0
   

Why Kucinich can't be President

 
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2004 03:18 pm
It's nice that you have five columnists who agree with you, Foxfyre. However, their opinions don't make your argument any stronger. It just means that others believe the same thing you do.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2004 03:38 pm
Well that is a point though I thought all five had very logical and compelling arguments to present backed up by history and stuff.
The thing is, everybody on A2K keeps hollering at everybody to post their sources--(apparently none of us can actually reason anything out all by ourselves)--but in the end every one of us is going to believe what we have decided to believe.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2004 03:53 pm
BillW wrote:
The rule since 1975 has been to not enter any military theater unless there is an exit strategy. None exists nor ever existed for the Bush War - voila. Actually, there was never any strategy - period; except for shock and awe. We are finally in that period :sad:

You should pay closer attention to current events. The exit strategy is to turn over control of the country to a duly-elected Iraqi government. I believe the date for that is December of 2005.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2004 04:00 pm
Jokes of the day, ROFLMAO :razz:
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2004 06:27 pm
According to the original post,Kucinich wants us to hand over the Iraqi oil to the UN.
Has he already forgotten about the scandal in the UN now about them running the oil program...The food for oil program,remember that mess?

Fund a UN peacekeeping mission? Thats a joke,right?]
There has not been one single UN peacekeeping mission,except Cyprus,that didnt involve the US.
Either we provided logistical support,sent in the first troops,or provided other support to the peacekeeping operation.

The US MUST stay in Iraq till the job is done.
I was there already,and would go back now,if I could.
We Cannot run from the insurgents,that will only make them bolder and more willing to cause trouble.
We MUST destroy them.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2004 08:56 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
BillW wrote:
The rule since 1975 has been to not enter any military theater unless there is an exit strategy. None exists nor ever existed for the Bush War - voila. Actually, there was never any strategy - period; except for shock and awe. We are finally in that period :sad:

You should pay closer attention to current events. The exit strategy is to turn over control of the country to a duly-elected Iraqi government. I believe the date for that is December of 2005.


I pay very close attention to current events. The plan to turn over control to a "duly-elected" Iraqi government is not really what the US wants. This is both contrary to US interests, and impossible.

What happens when the people duly elect a theocrat? This is a very religious country and the clerics have sway. There is no chance that in any real election that a government that is acceptable to the US will be in power. The majority of Iraqi's are Shiites and many of them will want ties with Iran. Would the US be able to stomach that?

Then there are the Sunni's. If they feel they are losing power, they are going to be upset. As a minority, do you think they are to be happy with a duly elected government?

Then there are the Kurds. Here is another minority who think they should be able to keep their relative independence. A duly elected government probably won't agree. Not to mention the interests of other countries in the region who are threatened by Kurdish autonomy. One of these is Turkey, who happens to be a NATO ally and who we kind of assured that there would be no independence for the Kurds.

The US has two options.

The United States can give Iraq its sovreignty with duly held elections. This will almost certainly mean a theocratic government with ties to Iran. This will also mean unhappy Sunnis and Kurds that the duly elected government will feel it must rule by force.

If this is really what the US wants, it won't take until December of 2005. In six months we can withdraw and allow a government that is supported by a majority of Iraqis (and hated by a large minority) to take power. However, then the US needs to accept the decisions of this sovereign government. It almost certainly will not be in the interests of the US.

The second option is to force our will on the Iraqis with a interminable occupation. In this case the Sunnis and Shiites will both oppose us with continued casualties on both sides. It is inconceivable that either of these groups will ever accept a government imposed on Iraq through occupation.

The US did have a very slight chance at a third option. The plan (which was always very unlikely) was to convince the Iraqis that if they accepted the occupation, it would lead to a better future for them. The Iraqi's would trust our good will, and would be taught to embrace a pro-American democracy.

