Cork_girl wrote: and how then is Bush doing so well in the elections??? someone explain please!! is it just lack of decent opposition?
Memnoch wrote: tbh before reading this i always thought that the killing of foreign "workers" and "contracters" was just random acts of violence in a society that has become completely chaotic due to the invasion.
dathi1 wrote: I just read this...totally mind blowing and very informative..I know its speculation but there was something very sinister about the bombs on shia shrines pre constitution sign up. CIA dirty tricks campaign once again...I'd be very sceptical on the Church attacks today as well, when we're in the middle of a pre Fallujah reinvasion massacre for the US presidential election.
dathi1 wrote: I'd be very sceptical on the Church attacks today as well, when we're in the middle of a pre Fallujah reinvasion massacre for the US presidential election.
As far as I can see, most analysts are saying that increases in violence and casualties in Iraq are only damaging Bush's re-election chances?
Anyone thinking of the poor contractors. Currently insurance runs $10K a week for a contractor to work in Iraq. So they would be hardly poor to be working there now, and I doubt you would have your casual contractor there.
the_syco wrote: I'm still pro-US, but I've become very anti-Bush in the last year or so, esp because he didn't take the advice of any of his military leaders, taking the advice from civilians instead :mad:
Sparks wrote: Geez, syco, why not just "nuke the site from orbit"? :rolleyes:
Moriarty wrote: There's much to be said for using an overwhelming force in situations like Iraq. The safest approach (both for the troops, and the general population once the 'main' war is won) is generally to send in as many troops as you can, then withdraw them later on if they're surplus to demand.
pork99 wrote: Clinton banged some fat chick