Senators warn Bush against wider war:

quote:

Originally posted by PBA54:
Senators warn Bush against wider war:

Republican and Democratic senators on Thursday forcefully warned President George W. Bush that his new Iraq strategy had set US foreign policy on a dangerous course, telling him not to expand the war to Iran and Syria.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8d9f0d36-a19d-11db-8bc1-0000779e2340.html

If Dear Mr President is paying attention, MOST Americans are issuing the same warning.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070111/ap_on_re_us/iraq_ap_poll
I would bet that with a little effort it would be possible to carry on a debate here with little more than posting links.

quote:

Originally posted by PBA54:
Senators warn Bush against wider war:

Republican and Democratic senators on Thursday forcefully warned President George W. Bush that his new Iraq strategy had set US foreign policy on a dangerous course, telling him not to expand the war to Iran and Syria.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8d9f0d36-a19d-11db-8bc1-0000779e2340.html

I am running a risk of being Off Topic with this, but, the article does detail US troop strength in Iraq, and, the headline is AMAZING.
Condi Rice warns "that the US will take action against countries destabilising Iraq."
Apparently the Secretary of State wants to protect the US MONOPOLY ON DESTABILIZING IRAQ.

SPELLING POLICE: NOTE THAT I WAS QUOTING THE BBC, THEY SPELL ENGLISH STYLE. What I wrote in my own, unplagerized words, I spelled according to American Standards Thus Destabilising and DESTABILIZING.

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:

quote:

Originally posted by PBA54:
Senators warn Bush against wider war:

Republican and Democratic senators on Thursday forcefully warned President George W. Bush that his new Iraq strategy had set US foreign policy on a dangerous course, telling him not to expand the war to Iran and Syria.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8d9f0d36-a19d-11db-8bc1-0000779e2340.html

I am running a risk of being Off Topic with this, but, the article does detail US troop strength in Iraq, and, the headline is AMAZING.
Condi Rice warns "that the US will take action against countries destabilising Iraq."
Apparently the Secretary of State wants to protect the US MONOPOLY ON DESTABILIZING IRAQ.

SPELLING POLICE: NOTE THAT I WAS QUOTING THE BBC, THEY SPELL ENGLISH STYLE. What I wrote in my own, unplagerized words, I spelled according to American Standards Thus Destabilising and DESTABILIZING.

I saw Condi on the news this morning... she crashed and burned, and none of her justifications for all this would make sense to anyone, much less a room full of Senators and Congressmen... She did NOT help Bush's cause one single bit.

But I am not surprised, all I have ever seen her do is stand behind him with that huge smile on her face.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel spoke for me when he called the Iraq escalation the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.
I think he also spoke for the vast majority of Americans. I will wait till the poll results are available before I get definite on that.

One poll is available, I just got it. CNN says Americans Agree with Hagel.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:
One poll is available, I just got it. CNN says Americans Agree with Hagel.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Ed, I read every single poll on that website, from CNN to NBC and on and on... it was a GREAT read.. and the numbers don't surprise me at all... I knew Bush supporters were falling like flies...

quote:

Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:

quote:

Originally posted by EdEKit:
One poll is available, I just got it. CNN says Americans Agree with Hagel.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Ed, I read every single poll on that website, from CNN to NBC and on and on... it was a GREAT read.. and the numbers don't surprise me at all... I knew Bush supporters were falling like flies...

Kindred, I had been waiting for Polling Report to release that one. There will be more, the CNN poll was the ONLY one on that site that was dated after the surge speech.
On the subject of Support, FLORIDA SENATOR MEL MARTINEZ has come out STRONGLY supporting the Surge, and the "new" victory plan.
I did a little research. The highest troop concdntration so far was 150 thousand. That was several months ago. American forces dropped from that High to 132 thousand in December. Great Britain is withdrawing 3000 of their troops. So, the surge barely replaces the troops ALREADY withdrawn. I think it is smoke and mirrors. There is a change, American Troops will be embeded in Iraqi units. I will give credit to Bush and the Defense Department for trying to put the load on Iraqi forces. It might even work. It should reduce the alarming casualty rate the US has been experiencing for the past couple of months. It may actually produce a military in Iraq that is Iraqi.

Ed
Can't agree with Hagel, I think going into Iraq is the worse foreign policy blunder EVER. This could be 2nd tho--

quote:

Originally posted by excelman:
Ed
Can't agree with Hagel, I think going into Iraq is the worse foreign policy blunder EVER. This could be 2nd tho--

You guys better wake up to what is ready to take place with Iran. not looking good! our war president loves war! I wonder if we will have enough troops to fight two wars.

quote:

Originally posted by excelman:
Ed
Can't agree with Hagel, I think going into Iraq is the worse foreign policy blunder EVER. This could be 2nd tho--

I think Hagel was being PC. His comments were designed to compare Johnson's escalation to Bush's SURGE.

quote:

Originally posted by PBA:

quote:

Originally posted by excelman:
Ed
Can't agree with Hagel, I think going into Iraq is the worse foreign policy blunder EVER. This could be 2nd tho--

You guys better wake up to what is ready to take place with Iran. not looking good! our war president loves war! I wonder if we will have enough troops to fight two wars.

