I support the surge

[MikeWaters]

copy of my post from cougarboard.

I support it.

Even though I have been saying things like the Iraq Study Group for a long time.

Why do I support it? It's pretty simple. It's like when you are playing Texas Hold 'Em, sometimes you go for the straight. The gambler instinct in me says go for it.

After this amount of time and effort and sacrifice, I think one last surge is worth it.

Do I have a lot of confidence in Bush? No. Do I think the odds are against a surge working? Yes. But even if there is only a 25% chance of it working, I think you lay down the chips.

Now by saying "chips" I don't want to make light of this. These are lives. Husbands, sons, fathers. And I'm sure this weighs on the president.

And I would like to add: Muqtada should get a telegram from us. "Change now or die."

What if this surge doesn't work? Then we withdraw post haste and let the Iraqis unleash hades on themselves (or alternatively come together).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Agreed.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Agreed.

agree also. the progressive thing to do is to stick with'em as much as possible. the conservative thing to do is to blow the place up, take their oil, and leave the mess/set up puppet govt or permanent base.

[Detroitdad]

If we are going to surge, shouldn't we really SURGE? Twenty thousand more troops won't do a lot in my opinion. Either get enough boots on the ground to control everything (i don't know what this number is, but I feel certain that this escalation is not enough) like there should have been in the first place, or tone it down.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

If we are going to surge, shouldn't we really SURGE? Twenty thousand more troops won't do a lot in my opinion. Either get enough boots on the ground to control everything (i don't know what this number is, but I feel certain that this escalation is not enough) like there should have been in the first place, or tone it down.

Good point. I go back and forth on this one. I am quite pessimistic that a democracy will ever work there.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

agree also. the progressive thing to do is to stick with'em as much as possible. the conservative thing to do is to blow the place up, take their oil, and leave the mess/set up puppet govt or permanent base.

I'm for your conservative approach. Better that we control the oil and money than terrorists.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

I'm for your conservative approach. Better that we control the oil and money than terrorists.

And by "we" you mean Exxon and Standard Oil, correct?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

And by "we" you mean Exxon and Standard Oil, correct?

Yes and no.

I have no problem with big oil because I'm a capitalist.

But by we, I mean the US controlling it for US interests. Big oil may be greedy bastards, like me, but their goal is to make obscene profits, not kill me because I don't want to live in the 7th century.

[SeattleUte]

A lot of stupid loose talk here. Would the world be better off if U.S. corporations rather than "terrorists" were firmly in control of Iraqi oil? Certainly. I'm confident that whatever "control" they gained over the resreves would be pursuant to bilateral contracts vigorously negotiated by and therefore fair and equitable to all parties to such contracts, including the nation of Iraq, which owns the resreves. Thus the Iraqi people and indeed the entire free world would be better off.

But the evidence currently is that the necessary conditions for this to occur aren't practical. Captialism, particularly international capitalism, loves peace, and indeed really requires it to function at practically any level. Il Padrino seems to be under the illusion that the plan has been for us to steal Iraq's oil. Not so. Are the conditions necessary for U.S. corporations to obtain control over the oil pursuant to commercial contracts attainable? The evidence makes me doubt that this is possible in the near future.