Please Help Our Cause...It's Still An "Escalation" and Not a "Surge"

Please refrain from participating in the Bush Administration's political euphemisms. Increasingly, I see Democrats in Congress and here using Bush's cooked-up term of "surge" for what has always been called a military "escalation".

It's not a fucking "aspirational time horizon". It's a god-damned time-line.

It's not "Corporate America". It's transnational or multi-national corporations.

It's not "mainstream media". It's corporate media.

And for Pete's sake: It's not a "surge". It was then and is still now an escalation.

Thank you for your time.

Suppression of indigenous population during illegal occupation.

Funny how many people don't like it when I say "Illegal" in reference to the US.

Illegal occupation is what it is.

I'll borrow your term and go with "Illegal invasion and escalation of genocide."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/barbtries/169

i don't think anyone looked at it let alone paid attention. but at any rate i'm with you.

surge but that will not hide the basic issue.

The war in Iraq is President Bush's war and the war in Afghanistan will become President Obama's war.

Neither war will be won by a foreign occupying army and each society must ultimately find its own way toward a stable government of their choosing.

It appears unlikely that President Hamid Karzai can establish a government in Afghaninstan because he is viewed as a U.S. puppet.

Of the two nations, Iraq seems more likely to establish a stable government in the near term than Afghanistan because of pressure from within and the international community to buy Iraq's oil.

In contrast, Afghanistan lacks such valuable resources and its tribes are a contentious lot.

It's very probable that the U.S. and its allies must maintain an armed military presence for several decades in Afghanistan just to prevent a return of Islamic fundamentalists with their particular version of brutal Sharia law.