sfgate.com— Washington -- The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.
May 22, 2007View in Crawl 4
Err yes, except that now Bush reckons that Al-Qaeda are specifically targetting the US. Check out his latest rationale (and declassified intel) for getting more money from Congress. So the 'We fight them over there to keep them from coming here' talking point is vanishes in a puff of revisionism.Still there must be some other talking-points-for-the-I-cant-thnk-for-myself-brigade that we can throw around....
We have to keep going to wars in order to defend our currency. We can't allow it ever to go back to our banks. We don't produce enough things of value to cover the amount of dollars in circulation. We'd be forced to go into default if any single oil producer or consumer decided to dump their reserve. That would further ruin world confidence in USD and run our trade relationships into the ground. We had default in the 70's and we resolved it by forming OPEC. Oil became the new gold. Now that the oil's running out there's no immediate economic substitute. In order to hold the dollar monopoly we have to produce or control something that everyone needs and is willing to acquire our money for. Energy sector is where the economy's at. We want to switch from fossil fuels to a renewable alternative. We want to implement hydrogen-nuclear economy, but the problem is, if we are to reduce our consumption and reliance before the oil runs out, it's not going to prevent other countries in desperate need of resources from progressing. If we quit using oil, the price of oil will definitely go down with reduced demand. That means those that don't have to comply with our sanctions could afford more easily what's left of the substance. While we're going through transition-depression, trying to improve our electrical grids, build more power plants, invest in new vehicles and production machinery, the rest of the world reliant on oil would flourish. So, our agenda, it seems, is to either stick till the very end. Till there's no substitute for oil and then switch to an alternative that only we can afford. Global Warming initiative is a clever way of keeping only those currently in control of the oil monopoly able to progress and go through gradual economic transition. We're trying to impose restrictions onto Eurasia: "Either we use the oil and pollute, while others do same to lesser extent, or we don't use it and no one else does". We're trying to inhibit developing world from taking the same path we did. Global Warming is the perfect excuse for enforcing our dollar empire. However, we still haven't figured out completely what's going to happen. There's no clear resolution, so we're delaying the collapse, hoping that somewhere along the way we can manage to find a solution... or at least that it becomes next administration's business, not ours. Each government in the last century is like a person that keeps getting new credit cards in order to pay off old debts and borrow more, incrementally. Our reign will last for as long as we keep receiving them new credit card offers. Each administration keeps living like there's no tomorrow, hoping it lasts long enough so that the next one would have to clean up the mess. Got to admit something. Regardless of my disapproval of Bush, he did accomplish one mission - he defended the US dollar. Iraq started exchanging it for Euro in 2001, and if we did not go to Iraq, OPEC might have already been history. The was bought us some time, but did not resolve anything. It gave us more time to think. The dollar's sliding against the Euro... not falling yet. If only we were using this to our advantage, but we're not. Instead of reducing our reliance, we keep living like there's no tomorrow. We throw more and more money into our military... and at this point its our only winning card - forceful preservation of our domination. The stakes are higher, the risks are greater, but we're still holding. Aren't we? Our mighty dollar relies on existing lifestyle. Our purpose it to outlive our creditors, which is not too difficult, considering we're the ones holding a gun.
We need more troops then that. If it was up to me, I would surge to 500k troops...declare marshal law, go door to door...and id every single person in that country so I can snuff out the crazy terrorists. It would be Fallujah on in Baghdad. Then I would pull back to outside bases...and proceed only with strategic strikes into Baghdad on intelligence that Al Qaeda has pockets somewhere. Someday we can't have 200k troops in Iraq. We need to weed them out now, and control them later.
rafakrMay 23, 2007
That is the most stupid thing that I?ve heard in a while.
bshockMay 23, 2007
Dubya is a stinking drunk alky doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
delphium226May 23, 2007
Err yes, except that now Bush reckons that Al-Qaeda are specifically targetting the US. Check out his latest rationale (and declassified intel) for getting more money from Congress. So the 'We fight them over there to keep them from coming here' talking point is vanishes in a puff of revisionism.Still there must be some other talking-points-for-the-I-cant-thnk-for-myself-brigade that we can throw around....
bestenemyMay 23, 2007
We have to keep going to wars in order to defend our currency. We can't allow it ever to go back to our banks. We don't produce enough things of value to cover the amount of dollars in circulation. We'd be forced to go into default if any single oil producer or consumer decided to dump their reserve. That would further ruin world confidence in USD and run our trade relationships into the ground. We had default in the 70's and we resolved it by forming OPEC. Oil became the new gold. Now that the oil's running out there's no immediate economic substitute. In order to hold the dollar monopoly we have to produce or control something that everyone needs and is willing to acquire our money for. Energy sector is where the economy's at. We want to switch from fossil fuels to a renewable alternative. We want to implement hydrogen-nuclear economy, but the problem is, if we are to reduce our consumption and reliance before the oil runs out, it's not going to prevent other countries in desperate need of resources from progressing. If we quit using oil, the price of oil will definitely go down with reduced demand. That means those that don't have to comply with our sanctions could afford more easily what's left of the substance. While we're going through transition-depression, trying to improve our electrical grids, build more power plants, invest in new vehicles and production machinery, the rest of the world reliant on oil would flourish. So, our agenda, it seems, is to either stick till the very end. Till there's no substitute for oil and then switch to an alternative that only we can afford. Global Warming initiative is a clever way of keeping only those currently in control of the oil monopoly able to progress and go through gradual economic transition. We're trying to impose restrictions onto Eurasia: "Either we use the oil and pollute, while others do same to lesser extent, or we don't use it and no one else does". We're trying to inhibit developing world from taking the same path we did. Global Warming is the perfect excuse for enforcing our dollar empire. However, we still haven't figured out completely what's going to happen. There's no clear resolution, so we're delaying the collapse, hoping that somewhere along the way we can manage to find a solution... or at least that it becomes next administration's business, not ours. Each government in the last century is like a person that keeps getting new credit cards in order to pay off old debts and borrow more, incrementally. Our reign will last for as long as we keep receiving them new credit card offers. Each administration keeps living like there's no tomorrow, hoping it lasts long enough so that the next one would have to clean up the mess. Got to admit something. Regardless of my disapproval of Bush, he did accomplish one mission - he defended the US dollar. Iraq started exchanging it for Euro in 2001, and if we did not go to Iraq, OPEC might have already been history. The was bought us some time, but did not resolve anything. It gave us more time to think. The dollar's sliding against the Euro... not falling yet. If only we were using this to our advantage, but we're not. Instead of reducing our reliance, we keep living like there's no tomorrow. We throw more and more money into our military... and at this point its our only winning card - forceful preservation of our domination. The stakes are higher, the risks are greater, but we're still holding. Aren't we? Our mighty dollar relies on existing lifestyle. Our purpose it to outlive our creditors, which is not too difficult, considering we're the ones holding a gun.
slapthemonkeyMay 23, 2007
Seems he is putting all his energy in sending troops to Iraq rather than doing something constructive.
izealotMay 23, 2007
He signs his name with a capital G.That f**ker.
chullMay 23, 2007
News flashYou can't win this kind of war with a troop surgeVietnam anyone?
msipesMay 23, 2007
We need more troops then that. If it was up to me, I would surge to 500k troops...declare marshal law, go door to door...and id every single person in that country so I can snuff out the crazy terrorists. It would be Fallujah on in Baghdad. Then I would pull back to outside bases...and proceed only with strategic strikes into Baghdad on intelligence that Al Qaeda has pockets somewhere. Someday we can't have 200k troops in Iraq. We need to weed them out now, and control them later.