Are you registerd with the Selective Service? I don't know what it would take, besides massive amounts of money from the House of Representatives to activate the Draft, but I suspect that Mr Bush could try to do it without congress.
Now, the manpower problem is solved, it won't be a high tech war, draftees just aren't as motivated as professional volunteers.
Mr Bush may be delusional, but it can't be possible that the whole US government is.

WARNING, NOTICE, ALERT...THIS IS A VERY LONG POST.
Summed up, The war in Iraq is a battle in the US policy of World Domination. The policy is not new. It is a policy driven not by the governemnt by the people, but that other US governement, the government by the corporations.

"All the Bad Guys are in Iraq, Al Qaeda, Syria,Iran" Gates.

Every last one of them, but Gates left out the support of the Sunni minority that is coming from SAUDI ARABIA. He also left out that Al Qaeda is Saudi Sponsored. He also left out that Bin Laden is Wahhabi, and aligned with Sunni, what the Bush GENIUSES leave out is Syria is predominantly Sunni, Iran is virtually in total control of Sheia. Taliban, is Wahhabi, and the propogandists in the white house and the media never seem to even make the distinction, perhaps because Wahhabi is generally rejected by Islamics, much as the Roman Catholic Church eventually rejected the inquisitors. I probably should not be so self confident in this analysis, since Wahhabi is not easy to learn about, and virtually every Wahhabist CLAIMS to be a Muslim, Just like the Inquisitors claimed to be Roman Catholics, and Like the Inquisitors, the Wahhabi movement claims to be cleansing Islam of undesireable influences. For example, the destruction of the collosal Buddahs in Afghanistan. I don't have all the dots connected, but It looks to me Like Wahhabi is a Sunni sponsored inquisition, again like the Roman Catholics sponsored the Inquisition, and the Inquisition had its greatest influence in Spain, not Rome. Mecca is in Saudi, The Saud family is responsible for the protection of Mecca. Laden Family wealth has been invested in Mecca's preservation and lots of it.
The danger of a wider war is real. Eighteen months ago Russia and China, after a summit between Putin and Hu Jian Tao made a joint statement warning against any country attempting to attian dominance in world affairs. China then went on an all out diplomatic push to establish trade relations with nations in Asia, Europe, Southeast Asia, South America, and the other two residents of North America, Canada and Mexico. Russian trade with Europe has increased, particularly in the areas of Oil and Natural gas at the expense of some of the Republics of the former Soviet Union.

The Bush Doctrine, simply stated, is domination of the world's economic and political systems, using military might as the vehicle to attain that domination. The direct consequence of that doctrine is the war in Iraq, the Continuing war in Afghanistan, without any effort to capture Bin Laden. The theats against Venezuela and Iran, and, the threats against North Korea as well, though that particular threat is indirectly aimed at North Korea's sponsoring State, CHINA. The back burner bellicose comments about Taiwan are a part of that threat by the way. North Korea is a buffer between the US protectorate of South Korea and China. (Remember Macarthur wanted to invade China, and we fought Chinese troops there.) Vietnam was another war where we fought China by proxy, and if you look at maps, the way I do, you will see an Iron belt being built on Russia's Southern borders, China's access to the Pacific Ocean (Russia's as well) and across the Russian Eastern front, their borders with Europe.
This has been going on a long time. If you take a cynical look at the Cold War, you will see a drumbeat for the expansion of US influence at the expense of the USSR and Red China. That drumbeat includes at least two big wars, Vietnam and Korea, along with a host of smaller incursions.
The Bush Doctrine is a public acknowlegement of the long standing expansionist designs of US foreign policy. We are not the first to attempt this Doctrine of Domination, the colonization of the New World was trilateral, France, Spain and England. England was the most effective at that exercise of power, and at one time, "the sun never set on the British Empire." Portugal was one of the least effective, and the only Western Hemisphere vestige of their colonial push is Brazil. Spain, England and France ALL managed to retain footholds in the New World until the 20th century. World War One ended most of that. World War two Killed the British Empire, and was followed by the Creation of Isreal in a former British territory, the division of India and Pakistan, the independence of Canada and Austrailia. Egypt broke away from British control, France gave up control over Algeria in 1962. Holland lost colonial positions in Africa. (remember the Dutch Cartoons?) The USA is making an heroic attempt to take control of those third world nations.
The United States does not have a Monarchy to carry a unified foreign policy for generations. We don't have a Single Party government to do it, we don't have governmental unity to do it at all. We do have corporate dynasties. About 40 families, including the Bush Family and the Kennedy family along with Dupont, and Dumont, and Carnagie, and other, well known names. They do have the dynastic line necessary to carry out this Doctrine of Domination. Acting in concert, they will eventually be able to carve up the whole of the world, if the world submits to the carving. GW Bush has told the world they can submit peacefully, or they will be butchered and then carved up.

Link to Gates remarks quoted above http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/01/12/byrd_gates/index.html