Next Show: ...loading...

Comments December 17, 2006

December 17, 2006

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Neo-cons want U.S. permanency in Iraq December 22, 2006 10:23 am

    What would 30,000 more troops do for anything? It is just a guise that Iraq’s problems can be solved militarally. Unless they are the Army Corps of Engineers dedicated to the mission of finally giving the Iraqi people dependable water and electricity and producing subsequent confidence of the people for the Maliki government–what is the point? Except the U.S. neo-cons plan on staying in Iraq regardless of what happens to the Maliki government or what the Iraqi people say (Gulf War I gave the U.S. permanency in Kuwait–Gulf War II’s victory is U.S. permanency in Iraq–Gulf War III? Stay tuned)
    Perhaps 30,000 troops deployed in the streets of Baghdad could secure that area for a time through dirty bloody interaction–but that would mean the end of the Maliki government as Sadr would remove his Shiite support
    As for those “Green Zone” shammer pogues calling for reinforcements to do their guard duty–they shower daily and wear underwear and probably gain weight–need I say more to any line grunts of any wars?
    John McCain continues to show that he spent too many years in the Hanoi Hilton and would probably be a pawn for neo-con interests, if elected–he’s a political posturer like Hillary–both these “candidates” should be shit-canned
    No fucking around–the U.S. needs a stateman for president–this time around–Obama has the presence of a “black Kennedy” and carries that intangible of hope–that is so needed
    The question is: is America mature enough to make
    the choice for hope–stay tuned
    The Sunni-Shia war is a 1,400 year continuance–don’t expect U.S. interference to affect that