Bush wants to be seen as the hard man that tried, but does the USA realise they may have to bed Assad?

Question

20,000 +,,, now do they really think this new strategy will work or is it the last throw of a Pres who only cares about his post Pres rep and no longer gives an Iraqi fig anymore as long as the oil flows for the rest of his term.
If so, if US foreign interventionalist policy remains fixed on Iraq and they remain terminally fixed on isolating/removing/destroying Iran then will Hillary have to drop her drawers for Assad?

Answer 1

Well, Nancy Pants hasn't really spoken yet. the 20 thousand troops are not additional troops...they plan on extending the exhausted troops that are presently there. The military and their families haven't been heard from yet.
GB's "winning" verbiage has changed to "stabilizing" and "curbing sectarian violence." Iraqi troops are needed, not American! So far our troops are discouraged because Iraqi's are not showing up to fight for themselves. So why should we? I'm out of patience with the whole ordeal and have been ever since we went in for the wrong reasons to begin with...WMD's. Remember that?

Answer 2

I don't see why America (and Britain) doesn't bed Assad or Ahmedinajad in Iran, talking and diplomacy would make a nice change from fighting and things couldn't be any worse than what's going on now could they? By the way, I doubt very much Pres Assad would want to bed Hilary, he has a very attractive wife of his own.

Answer 3

I think this might be a plan.
but not abut Iraq
It's abut Iran. The incoming War. make sure to deploy as much as he can.
just like before the war on Iraq. The US forces were in Kuwait

Answer 4

Bush sleeps around. And, Assad is probably a whore as good as any of the other leaders remaining in the Middle East, in terms of having a price. It is important now, once such chaos descends, to remember the "Big Picture", to look at the whole region and the last century rather than mere details of the moment that are now meaningless. The tribal people of the region have, historically, used war to deal with their differences. They had not risen above their differences to form a lasting union when greedy foreigners descended upon those lands and began to plunder the oil there. Royalty and tribal elites were bribed. And, the CIA was used by U.S. oil interests, including those belonging to the Bush family, to deliberately destabilize the region for control and to prevent the people in the Middle East from uniting and controlling the oil themselves. The people there, betrayed by their leaders, failed to rise to the realities of the 20th century in time for the 21st. Oil production peaks in 2012 and ends in 2070. The plunder of Middle Eastern oil is now a desparate piggy-fest of who gets control of the world's remaining oil. The societies there, so long destabilized, have disintegrated into episodic chaos and heightened religiosity as the quality of leadership plummeted. Foreign and local elite oil interests, concerned about security for their pipelines and oil fields now that factions of freedom fighters and religious fanatics threaten to disrupt the efficient flow of oil out of the land, placed foreign troops, including those from UK and U.S., in the region to ensure enough, but only just enough, stability to get the oil out. Many U.S. soldiers there now report that all they do is guard oil fields and a flow of oil profits that go to only a few people in the world. Even the plunder has grown chaotic with an estimated 500,000 barrels of oil going "missing" every day, securing someone's power in the future as oil begins to run out. Bush marches through the region and wants to invade Iran now to lock up the pipeline routes. The U.S. pays Isreal $30,000 every year bribe for every man, woman and child, plus, has given them nuclear weapons which they have recently threatened (then denied) to use against the Iranians, in order to have an initial foothold for the plunder march through the region. Now, with a Democratic Congress and worldwide disgust for Bush and Cheney's lying and plundering and unspeakably irresponsible plundering of our own nation's financial security while racking up the largest national debt in the history of mankind, there may be some reasonable and certainly more decent approach that will be considered and some way to help the people of those regions who have been disarmed and are now at the mercy of roving gangs of religious fanatics and other factions. Bush stated during the Presidental debates that "there would be NO nation building" there, though. Bush and his family supported Saddam when it suited them. They support whomever goes along with them or are most easily bribed. They support the Shiites now because they seem the most easily "managed" and exploitable or amenable to the "Big Picture". That may change from day to day, depending upon the vagaries of the chaos. Not Hillary, nor any other U.S. leader except the Bush's (who represent and speak for NOT the people of the U.S. but the plunderers) and their toadies, like UK's Blair, "drops their drawers" for Assad or any Middle Eastern leader. It is the leaders of the Middle East who have prostituted themselves for a century now like common whores.

Answer 5

To put it as politely as I can, your questions and comments are idiotic.
The US is in a war with terrorists. Obviously terrorists are at work in Iraq. So far, they are good at blowing themselves (and others) up. That sort of insane behavior should not be allowed to continue anywhere in the world.

Answer 6

You are dead on, sir, up to the Hillary slam, which I found puzzling and not relevant.

Answer 7

Syria's cooperation would be nice after that I pretty much don't understand your question.