If there ever was a chance of this happening, it has been shot to hell. We have ruined any good will several times over. We supported the Iraqi's suspicion that we are anti-Arab by going to bed with the Sharon government. We showed supreme disrepect with the prison abuse. We have insulted their religion. Every time we kill one Iraqi - we make 10 new enemies and the deaths just keep getting more and more.

Now, even our puppet governing council is falling apart. In the past week the president of the council was blown up and our best friend is now under investigation. Most of our so-called Iraqi friends are now saying we should leave.

The occupation is a disaster.

It is true that leaving Iraq will make a horrific mess. But staying won't make it better. Staying will make it worse. It may postpone a violent confrontation but it won't stop it. What it will certainly do is increase the number of Americans and Iraqi's who die.

It is time for us to get out before we make things even worse. This is for our sake and for Iraq's sake.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2004 09:06 pm
Kucinich and ebrown are so logical in their arguments. Nothing to add, except, I agree with you.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2004 09:31 pm
I wish it were so simple as 2 choices!

What about a confederation of states ruled by a central parliament? Not a theocracy by any means.

What about a representative democracy? No theocracy their either.

There are a myriad of choices that can be made to avoid your continued doomsday predictions. It is our job to help Iraq make the proper choice and to provide guidance for the bettermant of all Iraqis
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2004 10:01 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
That is truly a self-defining quote, and it stands alone in its equivalence.

We must stay in Iraq until the foreign fighters are defeated and the al Sadrs of the country are either run out or put in jail. Then we can turn things over to a fairly-elected government and walk away knowing we did the best we could. If we leave before Iraq has a stable government, the country will turn into something like Afghanistan was under the Taliban - rival war lords ruling every little neighborhood and patch of desert.


The foreign fighters?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 12:45 pm
Why Kucinich can't be President Question

Easy, he does not have the votes - wait a second, all he needs is SCOTUS, right Question
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 01:09 pm
Quote:
Exit Strategy
How to leave Iraq in three simple steps.
By George Saunders
Posted Monday, May 24, 2004, at 8:29 AM PT


It is clear we are at a crossroads in Iraq. Naysayers are claiming the situation there is chaotic and confusing. Nonsense. It is not confusing. It is quite simple.

Allow me to explain.

There are, at present, two major constituencies in Iraq: those who want to kill us, and those who do not. Success will require minimizing membership in the former group. Complications along this path may include the following:

1) In the process of killing the ones who want to kill us, we sometimes kill some who are not trying to kill us. This has been observed to cause a sudden increase in the number who want to kill us, which means a longer stay for us, since we then must kill, not only the ones who originally wanted to kill us, but also the ones who just started wanting to kill us.

2) In order to identify the ones who want to kill us, it is necessary, once we have caught someone who wants to kill us, to encourage him/her to help us identify others who want to kill us. Sometimes we mistake ones who don't want to kill us for ones who do, and catch them, and encourage them. Upon their release, there occurs a sudden increase in the number of those who want to kill us.

3) Given the large number of us over there, it should come as no surprise that some of us are bad. Certain abuses have occurred. However, it is only fair to note that many more abuses were occurring before we arrived. Plus, if our abusers are abusing over there, they are not abusing over here. So really, it is a win/win: The Iraqis have fewer abuses than they were having, and we have fewer abuses than we would have had had our abusers stayed at home. Everyone is happy, except, it has been observed, those who were abused and those who hear of the abuse and suddenly join the group of those wanting to kill us.

Since it is clear that we cannot leave until they stop killing us, and equally clear that they will not stop killing us until we leave, I propose the following exit strategy:

1) Kill all the ones who are trying to kill us, in such a way that none of those who presently do not want to kill us suddenly start wanting to kill us.

2) At the moment of the death of the last person who wanted to kill us, race quickly out of the country before some additional person suddenly decides he/she wants to kill us, thus necessitating our continued presence in Iraq, in order to kill him/her.

3) Having left Iraq quickly, do not look back, so as not to witness individuals claiming they would have liked to kill us, which would then necessitate a return to Iraq, in order to etc., etc. (See No. 2, above.)

