The "surge" idea may actually work, in a warped sort.............

of way. We send more troops in and the Iraqi government, the Sunnis, and the Shiites put aside all their differences and come together as one nation to fight US.

:shrug:

Golden Mosque and kick-started the sectarian violence.

I always thought the Golden Mosque explosion was a set-up too. The neocons love their photogenic set-pieces.

He's certainly been doing a bang-up job so far with uniting the world against us.

relative peace to Iraq through force. Bush is apparently unable to do this, even with all of the force he has used there. I believe his strategy is to beef up our forces only in Baghdad to overpower the insurgency in that particular area. During this time he will secure all other American troops in secure areas and discontinue patrols. After a couple of months of relative peace and low American casualties, he can declare a victory and announce withdrawal. Of course we won't actually have a victory, whatever that would be in Iraq, but it is the perception of victory that matters, and Bush is worried about his legacy about now.

You remember. All those cheering, joyful, Iraqis, flinging posies and naming their first-born Dubya in the earlier glorious victory.

The US is afraid that if we did allow the "Iraqis" to go in and "clean up" Baghdad - you would be looking down the barrel of a Shia operation aimed at the Sunnis. That is why we are embedding the units - we are trying to avoid a catastrophe.

Too little, too late.

But I am sure that is the idea.

And anyway - we are already buffing up our forces there.

I really think prayer is a good idea here.

Joe

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia probably gave Cheney a good talking to that time he was summoned over to SA.

this out loud was Biden - he said this out loud this morning even.

I don't think I prefer him to be our nominee in 2008 - but he is pretty smart.

Anyway, I think there is little doubt, that was the true subject matter of the "Jordan discussions".

In sick way, it even makes sense.

Joe

they may have had a chance at kicking out the English so very long ago, ditto the Native Americans in this country. I don't see that happening though, I think we'll end up taking one side or the other.

I agree with you though - if there were really two sides. Cause even if you take one side - you have a 50% chance of being right, you know.

There are in fact 15 or more sides here - and though I alluded to a sunni-shia fight, I know it is much deeper.

Make no mistake - we are afraid that unleashing this "mis-trained" force in an area as volatile as Baghdad could blow up - well, it can.

You think - if it were just sunni vrs shia - which side do you take? You pick shia, you allienate 85% of the muslim world and back Iran. Go the other way and you directly invite Iran in.

No win situation, either way.

And do you appreciate just how criminal the US actions against the Native Americans really were??

Joe

and yes, but I was going waaay back to the French and Indian wars and before, by the time the U.S. rolled around, it was pretty much a lost cause for the Native Americans.

in what you said.

No deaf ears here.

It is just - about our indians - that the US set out on a policy designed to screw them.

And it was clearly criminal - at least it was after the Supreme Court ruled under the Jackson administration that the actions were criminal.

We had no right to do what we did to our Native populace. We know it as a country.

An interesting aside - At the battle of Midway, turning point in the Pacific war - do you know that was a single Souix Indian pilot - that purely following his instinct, found those Japanese carriers and turned the whole battle, and thereby the war around for us?? He died in that attack too. What a great man.

We have a lot to make up for as a country to our people. And they are truely our people. They are us.

Joe