Who would have thought we would have been stupid enough to allow this number to double since I posted November 9, 2005?<br><br><br><br>The thread I I posted in the lounge back then is filled with ironies. It wasn't all about the oil but oil company profits are at a record high as well as the price of a barrel of oil. No one brings up the absurd idea we invaded to get cheap oil. That was a strawman argument to hide the fact we invaded so our oil companies could make obscene profits.<br><br>The mention of inflation way back then is interesting. As the money you have in your pocket becomes worth less (the euro since then has become almost twice as expensive as the dollar) we think we are doing great because we are all making a ton more money. (Or working three jobs.) But if you are not making at least 30% more than you were making in November 2005 you have lost ground. (Hint: oil companies more than a 30% increase.)<br><br>Just now they quoted the 4,000 dead coalition forces and 30,000 wounded on the radio. But it is really 61,000 very wounded soldiers, not 30,000.<br><br>From here until election day, just eight months, can we forget about the economy that has been trashed by this three trillion dollar expenditure? Can we think only of the dead soldiers? Then add ten years which a McCain election would guarantee and do the math. Then vote.<br><br><br><br><br>
I agree with you, Poly, except for the part about forgetting about the economy. That's going to cause at least as much hardship, eventually, as the deaths of those poor boys and girls who've given their all. But I see your point. There's no need. The boots are enough. Twice as many... and counting. <br><br>Shoosh<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:green]Pictures and things</font color=green>
<br>And I mean this quite sincerely.<br><br>Do you honestly believe Obama will (be able to) withdraw troops when just these past days, US military have proposed asking the Brits to bring back some of theirs in the beleaguered south?<br><br>On one hand, the surge has indeed brought about some relief, and attacks have been reduced substantially. However, much of that - according to many experts - is because the insurgents have moved elsewhere and/or are biding their time, waiting for a Democratic president to start withdrawals.<br><br>Withdrawal may be a political election issue, but in the final analysis it is a military matter.<br>As Macchiavelli so wisely said: You can start a war any time you want, but you can't end it that way.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
"Humor ist, wenn man trotzdem lacht" (Humour means laughing despite of it)
I agree I cannot see how anyone can say they were not wasted, every last one. A war of Bush's choosing fought for WMD, Saddam = Al Quida, spreading democracy, now what, the surge is working. The surge is working to do what? Postponing whatever happens. That is all the surge is doing.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Do you honestly believe Obama will (be able to) withdraw troops when just these past days, US military have proposed asking the Brits to bring back some of theirs in the beleaguered south?<p><hr></blockquote><p> Yes. Obama will bring back troops faster than any other person in the race. Why? Because he owns the highest moral ground. He never supported the war and so when he is elected he can say with a clear conscience that we are leaving quickly because invading was wrong. Hillary can do her "if I knew then what I knew now" shtick but it doesn't work. McCain will send more troops not less.<br><br>Even if I knew Obama was going to bring home just one more soldier than the next candidate I would vote for him. Do you honestly believe that any other candidate would bring home the troops faster than Obama?<br><br>I know the realities. It is not going to be pretty. Obama will likely be calling in air strikes into Iraq for the forceable future. We will switch to killing Iraqis from a distance. That is unfortunate but he will have to saber rattle and drop bombs. I am OK with that. Sure beats anything else we are doing.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.