To implement this exit strategy, we will have to practice running quickly. It is further recommended that, while running, the eyes be cast down, to avoid witnessing any last-minute people trying to kill us. We will have to establish excellent communications so that the moment that final person begins dying, we can all begin running quickly at the same time, eyes cast down, quickly, to our vehicles, to get to the airport and get out of the country.

This exit strategy will demand a high level of coordination, dedication, and planning.

But our leaders have already shown the way by showing that, if one has a vision, and refuses to betray that vision by modifying it, or becoming distracted by small details, such as, for example, the confusing data emanating from the non-theoretical world, filled with actual people, pets, clothes on clotheslines, nuanced loyalties, etc., mountains can be moved, nations can be changed, great things can be accomplished.

It is clear that the fate of Iraq now rests in the hands of Iraqis.

People of Iraq, I say to you:

Stop trying to kill us, so we can leave. But also, do not fear. We are in it for the long haul, although we cannot stay with you indefinitely. No, as soon as you stop trying to kill us, believe us, you will never see us again. Therefore, trust us, people of Iraq, have faith, we assure you: As long as you continue trying to kill us, we will never abandon you.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 01:11 pm
Being nominated would help, and it could still happen.

Right, dys? Laughing
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 03:49 pm
Maybe he will sneak in when Kerry does not accept the nomination at the convention Question
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 08:21 pm
BillW wrote:
Maybe he will sneak in when Kerry does not accept the nomination at the convention Question


What do you think about Kerry doing that?
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 09:02 pm
Win it?
What does winning it mean?

How is winning it accomplished?

14 Military bases comprising 100,000 US Troops are being built right now. This doesn't seem like an exit strategy.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 10:41 pm
Where are these military bases being built? Source?
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 11:06 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
It's too late Foxfyre. Iraq is lost. There is no possible way for us to be successful by any measure of success.

You're completely wrong there.

Quote:
SO WHAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN IRAQ?: Let's just list one or two...
1. 36,000 teachers and supervisors trained
2. Teachers salaries increased (had previously been $5)
3. 8.7 millions new math and science books distributed
4. All schools outfitted with new desks and chalkboards
5. 2500 schools rehabbed
6. 4500 new schools to be built in 4 years
7. Transitional Law to govern interim
8. Iraq's Interim Constitution contains Bill of Rights
9. Bill of Rights is unprecendented in Middle East
10. Iraqi Army and Police retrained
11. Iraqi Defense Ministry fills all posts
12. Seven Iraqi Ministries already have soveriegnty
13. Coalition has completed 20,000 reconstruction projects
14. Schools, orphanages and medical clinics now open
15. Over 19 billion available to rebuild Iraq
16. Coalition and Local leaders apportion money
17. Coalition estimates over 1.5 million jobs created
18. 1000 Iraqi firms already contracted
19. Foreign banks operating in Iraq
20. 2/2004 - 315 state owned banks reopened
21. 19 private banks with 140 branches have opened
22. Financial Laws passed
23. Inflation is completely stable (historically incredible)
24. Iraqi currency exchange completed 1/15/2004
25. Five trillion dinar exchanged in 3 months
26. Iraqi currency appreciating in value
27. Investor confidence is up
28. Taxation suspended in April to spur economy
29. Iraq's government budget tops 19.2 billion
30. Iraqi government investing 125 million in new jobs
31. 2004 budget includes 400 million to reduce debt
32. New Iraqi Stock Exchange opened in April
33. Iraq's judicial system operational and courts open
34. Baghdad street crime down 70%
35. 169 judges and prosecutors removed for Baath connections
36. 3000 Iraqi corrections officers working

Link


Well, since it seems that the USA has taught them how to fish, isn't it time to leave them alone?
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2004 11:26 pm
14
14 US Military Bases
Under Construction In Iraq
5-19-4

Iraqis also know that 14 US military bases are already under construction, enough to accommodate the (for the moment) 110,000 American soldiers who will stay in Iraq until at least 2007. No sovereign Iraqi government has approved the construction of these bases. Kimmitt - the No 2 Pentagon man in Iraq, and the one who launched total war on Fallujah - said the bases are "a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East". A ring of US military bases throughout what the Pentagon calls the Greater Middle East is a key element of the neo-conservative-driven strategy to control world energy resources as the way to control the destiny of America's economic rivals - the European Union and Northeast Asia.


