quote:

---

President Bush yesterday began an overhaul of his top military and diplomatic teams as he prepared to announce a highly controversial increase of 20,000 US troops in Iraq. He is to replace his two senior generals in Iraq, both said to be sceptical about increasing troop numbers, and he has also reshuffled his national security and foreign policy teams.

The moves are part of a broad mission to surround himself, both in Washington and on the ground in Iraq, with officials who support increasing troop numbers, a move largely opposed on Capitol Hill and among the American public.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

I have a really bad feeling about where this is going

---

FM, as far as the ME goes, I always find myself in emphatic agreement with your messages.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Then you don't know me very well. An escalation just means more innocent people pay with their lives.

---

Hi FM,

I did not mean to imply I know you - I only find it curious that we diverge on this point whereas I am usually in agreement with you.

I don't want to see innocent people die either. To my mind, the greatest harm is already well underway. At this point, I would rather see things brought to a head, than prolonged, and anything that hastens America to defeat and departure is desireable. This "Surge" does not in any way strengthen America's presence: It weakens it.

1. America can't even meet the troop demands, and will end up surging less than 10K. Keep in mind, these troops aren't ideal choices - They are either already war weary, or previously unqualified. They will put a further strain on the already overloaded American logistical ability, and will not be well supported. They will be a danger to themeselves and their fellows.

2. This decision is a grave blow to troop morale, and will result in an increase in fragging and conscientious objection.

4. Bush's reshuffle to position yes men to execute this impossible request is an act of desperation. Leadership changes are disruptive to leadership.

It's just part of the ongoing meltdown of the American military. It won't be a painless process, but will ultimately seriously compromise America's capability to export war.

The predominant theory at work is that Bush wants to delay defeat in Iraq until after his term ends in Jan. 2009. But that doesn't require a purge of military and diplomatic staff and the elevation of sycophants or physchotics. All it requires is maintaining the course and Bush is under no real pressure, yet, from the Democrats to change course.

So that raises the question of what is he really up to? The Bushites and the neo-cons probably believe they can't leave Iraq or extricate themselves from Afghanistan so long as Iran is available to pick up the pieces. And Israel is still on Bush's left shoulder whispering evil into his ear and Bush thinks its the voice of God.

I see on the horizon the regional war we should all fear. I think the giant has stumbled with a weak and stupid leader at the helm and we will all be dragged down as it falls.

[ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

US Army urges dead to re-enlist The US Army is to apologise to the families of officers killed or wounded in action who were sent letters urging them to return to active duty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Well, we now know where Bush was going to get his "extra troops' from!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6237607.stm

---

[ 10 January 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
I don't find that funny in any way, Legless.

---

OTTAWA – While Liberal Leader Paul Martin continues to obfuscate his position on Iraq, here are some interesting comments from others on what Martin’s original position on Iraq was.

* “There is no doubt in my mind that if Paul Martin had been the leader, we would have gone to Iraq with the United States.�? – Former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps (Worth Fighting For, 2004, pp. 182)
* “When the Liberal government had to make a decision on Iraq, Mr. Martin did not speak. Those of us on the inside knew that he had been working very hard to get Prime Minister Chrétien to join the Americans in the war.�? – Former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps (Worth Fighting For, 2004, pp. 211)
* “Prime Minister Martin said that he was thinking of putting troops into Iraq to help train Iraqi security forces. The very first person to raise objections was Stephen Harper. The Prime Minister ended up beating a hasty retreat and said that the Canadian military trainers would only do their job outside of Iraq.�? - Former U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci (Unquiet Diplomacy, 2005, pg. 165)
* “I think we made the wrong decision in not supporting them, and we’re obviously encountering the fallout from that in terms of various aspects of Canadian-American relations, which is not healthy.�? - Former Liberal Defense Minister under Paul Martin, David Pratt, (Hansard, March 29, 2003)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmpunk:
I don't find that funny in any way, Legless.

---

Well, Farmpunk, you're a hard sell, but perhaps the following story will tickle your funny bone like it does mine.

I posted it in another thread, but here it is again, in case you missed it.

"Two American troops turning to Unix each day":

quote:

---

On Christmas, for example, Army Reservist James Dean barricaded himself in his father's home with several weapons and threatened to kill himself. After a 14-hour standoff with authorities, Dean was killed by a police officer after he aimed a gun at another officer, authorities told the Washington Post.

Veterans for America's Robinson told IPS that Dean, who had already served 18 months in Afghanistan, had been diagnosed with PTSD. He had just been informed that his unit would be sent to Iraq on Jan. 14.

"We call that suicide by cop," Robinson said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
--
Veterans for America's Robinson told IPS that Dean, who had already served 18 months in Afghanistan, had been diagnosed with PTSD. He had just been informed that his unit would be sent to Iraq on Jan. 14.
--

---

PTSD is one of those counter-intuitive benefits of war that I've really come to appreciate: The karmic infection of the messengers of misery with their own payload.

America will end up bearing at least some of the social cost of this war. Moreso, due to unexpected redeployments that will be a result of Bush's "Surge".

