well thats the key isnt it? not to panic and go in all guns blazing. wow. is America really that paranoid? whatever happened to demonstrations and protests?

There is a difference between that and talking about how a government supports terrorist.

I would.......but......that involves.......work.

It occurred to me tonight to wonder where Iran was getting its uranium, and Google came to my aid. The Iranians seem to be working any source they can get at; they're mining some modest reserves of rather low grade ore domestically and they're working on African sources, showing a good deal of enthusiasm for mines in Somalia -- though how much success they'd have, fishing in waters this troubled, I'm sure I don't know. Then there's the Tanzanian uranium smuggling incident, where a lot of stuff doesn't quite add up yet -- arguments, for example, over just how much radioactivity could have been detectable in and from the shipping container. The UN report on all this for some reason (possibly skanky, as UN corruption and favoritism are becoming better and better known) isn't talking about uranium, while Tanzanian officialdom is. Sounds like you ought to fly to Dar Es Salaam with your own Geiger counter and geologists' hammer and find out for yourself. I didn't even see anything on whether it was raw ore or yellowcake, but I might have missed something.

Domestic Iranian Uranium -- I'm a poet and I don't know it.

Two Iranians prospecting for uranium possibilities in Somalia -- link to a one-sentence mention included in a UN report detailing arms smuggling into Somalia in aid of both the Transitional Government and the Islamic Courts.

thats exactly what these "leaders" want : apathy. it will be the undoing of many a nation.
a people should not fear their government - a government should fear the people. cant remember who said that, but its true.

I know V for Vendetta used that but I'm sure they got it from somewhere else.

By the way, that quote was sarcasm, yet it is sadly true.

The Middle East is a great example of that - too many of those countries have it back-asswards.

What do you mean by that?

What Phil said. "a people should not fear their government - a government should fear the people."

I'm pretty sure the American government doesn't fear it's people. Doesn't that make us back-assward?

If you think the government doesnt fear the people, just wait till election year rolls around. Fear of no votes (and therefore no JOB) is fear all the same, no?

I think they fear us plenty. Why else would they be saying all they do to appease us. If at some point they didn't, they certainly do now. They need us to remain employed, to have the power we entrust them with.

Why would Bush send a "surge" of troops when no one wants that? They may give us an illusion that we have power when in reality, it is just one big cycle.

Because he thinks the appearance of being a strong leader is as important if not more important than actually leading.

What, you think applying more force isn't going to make this better or something?

Everyone in the Mideast is counting on the soft Americans to fold up their tents and leave. Only problem is they are facing a President who will not fold - period. Just when it seems that everyone is saying quit - he steps it up. Then the insurgent violence goes up a notch too. All these Mid East wacko leaders suddenly start making statements to the world and on and on. . .
Hmm. Just an observation.

Thats bull, if he wanted to "step it up" he would have sent more than 20,000 troops. We are going from 130,000 troops to 150,000, not much of a difference. If he sent 100,000 I wouldn't be happy but I would at least see his point, but I don't get 20,000.

Well 20,000 is like a 15 % or so increase - not a negligible increase.
Other Possibilities:
1) certain number needed for a specific task ie: securing Baghdad
2) didn't think he could get anymore
3) doesn't have anymore to spare
4)???

And let the rest of the country rot. I keep my stance.

You know that isn't true. He could have gotten a lot more if he wanted.

Same as before. The troops go in shifts, he has a lot more troops to spare.

Had a look at Iraqi Kurdistan lately, PH? Yeah, sure, big rot there. The place has been a success story since the Northern No-Fly Zone.

Baghdad isn't the only problem, it would be ignorant to think so.

Besides, why would we just put the minimum amount of troops to secure a city? If we overloaded the city with troops, the transition would be a lot easier. There is no good excuse to only send 20,000 troops. Go all out or go home.

Are you talking about 500 or so elected people that are so entrenched in the political scum, you'd play hell trying to dispose of them? Or by government do you mean the millions that occupy those desks, or benchs, or trucks, or tanks, and you can't do a damn thing about? :(

I was referring to the elected officials

Since we're talking about Iraq in a thread about Iran, I thought I'd throw in this recent encouraging news about Afghanistan. Apparently Bush is beginning to realize that if you look like you are losing a war in a country, you better fix it before it's too late. He's focusing new attention on Afghanistan, which hasn't been doing very well lately.

I though I'd post it because it's rare for Bush do do something that makes sense.

From the Washington Post.

Wow! That's pretty cool.

I hope it's not too late. The poppy crop has been harvested and sold, the Taliban(and their ilk) have collected their money and are arming to the teeth.
Do you think they will be dissuaded by new infrastructure? That's the first thing they'll blow up.