One Year On: From Liberation To Jihad

By Pepe Escobar

"So this is the Bush administration-sponsored "free Iraq" people identify not only in the Sunni triangle but in the Shi'ite south: an occupying power maybe not formally occupying the country any more, but installed in 14 military bases and able to exercise full control on security, the economy and the whole infrastructure. In plain English: a US colony. This is the reason the mob in Fallujah rejoiced in the burning of those American bodies. This is the reason Sunnis and Shi'ites have for now united in anger. And this is the reason the "liberation" has finally turned into a jihad."

On April 9, 2002, Saddam Hussein's statue in Firdaus Square in Baghdad was still enveloped, like a Christo installation, waiting to be unveiled in an official ceremony. On April 9, 2003, the statue was toppled by the US Army, and later replaced by a faceless figure symbolizing "liberation". On April 9, 2004, the faceless statue is plastered with photographs of "outlaw" Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

One year after the "fall" of Baghdad, the old colonial maxim "divide and rule" does not apply anymore. For the occupiers, this is the ultimate nightmare: Sunni and Shi'ite, united (almost) as one. From Kirkuk in the north to Karbala in the south, from Fallujah to Nasiriyah, from Ramadi to Baghdad, Iraq is in turmoil - and this is not the work of "Saddam Fedayeen", "remnants of the Ba'ath Party" or "foreign terrorists". This is the beginning of the end: the serious possibility that the Shi'ites - 60 percent or so of the invaded and "liberated" Iraqi population - will be tempted actively to lead the multifaceted Iraqi resistance.

It's ironic that it took one year after its supposed US-sponsored liberation for the resistance to qualify Fallujah as liberated - before the city of almost 500,000 came under siege by the marines this past Monday. There's no food or water coming in. By blocking the highway connecting Baghdad, Amman and Damascus, the Americans have strangulated practically all trade between Iraq and its neighbors Jordan and Syria. The city is totally sealed off from the rest of the world. AlJazeera has the only media crew in town. Reporter Ahmad Mansur says: "Everybody walking in the streets is now becoming an [American] target." Mosques are broadcasting calls to jihad.

An Apache helicopter fired three missiles into a compound housing the Abdul Aziz al-Samarrai mosque in Fallujah during afternoon prayers. The mosque itself was not hit - but dozens of people were. Homes are being turned into makeshift hospitals. Whatever the spin from the Pentagon, this is the word of mouth in the Iraqi street, soon to spread like wildfire all over the Muslim world: the Americans now are bombing mosques. Fallujah is the new Gaza. Fallujah residents are to be subjected to ferocious Israeli-style search-and-destroy raids for the men with rocket-propelled grenades who first attacked the four American mercenaries from Blackwater Security Consulting, whose corpses were later mutilated and hanged by an angry mob. Iraqis in the Sunni triangle believe that the Americans received their "rules of engagement" from Ariel Sharon's army in Israel.


Meanwhile, in the Shi'ite belt, the holy city of Kufa, the power base of the clerical al-Sadr family, in whose mosque "outlaw" Muqtada al-Sadr took refuge, became the first Iraqi city to spin completely out of US control. Asia Times Online has confirmed that Muqtada is now in the holy city of Najaf, in his office in an alley near the Imam Ali shrine, protected by hundreds of armed members of his Mahdi Army. The Iraqi police have totally vanished. The Spanish garrison outside of town describes the situation as "high tension". The Mahdi Army now in effect controls the shrine, as well as central Najaf. A constant stream of Muqtada's followers comes from Baghdad. In his most recent statement, he says: "I'm prepared to have my own blood shed for what is holy to me," and calls on Sunnis and Shi'ites alike to fight the Americans.

