Of course, since the military isn't directly involved, the September "progress report" probably won't include anything about this sort of thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... v=hcmodule

You'll note that the number of private security contractors (some of these people get paychecks exceeding $100,000 a year) is already somewhere between 15% and 20% of U.S. troop strength in Iraq. Maybe that's a way to get the U.S. army out of Iraq. Hire enough security contractors to get control of the country, pay them with the increased oil revenues which will be available after the oil fields and pipelines are secured, and send the army back to this country.

Beau Geste (imported) wrote: Sun Jun 17, 2007 2:06 pm Of course, since the military isn't directly involved, the September "progress report" probably won't include anything about this sort of thing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... v=hcmodule

You'll note that the number of private security contractors (some of these people get paychecks exceeding $100,000 a year) is already somewhere between 15% and 20% of U.S. troop strength in Iraq. Maybe that's a way to get the U.S. army out of Iraq. Hire enough security contractors to get control of the country, pay them with the increased oil revenues which will be available after the oil fields and pipelines are secured, and send the army back to this country.

The Iraq war has always been about money -- particularly for the people that paid to get the GOP elected.

Think of the GOP like a corporation. Corporations need customers to buy their products -- but ultimately, their loyalty is to their shareholders. They'll fuck their customers over, cheat them, lie to them, whatever it takes to produce value for their shareholders. Corporations live and die by whether or not their shareholders approve of what they are doing and are satisfied with how much money they are producing.

Political parties, especially in "two-party" systems like America's, function in exactly the same manner. They need citizens to vote for them in order to form the government, but their loyalty is to the groups that fund their campaigns. Some of the GOP's biggest supporters are military contractors like Halliburton. The war in Iraq is the GOP's way of producing value for those supporters, by taking YOUR tax money and handing it over to them to pay for "reconstruction efforts", not to mention atrocities like Dubya's socialized drug plan (incidentally, what the hell is up with what? Since when do Republicans support free medicine?)

It's not as if the current batch of Democrats are much different -- they have their own business lobbies that they are beholden to, and seem to have rejected social democracy in favour of ... well, I don't even know what you'd call it. But it's scary and way too authoritarian. However, at least they have this going for them: their negative policies don't require using your tax money to make defense contractors richer while causing innocent people to die.

Of course, SANE Americans should be voting libertarian or green or SOMETHING else by now anyway. It's not like you need an uppity Canadian like me to point out what should be GLARINGLY obvious by now -- that the two big parties are bad news. But the GOP has to be singled out -- they've taken cronyism and the plundering of tax money to new heights.

Well said but just wait until we though the republicans out and the denocrats in they will show us they can be just as corrupt.I realey feel this country is in for some big changes and not all will be good for many of us.

sag111 (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:00 pm Well said but just wait until we though the republicans out and the denocrats in they will show us they can be just as corrupt.I realey feel this country is in for some big changes and not all will be good for many of us.

The interesting question will be what the Democrats will actually DO. Do they bail, and let Iraq become another Shariah theocracy? Or do they stay until the American body count has rolled over into the six figure range and the Iraqi civilian bodybount is in the seven digit range? At this point, there's really no satisfying solution.

I've read that insurgencies typically have a lifespan of ten to fifteen years, and if they haven't driven out the enemy by then, the insurgency becomes incapable of recruiting new members. It's typically young men that fuel the ranks of insurgencies, and young men are notoriously fickle. A cause that's been around for over decade loses too much of its glamour to keep drawing them in. And by that time, there's usually been too much cultural synthesis. It's hard to discount the pacifying effect that a few dozen Starbucks in downtown Baghdad could have.

But ultimately, whatever the Democrats do, they'll come out of Iraq looking like assholes. They've got a no-win situation on their hands with that one. In fact, the best thing for them would be to lose a few more elections, and let the Republicans continue to botch the war. As long as the Republicans are at the helm, it's their problem and the stink is on them. In fact, after one or two more terms of GOP leadership, the Republicans will be looking so despicable that their support base could collapse. They would probably end up splitting into a far-right Christian party and a libertarian/classical-conservative party... which would definitely make for an "interesting" election.