Those blood-crazed chickens will come home, and they will be roosting in the families and communities that supported them. They will erode those communities, and in their own way, hasten the fall of empire.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Legless-Marine:
Those blood-crazed chickens will come home, and they will be roosting in the families and communities that supported them. They will erode those communities, and in their own way, hasten the fall of empire.

Nice to see "liberty" get spread around a bit.

---

This was one of the discussion points we used in the lead up to the Invasion of Iraq.

Personally, the coporatists, and BUsh Co, donot give 2 shits about the USA and it's citizens. To bad they, the USians, didn't care about themselvs enough to be forward thinking enough to see what this would do to their country.

In fact, it is too bad Canadians do not realize what our military personal being in Afghanistan will do to our country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
An interesting article argues US troops will be returning home with the knowledge of making roadside bombs and will be using them in US cities against police and in the commission of crime.

---

Undoubtedly, a lot of soldiers will come back unglued, but the mass deployment of IEDs seems unlikely.

The average soldier is little more than a life support system for a rifle, and most soldiers are average. Explosives work is limited to military engineers, who work mostly with standardized military ordnance. I really can't imagine who'd be trained on, or work with Improvised Explosives, but I'm sure they're a highly specialized, and uncommon bunch.

Perhaps the soldiers learn a few tricks from exposure to techniques of the resistance, but it's not like those would be skills they'd practice.

More likely, the greatest threat from returning soldiers comes in the form of a case of beer and a consumer assault rifle.

With bacon fat.

[ 11 January 2007: Message edited by: Briguy ]

As for Bush, that psychopathic piece of shit, here is his quote from his speech. This man has no conscious, no morals and needs to be tried for Treason and War Crimes immediately:

quote:

---

Bush said he will order more than 20,000 soldiers and Marines to help the Iraqi government provide security in Baghdad and fight the Sunni insurgency in Anbar province. But he emphasized that Iraqi soldiers will take the lead in the new fighting, and he said that the focus of American troops will be to advise and support Iraqi forces, with the additional U.S. troops embedded in Iraqi units.

In some of his sharpest language to date, the president placed the responsibility of improving conditions squarely on the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has not delivered on an array of promised reforms and security measures.

"I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended," Bush said last night. "If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act."

---

quote:

---

Prime Minister Martin said that he was thinking of putting troops into Iraq to help train Iraqi security forces. The very first person to raise objections was Stephen Harper.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
This is such a sad sad situation. The anti-war article Leggless posted a link to, that would make anyone weep. These are just young men and boys.

---

Save your tears for the millions of Iraqis that don't have a the benefit of prompt medical response or ongoing care like the Americans do.

If some American kid, even a disadvantaged one, decides he's going to pack up his life and go to a foreign country and turn hundreds of strangers into corpses and cripples, he deserves whatever fate has in store for him.

So does the family that allowed him to sign up, the community that encouraged him, and the nation that glorifies him. They can all shoulder the resulting burden - It is yet a fraction of what has been dealt to others.

quote:

---

President Bush's nomination of current director of National Intelligence John Negroponte for the position of deputy secretary of state brings bad news for Latin America. If proven, the allegations of Negroponte's sordid involvement in the Central American "dirty wars" of the 1980s should fundamentally disqualify him for any job in public service; at the very least, his nomination requires a serious inquiry into the deep stains on his record.

There is compelling evidence that Negroponte routinely covers up his complicity in a variety of questionable entanglements, including being aware of, if not helping to guide and facilitate funding for, a Honduran military death squad in 1983 while serving as U.S. ambassador in Tegucigalpa.

With a newly elected U.S. Congress that has been given a mandate to fix the country's profoundly troubled foreign policy, now is the time for this country's policymakers, particularly the new Democratic majority, to call into question yet another of Bush's egregious foreign policy errors-in-the-making.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:
I read an interesting idea somewhere the other day. Impose a 'War on Terror Tax' of 50% on incomes over $1 million until such time as the war is declared over.

Victory within months I'm sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnpauljones:

But they will find a loophole to pass the tax onto us somehow

---

Nope, no loopholes. All income, including in-kind. A surefire way to ensure peace - make the rich pay for war. Right now we do the opposite - the rich benefit and the poor pay (in treasure and blood).

[ 12 January 2007: Message edited by: arborman ]

George Bush's plan to escalate the war in Iraq is wrong for Iraq and wrong for America.

That's why Senator John Edwards is calling on Congress to block funding for Bush's escalation of the war.

Please join me and thousands of others in demanding that Congress take action now to block Bush's plan:

http://johnedwards.com/action/sign-petitions/nofunding/

quote:

---

WASHINGTON -- Members of the House and Senate are preparing nonbinding resolutions opposing the deployment of more U.S. troops to Iraq, but President George W. Bush said it won't stop him from going ahead with it.

In an interview Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes," Bush said he understands that Congress could try to stop him. But he said, "I've made my decision."

Sen. Barack Obama, though, said it's a bad one. Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," the Illinois Democrat said it would be a mistake for the U.S. to try to impose a military solution to what he said has become a civil war. He said the best U.S. strategy for Iraq is a surge in diplomacy, not troops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
He's out of control

---

[ 16 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
There should be lineups at dawn, and the Bush crime family should be made to sit there and watch it happen.

---

Well, actually, I wanted to see them participating as the focal point, as opposed to watching.