Proconsul L Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has already amplified Muqtada's cult-hero status, and may soon create a martyr by having a warrant for his arrest issued. Muqtada's black-clad Mahdi Army may have only several thousand members, but he commands support of at least 30 percent of an estimated 15 million Iraqi Shi'ites: some serious Arab analysts even talk of 50 percent. And just as his father, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed al-Sadr, became a martyr to Saddam in 1999, Muqtada well appreciates the benefits of becoming a martyr to the US occupation.

Cross-confessional intifada For all purposes, an intifada is now going on. Local sources tell Asia Times Online there are pro-Muqtada posters all over Anbar - the richest, predominantly Sunni, Iraqi province. Ramadi - where marines have been under fierce attack - is in Anbar. Only a war of national liberation is the motive capable of explaining these posters. The concept - penned by the Pentagon - of a Shi'ite Mahdi Army fighting the marines in Sunni Anbar is positively ludicrous. This regional resistance is conducted by former officers of the Iraqi army, as tribal sheikhs in the Sunni triangle told this correspondent last year.

Sunnis and Shi'ites are united in Baghdad, under the same nationalist impulse. Sheikh Raed al-Kazami, Muqtada's man in the Shi'ite-majority Kazimiya neighborhood, is not very far from the truth when he says: "All of Iraq is behind Muqtada al-Sadr; we are but one body, one people." On the other side of the Tigris, Sunni-majority Adhamiya is now aligned with Kazimiya, as well as Fallujah, Ramadi and even Mosul, against the "American invaders". The popular justification is always the same: this is now a jihad, regardless of whether one is Sunni or Shi'ite. People will fight in their neighborhoods, even if they don't join the Mahdi Army.

Asia Times Online has learned that in an unprecedented move, 150 powerful Sunni tribal leaders and emissaries personally delivered a support message to Muqtada's key aides in the 2-million-plus slum of Sadr City, the former Saddam City: "We are all behind Muqtada al-Sadr, we are by his side because he awakened the Iraqi people to liberate the country from the infidel invaders." The message also said: "We are but one Muslim nation - no one can separate us, be it in Iraq or Palestine."

Washington was busy predicting a civil war among Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds. The White House, the Pentagon and the CPA even had the perfectly manufactured culprit: Jordanian Mussab al-Zarqawi, the new Osama bin Laden. What they bought themselves instead is the ultimate occupier nightmare: Sunni and Shi'ite united. Muqtada may be a cross between two-thirds Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran and one-third Che Guevara (without the romantic charisma). But he finds enormous echo in Iraq when he compares Bremer to Saddam (in Sadr City, US-trained Iraqi soldiers first fired on peaceful demonstrators, followed by the US Army with tanks, Apaches and jets firing at random on homes, shops and even ambulances; according to local hospitals, dozens of civilians were killed and many more were injured). Muqtada also finds enormous echo in the Arab world when he aligns himself with Hamas - predominantly Sunni - and Hezbollah - predominantly Shi'ite.

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld swears Washington has nothing to do with the arrest warrant against Muqtada: this is "Iraqi justice" in action. Wrong. The Iraqi Jurists Association published a statement on Wednesday saying that the arrest warrant is "illegal and based on a lie ... The arrest warrant is illegal and incorrect, as the occupation forces issued it in disregard for sovereignty of Iraq's justice system." The Iraqi minister of justice, Abdel-Rahim Al-Shibly, also says he had not been aware of the arrest warrant.

The Bremer-Muqtada-Sistani triangle The CPA will never persuade Iraqis - Sunni or Shi'ite - that the violent repression against Muqtada and the Mahdi Army is capable of safeguarding the "handover of sovereignty" on June 30. Apart from Humvees, tanks and Apaches, Bremer sent the new Iraqi army - using ski masks, so they would not be recognized later by the neighbors - to fire on the urban poor of Sadr City, the same Saddam City "liberated" by the marines a year ago. After this performance, the CPA's credibility, already low, is now less than zero: the average Iraqi portrays it as a dictatorship exactly like Saddam's - intolerant of a critical press and fully repressing peaceful protests.

