THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

Quote:

Until we "liberated" Iraq and established bases there, there was a need for bases on the Arabian Penninsula but from a strategic military requirement only----not an imperial one.

And what is the difference?

Congratulations Steve-----did you finally look at a map?
There are signs that Syria and Iran have suddenly had the "light bulb" snap on just as you did.

Since September 11, the United States has set up military bases housing sixty thousand troops in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, along with Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, and Bulgaria. Also crucial in the operation is the major U.S. naval base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

[Since 1990] new military bases in the Middle East were established, most notably in Saudi Arabia, where thousands of U.S. troops have been stationed for more than a decade.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

What a mealy-mouthed hornswoggling cricker-crucker.

To misquote the old guy in Blazing Saddles.

Quote:

Congratulations Steve-----did you finally look at a map?
There are signs that Syria and Iran have suddenly had the "light bulb" snap on just as you did.

Is this an admisson that either of these countries is next? I'm looking at a globe not a map, the USA is a long way from both. Why the interest if not strategic/imperialist ambition?

The promises of a paradisiacal reward for martyrdom is an incitement ot attack. It is not a reason for attack, perception.

You and bin Laden do agree on at least one thing; the Saud monarchy is corrupt.

Quote:

Congratulations Steve-----did you finally look at a map?
There are signs that Syria and Iran have suddenly had the "light bulb" snap on just as you did.

Is this an admisson that either of these countries is next? I'm looking at a globe not a map, the USA is a long way from both. Why the interest if not strategic/imperialist ambition?

There is a tendency in the west to play down - or ignore - the extent of Bin Laden's success. The US and UK governments regard mentioning it as disloyal or heretical.

Looking at the next 10 years, the Foreign Office said the battle of ideologies between market economics and Marxism that dominated 20th-century Europe appears to be giving way to battles over religion.

Bin Laden's September 11 attacks are mainly to blame for this polarisation. But the responses of George Bush have exacerbated this, with his two wars and the failure to tackle the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Perhaps the war on Afghanistan was necessary - but the war on Iraq was not. There was no link between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.

Instead of the war on Iraq, Bush would have been better, as Blair continually advised him, to deal first with Israel-Palestine... Bush has dropped any pretence of a US that acts as an independent arbitrator in the conflict. He has placed himself alongside Sharon. He has said he supports the creation of a Palestinian state, but shows no desire...to try to bring it about.

Property values in central Najaf have tripled since before the war, and wages are up eightfold. Yesterday, a paving crew was laying the first new asphalt in nearly a decade.Najaf's dawning renaissance coincides with the political intrigue among the four major ayatollahs here who together hold sway over Shiites the world over. With their sect of Islam comprising as much as two-thirds of the Iraqi population, the Shiite religious leaders have been increasingly outspoken about the speed of sovereignty transfer by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Whoever may prevail among them, this much is clear: whatever the new Iraq will be is almost certain to be determined by the leaders of this city.[/i]

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, 73, the most influential of the clerics, declined repeated requests for interviews yesterday, choosing to remain in seclusion at his humble two-storey tenement along a narrow alley one block south of the shrine.

Said Rael al-Nouri, a spokesman for firebrand Ayatollah Muqtata al-Sadr, who is widely regarded as too young to speak for a majority of Shiites, dismissed the outside world's growing preoccupation with sectarian politics as Western suspicion "born of ignorance."

"Being the majority of the Iraqi people, the Shi'a don't need to flex muscles. The only mode to follow is democracy. Let democracy be the judge."

But there is another logic. I don't believe Bush or his coterie of neocons are as dumb as their actions lead one to believe

But there is another logic. I don't believe Bush or his coterie of neocons are as dumb as their actions lead one to believe. I think they know exactly what they are doing. This was never a War on Terror as such. The W on T was only a reaction, a by product if you will, of a much grander strategy now embarked upon, to re-order the world as America sees fit. America seeks to consolidate its dominance and thwart any threat, especially to its vulnerable supplies of oil and gas. The war programme will go ahead not to eliminate terrorism, but despite the risk of exacerbating it, as MacAskill states above.

Now I know this is fairly standard neocon PNAC stuff, and to their credit they have been quite open about their aims, but for me its the only context in which the attack on Iraq makes any sense. I didn't want to believe it, but it's happening. It's a reality. Neither am I passing moral judgement here, I leave that to others. I'm just trying to make sense of it all, for my benefit if no-one else's.