IRAQ: in 10 Years Time...???

With the news that George W. is sending more troops into the Middle East, what are your predictions for the state of this nation state in 2017??

if it keeps going as it is, it won't exist. it will be divided into three and probably gobbled up by the neighbouring counties. still it should be quite safe for the Order to play in Baghdad in 2017.

Trentham Gardens

Stoke On Trent

"The End Of An Era"

hOPE stoke GET INTO prem then i can see if this place still has the outdoor swimming pool.Last visited in 1967!

ROCKET MICK wrote: Trentham Gardens

Stoke On Trent

"The End Of An Era"

hOPE stoke GET INTO prem then i can see if this place still has the outdoor swimming pool.Last visited in 1967!

It does, I think, but it doesn't get used no more!! Last time I spoke to Alex in any depth he was saying that Trentham Gardens (all standing venue, capacity around 4000) was being mooted for a possible New Order gig.

Let's hope so, eh?

NO to play Baghdad :D

Before NO let the Pistols test the area. As far as I remember Lydon bravely repeated in the last couple of years they're going to perform there. And?

Ever notice the Press or Bush mentions about Troop levels increasing around this and Sept. time frame?

Not sure if Bush is ACTUALLY increasing troop levels, or if it is the normal fluxuation (which keeps being reported by the press and is a misnomer).

Every 6 months there is a changeover of troops. It takes a couple weeks to get to their station, one month of a turnover, then another couple weeks for those to return. So troop levels are increasing for a 2 month period by numbers, but not by those in action.

I think he's just beating the Press to the punch, as they would report "Increased troop levels" as they have in the past.

EdelBrock wrote: Ever notice the Press or Bush mentions about Troop levels increasing around this and Sept. time frame?

Not sure if Bush is ACTUALLY increasing troop levels, or if it is the normal fluxuation (which keeps being reported by the press and is a misnomer).

Every 6 months there is a changeover of troops. It takes a couple weeks to get to their station, one month of a turnover, then another couple weeks for those to return. So troop levels are increasing for a 2 month period by numbers, but not by those in action.

I think he's just beating the Press to the punch, as they would report "Increased troop levels" as they have in the past.

You must be living in an alternate universe...

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Ever notice the Press or Bush mentions about Troop levels increasing around this and Sept. time frame?

Not sure if Bush is ACTUALLY increasing troop levels, or if it is the normal fluxuation (which keeps being reported by the press and is a misnomer).

Every 6 months there is a changeover of troops. It takes a couple weeks to get to their station, one month of a turnover, then another couple weeks for those to return. So troop levels are increasing for a 2 month period by numbers, but not by those in action.

I think he's just beating the Press to the punch, as they would report "Increased troop levels" as they have in the past.

You must be living in an alternate universe...

dID YOU NOT READ WHAT i WROTE?

Yes, I did read it. But EVERY report says clearly that he's sending ADDITIONAL troops, beyond the level we have there now. Nothing about "For one month overlap."

Even his own party is rebelling.

That's not a response you'd get with a troop rotation. As they say, denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

"Once order was restored, Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said the president’s policy was “very, very dangerous.” “Matter of fact, I have to say, Madame Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out,” said Mr. Hagel, who was seriously wounded in Vietnam. “I will resist it.”

Just a troop rotation overlap?

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Yes, I did read it. But EVERY report says clearly that he's sending ADDITIONAL troops, beyond the level we have there now. Nothing about "For one month overlap."

Even his own party is rebelling.

That's not a response you'd get with a troop rotation. As they say, denial ain't just a river in Egypt...

Right but he is talking about numbers of troops, and with the new rotation it would be adding 20,000 troops per say.

I only mention this because this is how the Press has reported the same thing in the past.

Plus I have heard nothing on added levels of my Battalion going from our end, and we usually hear about this stuff before it hits the Press.

Here's the plan, as described in the NY Times:

"The five-brigade increase in American forces will be accomplished by speeding up the deployment of four units already scheduled to go to Iraq, and by sending one additional brigade that was not scheduled to go. The total increase of American troops in Iraq amounts to roughly 20,000, including 4,000 marines who will be stationed in Anbar Province, the stronghold of elements of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the Sunni insurgency. The increase in Iraqi troops and policemen amounts, officials said, to about 8,000.

The units heading into Iraq begin with a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division, now in Kuwait, expected in Iraq before the end of the month, followed by a brigade of the First Infantry Division, based at Fort Riley, Kan., probably next month.

