20,000 more troops offshoot...

[BudBro 180]

i'm going to try something here...see if you can follow it. let's piece together some recent headlines. israel sends munitions to egypt. they've always hated each other, haven't they? why would they cooperate? egypt supports the current leadership in palestine and israel sends them weapons to fight and help eliminate hamas.

 

iran to run out of oil revenues in 2015. so, the leader of syria no longer has a need to be in bed with iran knowing the money is running out. john kerry flies to syria to meet with the leader, without approval from the state department. why? we'll come back to this later. so, syria comes to talk with yemen and the united arab emerites since they will need some sort of financial aid soon. yemen and uae are our allies, putting syria in a position of needing u.s. allies to survive.

 

with saddam removed and a democracy loyal to the usa in iraq, iran now is left standing all alone and without oil revenues in the near term (perhaps this is why they have gone nuclear, not for weapons, but for power). yesterday, headlines read of the parliament in iran wanting the current leader of iran to step down. that leaves the religious mullahs in iran as the only obstruction left to peace in the middle east. now it becomes evident that saddam's removal was necessary, and wmd's may have just been an excuse to make a move.

 

so, back to kerry. why would he feel the need to go to damascus? my guess would be to talk the syrians into waiting to quell the iraqi insurgency until after the 2008 elections in hopes of a democrat winning the presidency, promising them aid from the u.s. if a democrat wins. why? so peace in the middle east doesn't come under the bush administration. it would ruin the democratic party completely and forever if george w. bush blundered his way into making peace in the middle east.

 

so, even if this is a stretch, doesn't it make sense to send the troops and work towards seeing if all this can happen? why are the dems wanting to withhold funding and not supporting sending the troops? might they also know what's happening and are trying to stall it? would they delay peace in the middle east, the end all to be all of being a democrat, simply out of spite for w? sure they would.

[MDC 7,368]

The reason behind the 20,000 troop surge:

 

Bush is under massive political pressure to somehow change strategies in Iraq. Setting a timetable for withdrawl would be an admission of weakness. So rather than do that, he goes along with the 20K plan even though 1) most military men agree that we'd need a much bigger surge than that to have any real effect and 2) it's questionable whether we even have 20K additional troops to send there right now - it may take months to phase this plan in.

 

So why is Bush endorsing this? Because it gives the appearance of changing course without really doing anything, and it helps kill time until 2008 when he can foist the problem off onto our next President. That really is the plan.

 

HTH.

[What is the deal? 1]

i'm going to try something here...see if you can follow it. let's piece together some recent headlines. israel sends munitions to egypt. they've always hated each other, haven't they? why would they cooperate? egypt supports the current leadership in palestine and israel sends them weapons to fight and help eliminate hamas.

 

iran to run out of oil revenues in 2015. so, the leader of syria no longer has a need to be in bed with iran knowing the money is running out. john kerry flies to syria to meet with the leader, without approval from the state department. why? we'll come back to this later. so, syria comes to talk with yemen and the united arab emerites since they will need some sort of financial aid soon. yemen and uae are our allies, putting syria in a position of needing u.s. allies to survive.

 

with saddam removed and a democracy loyal to the usa in iraq, iran now is left standing all alone and without oil revenues in the near term (perhaps this is why they have gone nuclear, not for weapons, but for power). yesterday, headlines read of the parliament in iran wanting the current leader of iran to step down. that leaves the religious mullahs in iran as the only obstruction left to peace in the middle east. now it becomes evident that saddam's removal was necessary, and wmd's may have just been an excuse to make a move.

 

so, back to kerry. why would he feel the need to go to damascus? my guess would be to talk the syrians into waiting to quell the iraqi insurgency until after the 2008 elections in hopes of a democrat winning the presidency, promising them aid from the u.s. if a democrat wins. why? so peace in the middle east doesn't come under the bush administration. it would ruin the democratic party completely and forever if george w. bush blundered his way into making peace in the middle east.

 

so, even if this is a stretch, doesn't it make sense to send the troops and work towards seeing if all this can happen? why are the dems wanting to withhold funding and not supporting sending the troops? might they also know what's happening and are trying to stall it? would they delay peace in the middle east, the end all to be all of being a democrat, simply out of spite for w? sure they would.

I like the way you're thinking, and this is all entirely possible...

 

Welcome back to the board. Stick around we need more guys like you

[GobbleDog 995]

So why is Bush endorsing this? Because it gives the appearance of changing course without really doing anything

 

I think you're jumping the gun by assuming more troops won't help the situation.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

i'm going to try something here...see if you can follow it. let's piece together some recent headlines. israel sends munitions to egypt. they've always hated each other, haven't they? why would they cooperate? egypt supports the current leadership in palestine and israel sends them weapons to fight and help eliminate hamas.

 

iran to run out of oil revenues in 2015. so, the leader of syria no longer has a need to be in bed with iran knowing the money is running out. john kerry flies to syria to meet with the leader, without approval from the state department. why? we'll come back to this later. so, syria comes to talk with yemen and the united arab emerites since they will need some sort of financial aid soon. yemen and uae are our allies, putting syria in a position of needing u.s. allies to survive.

 

with saddam removed and a democracy loyal to the usa in iraq, iran now is left standing all alone and without oil revenues in the near term (perhaps this is why they have gone nuclear, not for weapons, but for power). yesterday, headlines read of the parliament in iran wanting the current leader of iran to step down. that leaves the religious mullahs in iran as the only obstruction left to peace in the middle east. now it becomes evident that saddam's removal was necessary, and wmd's may have just been an excuse to make a move.

 

so, back to kerry. why would he feel the need to go to damascus? my guess would be to talk the syrians into waiting to quell the iraqi insurgency until after the 2008 elections in hopes of a democrat winning the presidency, promising them aid from the u.s. if a democrat wins. why? so peace in the middle east doesn't come under the bush administration. it would ruin the democratic party completely and forever if george w. bush blundered his way into making peace in the middle east.

 

so, even if this is a stretch, doesn't it make sense to send the troops and work towards seeing if all this can happen? why are the dems wanting to withhold funding and not supporting sending the troops? might they also know what's happening and are trying to stall it? would they delay peace in the middle east, the end all to be all of being a democrat, simply out of spite for w? sure they would.

 

 

Talk like that isnt going to get you anywhere on this board, all cluttered with facts and solid intuition. The mere mention of Bush's name on this board guarantees that you are a Hummer driving, gay bashing, muslim hatin, global warmin causin, gun totin, megalomaniac lovin redneck impossible of absorbing any education past 8th grade. Good luck with the "tolerant" folks on this board.

[GobbleDog 995]

BudBro

FF Rookie

Group: Members

Posts: 35

Joined: 24-February 04

Member No.: 25230

 

35 posts!?!?! Boy that takes me back. I remember my 35th post all those years ago.... well actually I don't. But it was probably something really insightfull...

 

 

 

I want my life back.