Well,

All that I can say is this...

...The Republicans have SCREWED you...

...the Democrats have SCREWED you...

...Now give ME a chance...

I hate to say this for fear of seeing myself looking like a war monger but if we were to bomb Iran this thing just might be winable.But we wont and the Iranians will keep sending in their troups until we just pull out and call it quits

sag111 (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2007 8:34 pm I hate to say this for fear of seeing myself looking like a war monger but if we were to bomb Iran this thing just might be winable.But we wont and the Iranians will keep sending in their troups until we just pull out and call it quits

OH, if only we had you as President instead of George W. Bush in 2001 we might have been much better off.

If we would have bombed Afghanistan out of existance there would have been shit 12 foot deep in the valley between the Tigrus and Euphrates Rivers and no Arab in his right mind would have went wading in it...

Not to mention crispy crittered BinLaden with Al Qaida glaze and Taliban gravy...

A-1 (imported) wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2007 8:39 pm OH, if only we had you as President instead of George W. Bush in 2001 we might have been much better off.

If we would have bombed Afghanistan out of existance there would have been shit 12 foot deep in the valley between the Tigrus and Euphrates Rivers and no Arab in his right mind would have went wading in it...

Not to mention crispy crittered BinLaden with Al Qaida glaze and Taliban gravy...

Well, given that Iran and Iraq had ZERO to do with 9/11, the smart move would have been to simply do absolutely NOTHING in the middle east. Better yet, the US could have simply stopped propping up Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, and whichever other governments in that region the US is currently paying the bills for.

Ironically, Afghanistan is the war that the US is doing well in. Afghanistan is gradually becoming pacified, the US has support from NATO ... and if the US hadn't decided to piss off EVERYONE by lying and then invading Iraq for no good reason, they would have even stronger support in Afghanistan. The US actually had good cause to invade Afghanistan -- and innumerable allies... until they decided that it would be fun to ruin it all and transfer all the troops to a country where they did NOT have a good reason to invade.

Seriously: anyone who ever -- for even a second -- believed that invading Iraq was anything other than an evil, stupid decision, is so goddam stupid that they need to be publically horsewhipped until their brains improve. Bush lied, Rumsfeld lied, Cheney lied, it was all bullshit, and everyone with an ounce of sense knew it.

It's mind-boggling that anyone ever supported that nonsense, let alone that there are people who still do.

Not that it matters anymore -- what's important now is how to salvage the situation without handing over Iraq to some theocratic dictatorship. Once that's done, we can start rounding up Bush's supporters and break out the bullwhips.

Well, you will have to start with the majority of voters who elected George W. Bush last time over John 'F' Kerry.

Trouble is, there are more of them than there are of you...

...but you are right, I am tired of the body bags, too... :shakemitk

...tell me, don't you think that the Al Qaida would have found their way back to Afghanistan, since there is where they were formed to fight the Russians?

...now that most are in Iraq, the Taliwackers are alone...

I still say that "W" wanted revenge for the assassination attempt on his father by Saddam's men.

...so, we have a body count of 3,500 and counting so that the Bush family honor is preserved...

...a bird(brain) in the White House is Two of the Bush...

I beleave Iran did have someting to do with 911 as they have been doing their best to black our eyes for the last 20 years.It wouldent surprise me to find out one day they bank roll thies boys.Iraq well Sadam was working on taking a punch at us to and did get a few in befor he fell off his perch.So as I see it most arabs are in the same bed they just dont want to admit it but given the chance most will try their best to kill Americans if given the chance.So Bush eather gave them that chance or we killed some of the ones who wanted killing.Hmmmmmmm did I say he fell off his perch I ment he was pushed off his perch their is a diffrence they tell me