Hugabear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-20-08 04:57 PM
Original message |
Al Sadr might just blow the lid off Bush's "surge" |
|
BushCo, Gen. Betrayus, and these RW nutjobs have been practically gloating over their "surge", as if a few thousand extra American troops really made that much of a difference. Now we learn different. Now we learn that it's primarily due to Al Sadr's cease-fire that there hasn't been as much violence as there previously had been. And now we learn that Al Sadr is on the verge of lifting the cease-fire. Once that happens, we can expect the body count in Iraq to skyrocket, as the various factions once again resume fighting, and our troops are caught in the middle.
What's truly pathetic is that practically all the problems we're seeing in Iraq were predicted ahead of time, only to have those predictions brushed foolishly aside as * and his minions sought to build his reputation as a "wartime president".
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-20-08 04:59 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Nah, he's just trying to negotiate either a higher payment, or a better future position. |
Hydra
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-20-08 05:17 PM
Response to Original message |
2. You think Bushco was bothered by any of those projections? |
|
Genocide is being perpetrated on the Iraqis, and all it's costing us is about 100-200 soldiers every month. Since Bushco isn't bothered by the loss of troops, that's a bargain.
The fundies think they're gonna colonize the area...wonder who gave them that idea?
|
spanone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-20-08 05:20 PM
Response to Original message |
3. al sadr is the surge success deciderer |
TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-20-08 05:34 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Sadr is by far the most worrisome person in Iraq. |
|
Because he's organizing to take over there after we leave. And that should worry anyone who hopes Iraq can recover from this within the next hundred years, because Sadr has the potential to be a lot worse than Saddam was.
My opinion: the last thing we should do as we roll out of there should be to stick Sadr's head on a spike.
|
sicksicksick_N_tired
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-20-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Oh, please! He's been far more willing to exert non-violent actions than ours!!! |
|
Good grief!!! Every time anyone posts an "either/or" proffer, I just want to puke!!!
OH! Gee, georgie, jr,...advocate sticking Sadr's head on a spike! :puke: HOW SICK IS THAT!!!
|
TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-20-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. You do know that his militia has been responsible for the executions of thousands, right? |
|
Including the violent supression of gays, women, anyone in western clothing, libraries and liquor stores, ethnic cleansing, and the list goes on.
If you think Sadr's somehow a good guy in any way, then you're falling victim to the mindset that he must be okay because he's against the US occupation.
|
candymarl
(224 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Feb-20-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
of "blow back" or the law of unintended consequences. If Sadr takes over we'll have a religious strongman vs. a secular one (Saddam). If we kill Sadr, who is revered by many Iraqis and Sh'ia, all hell will break loose in the middle east. The government has put itself in another no-win situation. Good "strategery" there Bushco.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:04 AM
Response to Original message |