Former counter-terrorism expert Bremer may have been foolish to use such tactics. Or he may have been very clever - employing a typical Sharon move: a provocation leading to anger and protests, which cries for a crackdown to restore "order". He may have wanted to trigger a move to cripple the growing influence of the army of Sadrists. Muqtada and his followers would have every chance of getting a great number of seats if elections for a Iraqi parliament are really held next January.

Muqtada is indeed a radical upstart compared with the religious Shi'ite first among equals, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. But Sistani prefers to carefully mold the United Nations to his wishes, rather than confronting the CPA - which he loathes in silence and seclusion. But as many Shi'ite religious leaders have told this correspondent, Sistani just has to say the word (or issue a fatwa). If he says the word, the occupation is finished.

One thing is absolutely certain: there is no possible US military solution to smash the resistance. Harith al-Dari, secretary general of the Iraqi Islamic Scholars Association - one of the country's highest religious authorities - goes straight to the point: "They insist on enforcing a military solution as if they are facing an enemy in a battleground, not isolated civilians."

If Bremer behaved like a fool, he only has one card left to play. He badly needs Sistani's help to reign in Muqtada. But Sistani does not even admit receiving a deferential visit from Bremer in person. Supposing this would happen, there would be a heavy political price to pay: plenty of US concessions and a total review of the US-imposed Iraqi constitution. For the moment, Sistani has voiced "solidarity" with Muqtada, and is still preaching "negotiations", while Dawa - the oldest Shi'ite political party - has distanced itself from the Muqtada uprising.

Hell and Blackwater The four Americans killed in Fallujah were not simply "civilians". Three were Navy Seals (sea, air, land special forces) and one was Delta Force, working on contract for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and employees of Blackwater Security Consulting - one among dozens of so-called "private" companies performing shady operations in Iraq and other parts of the world Washington prefers be attributed to "civilians": a US$100-billion-a-year market. There may be as many as 10,000 "civilian" security contractors in Iraq at the moment. Blackwater is a paramilitary operation: it trains soldiers in counter-terrorism and urban combat, and profits from rent-a-soldier schemes (using former Green Berets, Army Rangers and Navy Seals). Blackwater's corporate leaders are proud to manage the largest and most professional private army in the world, with around 400 armed commandos in Iraq alone. Some of them compose the Praetorian Guard of Bremer himself.

Additionally, there may be up to 3,000 CIA agents in Iraq at the moment. As far as the Iraqi resistance is concerned, "security" contractors, Seals, Delta Force or CIA are not civilians but legitimate military-related targets.

Anybody who has traveled in the Sunni triangle knows how the US occupation is universally loathed. Fallujah residents told this correspondent last year that the Americans themselves triggered the birth of the resistance only two weeks after the fall of Baghdad, when their troops entrenched in a Fallujah school opened indiscriminate fire against an angry crowd, killing at least 17 people, including women and children.

The Pentagon and the White House could not possibly admit there's a war of national resistance going on - but that's what it is: the spirit of the resistance is a mix of Iraqi nationalism and Arab pride, and has absolutely nothing to do with Saddam. Even before the crackdown on Fallujah and against Muqtada's followers, different groups had united under an official denomination: the Patriotic Front for the Liberation of Iraq.

The US response in Fallujah - "deliberate, precise and overwhelming", according to General Mark Kimmitt - won't deter the resistance. In Fallujah, they call themselves the Resistance Brigades of Fallujah, and have even issued a communique taking credit for the killing of the American contractors. The Brigades include the Brigades of the Martyr Ahmad Yasin, the Brigades of Ali ibn Abi Talib the Lion of God and Conqueror, and the Brigades of the 1920 Revolution.

