin The Paranoid Android
wrote:
Ta Ta George ...
Seems Bush only wants the regional situation to spin completely
out
of
control. He's handed virtual control of Iraq to Iran. This
morning troops raided the Iranian consulate in Iraq. Brilliant
... although it's not unlikely Iranians are sponsoring Shi'ite
militia's (as the U.S. once supported foreign insurgents ...
what goes around eh) Bush was the one who allowed the situation
to develop in Iran's favour.
The
Saud's will back the Sunni's and Turkey will deal with the
Kurd's as they see fit.
All Hail The *****-Up In Chief.
The lead U.S. formations of The Surge are already arriving in
Iraq.
You may need to impeach him and Cheney to stop this criminal
stupidity.
Cheers!
-- Marvie
Bush is only looking to be able keep the spin up for the American
sheeple
long enough to get out of office and have it become someone
else's problem. And yes, throwing more troops in for cannon
fodder will delay the complete breakdown into open civil war.
The only question is, is 20,000 troops enough to put that off
until after the next presidential election? Time will tell...
Woods
Time.com had an article where some military types were referring
to it as JEL -- Just Enough To Lose.
I'm still hoping the Dem's look into impeaching him *and* Cheney.
What I'd like to find out is why I continue to hear that the
Iraqi security, police, national defense units say they don't
ever have enough bullets, weapons, or armor (they're outgunned
by the insurgents). Hell, Iraq is a wealthy country. One day
worth of oil revenue should be enough to supply a large army
for quite some time. Iraqi police need a US military escort
to drive to the gas station to gas up their vehicles... otherwise
they get knocked off on the way to the gas station.
I get the feeling the Bush gang is giving them just enough to get
by, but not enough to take real responsibility for their own
country. In effect he's keeping the American thumb on the place.
The Iraqis are capable of fighting the insurgents just as US
troops are doing currently, but they are not being given the
weapons to do it with. The US army doesn't trust the new
fledgling Iraqi security apparatus, for different reasons (1.
the Iraqis might turn on the Americans and cause some REAL
American casualties. 2. the Iraqis might use such weapons
to further sectarian violence).
The answer ?
Answer A. Surge US troops, and stay 1200 years so the ethnic
strife can go away naturally.
Answer B. Draw down US troops and let Iraqis duke it out.
All bloodshed here will be on George Bush's hands.
-- Marvin
Answer C: Shoot anyone that brandishes a firearm in public and take
their weapons and give them to the Iraqi military. When our troops
take fire from snipers, level the block that the fire came from with
GPS guided ordnance from orbiting B-52s. Track down Al Sadr and put a
.50 cal round through his black truban. Pull back twenty miles and
call the submarine.
Charly strategies that work
Thank you Charly, but we were trying to avoid solutions that
involved mass murder (that's what Saddam was doing, remember ?)
My bad. A friend's kid got a deployment order the other day. It's 'Nam
again, passed on to the next generation. Nam was an oil war too; onshore
and offshore reserves to rival the Gulf of Mexico. Check the back issues
of "The Petroleum Journal" for articles on leases and test hole results
from the late '60s and early '70s. Ideal, or oil deal?
I know. Somethings got to be done about this. Reducing our
dependence on foreign oil would be a good start
Charly
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
