Report: US Wants British To Lead New "Surge" In Southern Iraq

The Brits pulled almost ALL of their troops out of Basra a few months ago-WHY would the delusional Bushies think they'd now send them back there-oh-that's right-they're delusional-and stupid,too! Why not just send more American troops there-that's.afterall. where a lot of the oil is!!

Bush: Please Gordon, I really need ya to spin this with a little support for me.
Brown: What?
Bush: I need a little Union Jack action to boost my numbers at home. Besides, I can't attack Iran without ya.
Brown: George, piss off.
Bush: I'm not hearin ya. Tony would've helped me out with a press conference. You won't even return my calls.
Brown: Shove a haggis up your arse.

I suggest that Bush goes to England and stand outside Parliament and ask the British people. I'm sure they'd offer him a tour of the Tower.

I know one Prince that won't go back. Oh well, the pressures of the crown, and all that dribble. Tut tut

It is fitting that the British take some responsibility, because, remember, without their lies, Cheney and the neocons wouldn't have been able to start the war that has been so instrumental in destroying the US military.

The new British PM is not going to end his political carreer for this, like Blair did.

There is no way they are ever going to stem the violence. That's what makes Bush's error in judgment in invading Iraq even more tragic. When you have two religious factions who hate what the other stands for and refuse to co-exist. It's always going to be a blood bath. Until someone finally manages to find another tyrant like Saddam who is willing to bash and kill to let these people know who is in control. Regardless of what Bush and his followers like to think. Iraq was far better under Saddam's rule than it will be without it. They haven't done a thing for these people but to destroy their country!

I've got a better idea. Instead of bothering our staunch ally Britain, why don't we get our supposed NATO allies to take over for us in Afghanistan rather than sending in token (often non-combat) forces. Spain, Germany, Italy, Turkey and others could do much more to pull their weight. That way we can redeploy our troops to fight in Iraq.

Welcome to your nightmare.

It's called "World War III."

I suggest that you do some advance readings. Look up the days of the "phony war" which lead up to Episodes One and Two.

Surf to http://thomas.loc.gov and look up the "National Service Act of 2007," which would eliminate any notions you might have of escaping the calamity yourself. If you're male or female, ages 18 to 42 inclusive, then "you're in." That's a recipe for a standing army of about 250 million men and women, which should be more than enough to launch a series of campaigns of world domination.

And somewhat less than 1,000 men and women securely ruling in Washington, DC, at no risk whatever to themselves or to their families, and with their fingers on the stock-shares of military suppliers which will make them even more insanely-rich than they already are through the business of supplying this catastrophe, have the full capability and authority to start it at any time.

Or... they can be impeached.

Clearly, if this country is going to survive long-term ... which, at the moment, is quite doubtful ... then it will need a "Constitution v2.0" but that's another story for another day. And there are alternatives of course. The Mexican government can regain a lot of lost territory... the British might even be in the colonies business again... the Persians gain an empire literally by buying it. Hey, if that big blank spot formerly named "USSR" broke into a dozen pieces, why not the other blank spot formerly called "US?" It just might work . . . . .

Reckon it's your choice one way or the other, but only if you make it, and only if you do it, like, right now.

If I read this right, Britain will surge using US Marines. I've got a better idea, lets let the British help our surge by replacing all of our troops with British troops.

HAH! As if.

Now the plot thickens.

UK citizens have more power than US citizens.

There the government fears the citizens.

In the US the citizens fear the government.

Already the UK troops are isolated at an airport or something similar away from combat.

Their countrymen know this conflict is not worth death of its citizens.

THis cannot happen. If Brown toadies like Blair did, he will find himself with a revolution on his hands. Brown was put in place in a "civil" coup to quietly undo the UK involvement, not deepen it. We're not going to stand for him using our troops to play whack a mole in Basra and lose more lives for no gain. Our involvement, US and UK, in Iraq is over. We cannot afford , either in terms of money or troops, to make the kind of effort that would be needed to change anything now. All that is going on is the cowardly chickenhawks whose egos are tied up to this folly are trying to save face and refuse to admit they were wrong. The surge is a dismal failure by its own definition because the sole purpose of teh surge was supposed to be to give the Iraqi government room to make political progress, which it has not and has even moved backwards. Moving the goal posts and trying to change the definition of success to fit the situation doesn't actually change anything.

I'm too distracted by Ashley Dupre's fun bags (to the right of this story on the front page) to make a comment. Happy Easter!