'Free Iraq' Bremer has declared war on local populations: this is an enormous mistake. The Bush administration's "war on terror" has led to thousands more civilian victims in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the United States on September 11, 2001. This is never debated in the US mainstream media - where as a rule an American life is deemed to be superior to any other. On every front, the "war on terror" is not leading to an end of terrorism, but to a never-ending war.

The administration of President George W Bush is busy selling the concept of a June 30 handover of "sovereignty" to an Iraqi administration. Even before the current Operation Bloodshed, Iraqis - avid consumers of political intrigue - knew full well what's behind it. They know the CPA has confirmed that after June 30, the $18.4 billion of reconstruction funds will be administered by the US Embassy in Iraq - the largest in the world, capable of housing 3,000 people. These funds - supposed to last for five years - will be spent on Iraq's crucial infrastructure: oil, water, electricity, communications, police and the judiciary. What Bremer's CPA is in fact saying is that any Iraqi government simply won't be able to decide how the country will be rebuilt.

Iraqis also know that 14 US military bases are already under construction, enough to accommodate the (for the moment) 110,000 American soldiers who will stay in Iraq until at least 2007. No sovereign Iraqi government has approved the construction of these bases. Kimmitt - the No 2 Pentagon man in Iraq, and the one who launched total war on Fallujah - said the bases are "a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East". A ring of US military bases throughout what the Pentagon calls the Greater Middle East is a key element of the neo-conservative-driven strategy to control world energy resources as the way to control the destiny of America's economic rivals - the European Union and Northeast Asia.

Iraqis also know about another Bremer executive order - according to which even with an interim Iraqi government the Iraqi army will be controlled by top US commander Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez. And they know they will also have to live with an Iraqi version of Condoleezza Rice - a Bremer-appointed national security adviser with a five-year mandate.

Muqtada may be an Islamic fundamentalist. But his intifada is popular because the base consists of legions of Iraq's urban poor and unemployed - roughly 70 percent of the total working-age population. And the motive is plain and simple: this is part of a national resistance against a colonial enterprise. No institution created by the US invasion - especially the CPA - has any political legitimacy, any moral legitimacy, or any kind of popular support. Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan and one of the leading American experts on Iraq, is adamant: "The United States has managed to create a failed state, similar to Somalia and Haiti, in Iraq."

So this is the Bush administration-sponsored "free Iraq" people identify not only in the Sunni triangle but in the Shi'ite south: an occupying power maybe not formally occupying the country any more, but installed in 14 military bases and able to exercise full control on security, the economy and the whole infrastructure. In plain English: a US colony. This is the reason the mob in Fallujah rejoiced in the burning of those American bodies. This is the reason Sunnis and Shi'ites have for now united in anger. And this is the reason the "liberation" has finally turned into a jihad.

http://www.atimes.com

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/288657.shtml

PS Kucinich is the best choice for the next Pres. of the USA.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 12:01 am
Well that is one amazing post. It's getting late so I don't have time to debunk every single item. And I notice it's already a few days old so maybe some things have happened since then that the author didn't know about.

Sistani told al Sadr to get the hell out of Fallujah and take his followers with him. That finally happened, and Fallujah is once again filled with happy residents. And al Sadr is on the run now. Every time one of his followers pops up and fires a round at a Coalition soldier, that follower dies. Al Sadr won't be able to replace them faster than they are killed. So the statements about al Sadr gaining popularity and power is BS, as is the idea of Sistani being an ally of al Sadr, since the elder cleric has no love for the "firebrand." The article was also chock full of unsubstantiated opinions which should be pretty easy to discredit. I'll try to come back and take care of that tomorrow.
0 Replies
 
Radikal
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 May, 2004 01:43 am
Idiot
Al Sadr was never in Falujah. He was in Najaf.

14 Military bases are going forward. What the Iraqis want is of no concern to BushCo. This invasion is about territory, oil, hegomy and power. BushCo is a criminal org. that has commited War Crimes and has violated US and International Laws.It is the war of Amerkan Imperialism, period.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/25/2024 at 10:47:58