Funds for security? What's the plan, bribe the Taliban? Money doesn't make the place more secure, soldiers do. Whether it be military or Blackwater, there has to be boots on the ground to provide security and I haven't heard of the UN peacekeepers being reinforced.

What we should have been doing right along, is providing a way for the locals to make a living with something besides poppies. That would have prevented the Taliban from extorting the profits from the poppy crop to buy arms.

If you want to know the truth about Afghanistan, read a short article called The Perfect Evil by Michael Yon.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

I know, I know, 3 parts, grumble, grumble......trust me, it's not long. :angel:

Here's another piece on Afghanistan, There be Dragons.

And the Canadians, Hiatus Corpus.

Or this pdf War: Canadian Style from the Toronto Star.

And The Long Road Ahead.

No, we should be doing what many radio talking heads have been discussing lately: look deep inside the heart of this great nation and ask "What would Ronald Reagan have done in this situation?"

He would have had the answer. :sniff:

Ronnie Rayguns would have nuked them, I suspect. :tinfoil:

How about doing business in a Virgin Market.

Dasht-E-Margo....Desert of Death.

:eek: did you forget to take your meds?!

spot on! the majority of the UK's heroin comes from Afghanistan, and this should ahve been tackled at the beginning, by helping to provide an alternative cash crop. the same thing is happening to South America with the coca crop, and that could easily be rectified. sorry, a little off-topic.

A nice thought -- but the difference between the money Yusuf Afghani can make from a field of wheat and a field of opium poppies is nothing short of astromomical, whether legal or no. Nobody has been able to wipe out this dollar difference nor even to close the gap.

To steal the oil and natural gas, duh!
Time to make the move.

the problem is that it has never been properly addressed. for example, coca could be used in a lift-me-up-tea, or in conference mints for the boring post-lunch sessions, or coca cake for hikers and walkers. of course, the strength and purity would have to be lessened so that it doesnt become addictve, like coffee, but the answers are there.
regards the opium plant, until you get to the top of the hierarchy, the cost of heroin in Afghanistan is miniscule compared to the cost when it gets to the UK. Afghanis are not getting rich from this: they are existing hand to mouth stylee.
off topic again, but needed to be brought up, i think.

for more on Coca, there is an excellent book available called THE BIG DEAL by Anthony Henman.

Not so because they have to pay the Taliban most of the profit for protection and marketing. But you couldn't know that, not being there.
I think I'll go with the opinion of the people that are there dealing with Bush's mistakes.:p

Not to drag this back in but, I saw some cable tv last night. The nut is serious about attacking Iran, isn't he?

He was serious about attacking China over a silly spy plane. How many saw what should have been obvious back then? He (really Cheney) is that Stalinmanic. Iraq was Pearl Harbored. Next on his well publicized list is Iran. Only a brown shirt did not see veins hanging from his teeth in 2001 - over a silly spy plane.

But then I even read his book. The word nut no longer applies. We long passed 'nut' when he (actually Cheney) wanted to attack China over a silly spy plane. He even promotes China as a next 'evil' - and brown shirts (ie Urbane Guerrilla) love it.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2007/013107.html

This guy thinks we will attack Iran in the next month.

The French will not pressure Iran, when push comes to shove:

http://story.news.ask.com//article/2...D8N0VEKO1.html

China will not pressure Iran, when push comes to shove.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/20449.html

Russia will not pressure Iran, when push comes to shove.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/21083.html

British/Iranian opinion: US/UN pressure on Iran will only hurt

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...001703,00.html

Worked for Castro...

That's it; thread's done!
 

Well, well, well: the thread is officially over. Tw just stooped or slumped down to calling somebody a Nazi.

As for the "silly spy plane" thing, the only person talking like an attack on China was contemplated is again our very own delusive, dear ol' tw. He also fails to understand what's behind the Heinleinian remark "Men are not potatoes." Those of us who do understand this are shaking our heads at tw's take.

Your communist sympathies, and your virulent anti-Americanism, have never been more on display than in this post, tw. Always your bias is away from America and her worthwhile traits and towards all the evils of Communism, which you would like us to believe are good things. But then, you usually cover yourself with your own shit when you reveal your thoughts. Nithing.

UG is using his menza grasp. Clearly a brown shirt could only be a Nazi. Because 1930 brown shirts supported the Nazi party, then 2002 brown shirts are also Nazis? Cheney would be angry with UG for his assumption.

Drivel, tw.

Ive wondered what UG was talking about. It's code!

http://www.levird.com - drivel spelled backwards.

This whole situation feels somewhat familiar. :fuse: