After escalation?

[The Blue Flower]

What happens after escalation takes place, and we end up with an even bigger disaster than we have now? What's the scenario?

[NewJeffCT]

1. Still more escalation, followed by a draft

protestors locked up... opposition silenced...

[uppityperson]

2. What, you want the terrorists to win?

:sarcasm:
assuming this was a rhetorical question, or would that be the question is the answer?

[Peace Patriot]

3. See my post #6 on recent developments in Congress, at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3076850

It has links to Kennedy's resolution, Kennedy's speech today at the National Press Club (brilliant speech!), and I outline what I think the strategy is, for when Bush escalates. It appears to me that they have it all thought out, and it is already in motion. We may be in for one hell of a show in the next couple of weeks--a Constitutional crisis like no other in our history, which is coming sooner rather than later. The issue is joined (as Howard Baker said, in the Watergate hearings). Or almost joined. Guantlet thrown. Issue about to be joined. I hope I'm right. My post also has a link to an excellent article on WHY Bush is escalating (pending oil contracts in Iraq).

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

4. I certainly don't get it?

The number 20,000 when it comes to U.S. troops in an entire country of 26,000,000 is, to me, just a drop in the bucket. What is it, about a 15% increase over the number now there? I think it's a political scam to make people think Bush is doing something while he stalls for the next 2 years. I don't see how 20,000 more troops can make a difference one way or the other in a full blown civil war. We are after all talking about a very fluid enemy that hits and runs, uses explosives detonated by remote control, and that can simply pick up and go to places where the added troops are not.