Securing Our National Defense
I watched Bush's speech on C-Span earlier, and wanted to give a quick comment on it. He says he plans to increase troop levels in Baghdad by roughly 21,000, which won't even make up for the number of US soldiers who have deserted over there since '03. The official military desertion numbers admitted by the Pentagon, as of July '06, are around 40,000 since 2000, as reported by the Air Force Times newspaper.
The only way for the US to successfully secure Iraq is to occupy them fully, with minimal cooperation with the corrupt Iraqi military and police(unless they're bringing back the Baath party to quickly bring some semblance of infrastructure and stability back to Iraqis, but Bush says he's doing the opposite) and also kicking out all the contracters and israelis. We don't have the means to occupy them properly, not to mention the will, especially as Iraq has never been a threat to Americans.
I'd say our best chance of obtaining anything that could be called "victory" would involve leaving it to Syria and other neighboring Arab gov/militaries to stabilize Iraq, with the backing of Russia. Of course this would throw a wrench into the building of the one or two dozen permanent military bases being built there, not including any permanent NATO bases, along with the jewish entity's interests(Securing the Realm, Restructuring the Mid-East, Spreading Democracy and Revolution, etc.,)
National security-wise, it would certainly be more constructive and fruitful for us to occupy North Mexico and secure our border(but can you imagine US troops cooperating with any Mexican military or regime to accomplish that? It's the same with cooperating and embedding with Iraqi's as Bush is doing, multiplied by the fact that the US replaced the moderate and far more "modern" Baathists and installed a theocratic Islamic government there). It's been reported by immigration experts that the average number of Americans killed by illegals each day is estimated to be somewhere between 12-25, by murder, drunk driving, sexual assaults, etc., "Our" National Guard defends Baghdad(on behalf of a foreign entity, israel) better than they do our own country and border. It's amazing that more Americans haven't taken matters further into their own hands, and for all the heated exchanges the "reconquistas" and their buddies should thank the Minutemen for effectively staving off *real* vigilantes from stepping up to the plate. They seem to be about the only people doing anything constructive or meaningful here. What are you doing, Mr Bush? Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi? Conyers? etc.,
Democratic leadership have been pushing for a larger troop presence in Iraq for a couple years now. In a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, it was found that Americans oppose a troop increase by 61%-31%. Bush's approval over his handling of Iraq is in the mid 20%'s. By 2-to-1, Americans say they want congressional Democrats, not Bush, to have more influence over the direction of the nation. That could be why Democrats are planning to hold a symbolic vote on the planned "surge", they know the troop increases they'd been demanding before the last election cycle would prove unpopular to their base and they want no credit or responsibility for it - much as they want no responsibility for approving and voting for the Iraq debacle to begin with, handing over a blank check of war powers to the neo-cons in the White House on down. For now they will play the role of "opposition" to their constituents(most of them anti-Iraq-war, it had little popular support across the board to begin with) that voted them in, until they get the troop increase of around 70,000+ that they actually wish.
Yesterday I flipped through Charles A. Linbergh Sr.'s short book Why Your Country Is At War{paraphasing the title, I don't have it in front of me at the moment}, and am currently mid-way through The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. The latter is quite interesting and touching, reading an account of family life and the times as they were happening. Many good people were saying the same things prior to the first two world wars that people are saying today about the current war, on the problems of press and jewish media influence, agitation for war, lack of public support, starvation policies and induced famine as warfare, economics and currency, etc.,. The only major difference is that now most of the anti-war groups have a much lower quality of leadership, as opposed to past patriots such as Lindbergh and Pound. But in those times, as these, it was still the same ineffective committees, rallies and protests. They were unable to stop or prevent the first two world wars, and looking back on their record - while commendable - the chances of stopping/preventing World War Three by those concerned today is not encouraging, before even considering the much less favorable conditions in our country presently.
The only way for the US to successfully secure Iraq is to occupy them fully, with minimal cooperation with the corrupt Iraqi military and police(unless they're bringing back the Baath party to quickly bring some semblance of infrastructure and stability back to Iraqis, but Bush says he's doing the opposite) and also kicking out all the contracters and israelis. We don't have the means to occupy them properly, not to mention the will, especially as Iraq has never been a threat to Americans.
I'd say our best chance of obtaining anything that could be called "victory" would involve leaving it to Syria and other neighboring Arab gov/militaries to stabilize Iraq, with the backing of Russia. Of course this would throw a wrench into the building of the one or two dozen permanent military bases being built there, not including any permanent NATO bases, along with the jewish entity's interests(Securing the Realm, Restructuring the Mid-East, Spreading Democracy and Revolution, etc.,)
National security-wise, it would certainly be more constructive and fruitful for us to occupy North Mexico and secure our border(but can you imagine US troops cooperating with any Mexican military or regime to accomplish that? It's the same with cooperating and embedding with Iraqi's as Bush is doing, multiplied by the fact that the US replaced the moderate and far more "modern" Baathists and installed a theocratic Islamic government there). It's been reported by immigration experts that the average number of Americans killed by illegals each day is estimated to be somewhere between 12-25, by murder, drunk driving, sexual assaults, etc., "Our" National Guard defends Baghdad(on behalf of a foreign entity, israel) better than they do our own country and border. It's amazing that more Americans haven't taken matters further into their own hands, and for all the heated exchanges the "reconquistas" and their buddies should thank the Minutemen for effectively staving off *real* vigilantes from stepping up to the plate. They seem to be about the only people doing anything constructive or meaningful here. What are you doing, Mr Bush? Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi? Conyers? etc.,
Democratic leadership have been pushing for a larger troop presence in Iraq for a couple years now. In a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, it was found that Americans oppose a troop increase by 61%-31%. Bush's approval over his handling of Iraq is in the mid 20%'s. By 2-to-1, Americans say they want congressional Democrats, not Bush, to have more influence over the direction of the nation. That could be why Democrats are planning to hold a symbolic vote on the planned "surge", they know the troop increases they'd been demanding before the last election cycle would prove unpopular to their base and they want no credit or responsibility for it - much as they want no responsibility for approving and voting for the Iraq debacle to begin with, handing over a blank check of war powers to the neo-cons in the White House on down. For now they will play the role of "opposition" to their constituents(most of them anti-Iraq-war, it had little popular support across the board to begin with) that voted them in, until they get the troop increase of around 70,000+ that they actually wish.
Yesterday I flipped through Charles A. Linbergh Sr.'s short book Why Your Country Is At War{paraphasing the title, I don't have it in front of me at the moment}, and am currently mid-way through The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. The latter is quite interesting and touching, reading an account of family life and the times as they were happening. Many good people were saying the same things prior to the first two world wars that people are saying today about the current war, on the problems of press and jewish media influence, agitation for war, lack of public support, starvation policies and induced famine as warfare, economics and currency, etc.,. The only major difference is that now most of the anti-war groups have a much lower quality of leadership, as opposed to past patriots such as Lindbergh and Pound. But in those times, as these, it was still the same ineffective committees, rallies and protests. They were unable to stop or prevent the first two world wars, and looking back on their record - while commendable - the chances of stopping/preventing World War Three by those concerned today is not encouraging, before even considering the much less favorable conditions in our country presently.
Labels: Bush Speech, Congress, Democrat, immigration, Iran, Iraq, media, Military, protests, Surge, Terrorism, war
posted by Brother John at
12:20 AM |
<< Home