The Army is also planning to announce that the Second Infantry Division, Fourth Brigade, based in Fort Lewis, Wash., and the Third Infantry Division’s Second Brigade, based at Fort Stewart, Ga., and the Third Brigade, based at Fort Benning, Ga., should begin preparing to go to Iraq earlier than scheduled. Officials said that the total increase in troops could take three or four months.

The Bush plan also calls for delaying the departure from Iraq of a Minnesota National Guard brigade by four months, an official said. The unit had planned to leave in the spring and had not been notified that it would be staying longer, Lt. Col. Kevin Olson, a spokesman for the Minnesota Guard, said Wednesday. "

Do you reckon Mr Bush's announcement has anything to do with this weeks announcement that the West will receive 75% of Iraqi oil profits for the next 50 years?

Burt Reynolds wrote: Do you reckon Mr Bush's announcement has anything to do with this weeks announcement that the West will receive 75% of Iraqi oil profits for the next 50 years?

That sort of cynicism isn't going to win us the war and its spoils!

|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Before NO let the Pistols test the area. As far as I remember Lydon bravely repeated in the last couple of years they're going to perform there. And?

Funnily enough i just watched a Banco de Gaia video shot by him in Baghdad in April 1999 with live footage in said city. Fucking madman.

Bush should clean up his ego driven mess in Iraq, but he will never give up in any event

Questions... So what is "victory" in Iraq?

And who is the enemy that they are fighting? You've got the Sunnis who had power under Saddam... and the Sunnis who side with fundamentalist Al-Qaida... and the Shites supported by Iran? But the USA is supporting Shites in the government... what are these governing Shites loyalties, to Iran or to democracy under the boot of the USA military? Are the USA supporting pro-Iran Shites and fighting anti- American Iran forces at the same time, how the heck does that figure to work? The USA is anti-Sunni in Iraq and Al-Qaida but are pro-Sunni in Saudi Arabia? Are they both for and against both factions? Maybe I'm missing something...

pumped full of drugs wrote: Bush should clean up his ego driven mess in Iraq, but he will never give up in any event

Questions... So what is "victory" in Iraq?

And who is the enemy that they are fighting? You've got the Sunnis who had power under Saddam... and the Sunnis who side with fundamentalist Al-Qaida... and the Shites supported by Iran? But the USA is supporting Shites in the government... what are these governing Shites loyalties, to Iran or to democracy under the boot of the USA military? Are the USA supporting pro-Iran Shites and fighting anti- American Iran forces at the same time, how the heck does that figure to work? The USA is anti-Sunni in Iraq and Al-Qaida but are pro-Sunni in Saudi Arabia? Are they both for and against both factions? Maybe I'm missing something...

I think you're confusing yourself there, as you rightly confused me in reading it. But I think you are mistaken as Fallujah (which was a terrible haven for insurgents) is now considered a Sunni safe haven. More building and citezens are standing up to the insurgents, including a growing police force. However, Fallujah is looking much better, which would mean the Press would never report about it.....they only like bad stuff to report, not the good stuff

Good stuff Edel Brock???

Even George Bush Snr said to his idiot son "George you are making the same mistake in Iraq as I made with your mother...not pulling out soon enough"

Iraq will be a peaceful democracy...

See the South-West region (of the pipelines), divide it in 4 (1/4 to Kuwait, 1/4 to Saudi Arabi, 1/4 to Syria or what ever will be over there in 10 years and the last 1/4 will be Iraq) The other regions in the east and south, will be divided again in 20 individual countries named after the Oil companies and nicknames.

Iraq will be a small country of approx. 500.000 citizens, with no Oil fields or "weapons of mass destruction". Peaceful exotic place for safari (with radioactive war remainings as sight seens and millitary bases).

It will separate into three or four mini nations ala Yugoslavia or it will be the slaughterhouse we have now...

Craig W wrote: It will separate into three or four mini nations ala Yugoslavia...

One can only hope.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Craig W wrote: It will separate into three or four mini nations ala Yugoslavia...

One can only hope.

It does seem a plausible outcome, but then how on earth would an independent Kurdistan function? It would have a hostile Arab nation to the south, equally hostile Iran and Syria either side of it (with unhappy Kurdish minorities of their own) and the Turks to the North - Turks who have reason to be aghast at an independent Kurdish state because of what it might signal to their own fractious Kurds.

I wonder how the Turks would react if a Kurdish state came into existence by default, even without a formal declaration, because the rest of Iraq just collapsing into chaos? They might even invade.

And on top of all that Israeli newspapers are openly speculating about using tactical nukes to take out Iran's nuclear facilities.

We're probably all doomed you know.

within the next 10 years every man, woman and child in the United States will be deployed to Iraq to fight in the war on terror