(It's been said by everyone from Nir Rosen-- whose article I linked here-- to many generals, even some in command of U.S. forces: the U.S. is not the arbiter of change or "transformation" in Iraq. That role lies elsewhere.)
Try this article with its hyperlinks:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy30.html
--Z
BUSH IS IRRELEVANT (?)
- Zlatko Waterman
- Posts: 1631
- Joined: August 19th, 2004, 8:30 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
- Contact:
- stilltrucking
- Posts: 20646
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
- stilltrucking
- Posts: 20646
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
Yes we all going to reap what Bush has sown."They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind" ~ Hosea 8
Good article, thanks for posting. A lot of info in there that I have not seen. I must have missed the links, But my eyes are bleary.
The US may not have the largest force, but they are still the most lethal. For what that is worth.
On a somewhat unrelated note:
I keep hearing the pundits say that we can't send anymore troops to Iraq because there are no more trops to send. And I wonder, 130,000 troops is all the army the USA can muster? Not that I want anymore troops sent. I wonder how could that be?
Bush is irrelevant?
Of course.
Unfortunately, he still holds the title of President of the United States.
It seems that for most of W's life thus far (as taught by the irresponsible liberal media), his name, or freely-assigned title overshadows everything else. He's been free to duck responsibility and wreak ill-considered havoc from Day One, primarily due to his name and freely-assigned title... (and in the case of the '04 election, certain no-conscience hired assassins such as Karl Rove-- as the irresponsible liberal media taught me).
George W. Bush is irrelevant?
Not to the thousands of soldiers hung out to dry in Iraq. I'm pretty sure about that.
Of course.
Unfortunately, he still holds the title of President of the United States.
It seems that for most of W's life thus far (as taught by the irresponsible liberal media), his name, or freely-assigned title overshadows everything else. He's been free to duck responsibility and wreak ill-considered havoc from Day One, primarily due to his name and freely-assigned title... (and in the case of the '04 election, certain no-conscience hired assassins such as Karl Rove-- as the irresponsible liberal media taught me).
George W. Bush is irrelevant?
Not to the thousands of soldiers hung out to dry in Iraq. I'm pretty sure about that.
Last edited by mnaz on December 10th, 2006, 1:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
Rule No. One of War (excluding the mercenaries):
If you must resort to that Godawful option, at least know what you are fighting for. And try to narrow it down, fairly specifically. It seems to me these misunderstood trans-Global misadventures seem to take an awful toll, at least as I've observed in my lifetime, where "truth" seems to hide in the shadows of the loudest microphones.
If you must resort to that Godawful option, at least know what you are fighting for. And try to narrow it down, fairly specifically. It seems to me these misunderstood trans-Global misadventures seem to take an awful toll, at least as I've observed in my lifetime, where "truth" seems to hide in the shadows of the loudest microphones.
- stilltrucking
- Posts: 20646
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests