On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:53:04 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Wow, what an unbiased, totally believable source:

OK, I'll give you that wasn't the most credible source, but how about Gen.
Tommy Franks. Bribery was used, and it was a smart thing to do.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...q-bribes01.htm


Far be it from me to argue with a French newspaper citing a
(unidentified) senior Iraqi source!.

I am in no position to judge the number of soldiers needed on the
ground. The generals fighting the ground action are in such a position.
As of now, they are saying they don't need more US troops. General
Abizaid has no reason to lie, but he does have reason to succeed.

The key word there may be *US* troops. We seem to be trying to recruit
Poles, Indians, and God forbid, UN troops, to help out.

The goal is, and must be, for the Iraqis to take over their own security
and government. Of course, if our only aim is to steal Iraqi oil, then
for sure we should have more troops to prevent the Iraqis from ever
doing that.

That goal would be a lot easier to attain if the country was stable. I
don't believe our goal is to steal Iraqi oil, but to increase our
influence in an unstable area that is vital to our interests. An
interesting read:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ma_273_01.html

You may like the job Rumsfeld is doing, but I think GWB ought to fire him.
It appears that his Office of Special Plans was the source of much of the
faulty WMD intelligence. Another interesting read:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact