Egbert-Mcwhirter Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 Hello there thought I would gauge folks opinions on this news issue. I think that sending another 21,500 troops to iraq will not make much of a difference just more young lives needlessly lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sudden Stop Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 I don't know either way - send in more troops and there are more to shoot at and more to be shot by. Take the troops out and the insurgents shoot anybody in their way until they install their own leader. I guess Bush is just reacting to what his advisers are telling him, that he's got his own guys into a pickle but to pull out completely will look like he didn't really want to sort out the running of the country in the first place and that he was just after the oil - which he was. It's a no win situation at the moment. Hopefully, since this is the path he was choosen, the extra troops will tighten up security and allow the Iraqi government to get itself together. It might just move the insurgency problems to a later date though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heimdal Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 to pull out completely Read that and thought of this http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g87/vaila2/advice.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 He in no way wants an end to his neverending war, else he would lose his Ace of keeping the fear installed in his dumbass population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 I do not include Kirsten Dunst in that last statement. "joost in case she ever reads this" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 or Alison Mack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitaldodo Posted April 9, 2007 Report Share Posted April 9, 2007 Since the beginning of the "surge" on 1 Feb "coalition" casualties have risen to 3.16 per day - the highest in the 4 years since the invasion was "won". But this month they have risen dramatically to an average of 5.11 per day - a bit worrying for the coaliton as we are 11 weeks into the surge that was supposed to put an end to the insurgency. Check out http://icasualties.org/oif/ if yer interested in the crunched numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heimdal Posted April 10, 2007 Report Share Posted April 10, 2007 What would you be doing if WE had been invaded ? Remember Churchill and "We shall fight them on the beaches...etc"That's what I would expect to happen here and that's just what's going on over there. They want their country back and the invaders out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted April 11, 2007 Report Share Posted April 11, 2007 What would you be doing if WE had been invaded ? Remember Churchill and "We shall fight them on the beaches...etc"That's what I would expect to happen here and that's just what's going on over there. They want their country back and the invaders out.So the Iraqis want our troops to withdraw, a majority of the British public would like our troops withdrawn, and presumably the troops themselves would rather be at home with their families rather than being shot at. There does seem to be an obvious course of action, doesn't there ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitaldodo Posted April 11, 2007 Report Share Posted April 11, 2007 Not if there's a shed load of oil, control of the middle east and America's continuation as the world's number one economic and warfighting power at stake...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Not if there's a shed load of oil, control of the middle east and America's continuation as the world's number one economic and warfighting power at stake...... That, my friend, is unfortunately the key. We are already seeing them eyeing up Iran on the premise of a new "war on insurgents". Who will be next? I would suspect the majority of the Middle East - with an eye then on the choke points of pipe distribution for both oil and gas in that region and possibly further afield. Why the hell are they still in Afghanistan .. and or gave a hoot in the first place?! There's your first oil and gas route and choke point from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea! The next fifty years are going to see America struggling to keep the dollar a liquid currency and their already bloated and dangerously inbalanced economy afloat. The only way they can do that it to increase their consumption of oil --> the exact thing their economy has been built on the last century - "cheap" oil. Having read a lot into Osama and his past, that was one of his goals - to push the price of oil higher as $200 per barrel to then stand back and watch the American economy fail and go into a deep recession. [edit] removed this part 'cos I was speaking stoness! [/edit] And so the resource wars have begun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Saddam was playing with fire when he decided not to sell oil through OPEC, instead to sell his oil in Euro's - the then fledgling currency. The world hadn't really given a hoot how many Kurd's he'd managed to gas up until around that point --> then his invasion in Kuwait spelled the death knoll.Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990: the Euro wasn't established until 1992. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Absolutely - August 2, 1990 - Bit of a Freudian slip there as I'm reading about the Falklands War too at the moment - '82 ?! Maybe muddled there? Edit'd above post too! The rest makes sense though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 Absolutely - August 2, 1990 - <-- just looked that up. For some reason I was thinking it was 1992. doh! Bit of a Freudian slip there as I'm reading about the Falklands War too at the moment - '82 ?! Maybe muddled there? Edit'd above post too! The rest makes sense though. I agree: I was just pointing out the historical error. Sorry if I came across as a bit abrupt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabiaTerra Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 I'm a bit pissed at the mo', so this might be a load of crap, but... I was under the impression that the reason for the overthrow of Saddam was that S had signed contracts with the Germans, French and Russians to rebuild Iraq's oil industry once the sanctions were lifted (as they would have been for humanitarian reasons). S would then sell his oil for Euro's, as Trout said. This would have shot down the dollar as the only reason the $ retains it's value is because everyone has to buy dollars to buy oil. By getting rid of S, the US could rewrite the contracts to suit themselves and gain control of the Iraqi oil market. It always amused me (in a sick sort of way) that the Yanks left Iraq's museums, hospitals and most of the government to burn, but they did secure the Oil ministry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.