Iraq...what is going to happen and what will Bush/Rove do?

I understand why you posted the articles, to disprove what Boortz said in regards to the war being for oil, which none of the articles you posted do. They speak of "unspoken" reasons and innuendo and opinion.

I agree though that we both have better things to do.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
"3. You can smoke cigarettes"

Have to correct Boortz on that one. Idiots smoke cigarettes (also known as nicotine delivery devices).

Um .... really cool people smoke cigars ...

0 Replies

Oh, I see what you mean now. :wink:

0 Replies

"I understand why you posted the articles, to disprove what Boortz said in regards to the war being for oil, which none of the articles you posted do. "

Interesting difference of style. I always include "IMO" when offering just that. Clearly your last post was also just an opinion, but with no such qualification.

Trickle down arrogance?

0 Replies

angie wrote:

"I understand why you posted the articles, to disprove what Boortz said in regards to the war being for oil, which none of the articles you posted do. "

Interesting difference of style. I always include "IMO" when offering just that. Clearly your last post was also just an opinion, but with no such qualification.

Trickle down arrogance?

Every post I make has that qualification. Maybe you have become immune to it though.

Look below...

0 Replies

Immune? Curious choice of word.

I generally do not read the signature comments. Had your "opinion" disclaimer been within the main context of your post, I would not have made the comment regarding style.

At any rate, glad to know your comments are given as opinion.

BTW, I also just read the other comment in your signature, and I couldn't agree more. A2K offers constant and irrefutable proof of this.

0 Replies

Angie - you seem more up-to-date on Islamic countries' press than most of the rest of us here so I wondered if you saw anywhere any mention of the Clinton administration's actions in Kosovo in order to rescue local Moslems:
_____________________________________________________________

"....The indictment of Slobodan Milosevic and his colleagues at the Hague tribunal alleges Serbian complicity in the deaths of "hundreds of Kosovo Albanian civilians" rather than the 100,000 or more that advocates of intervention had claimed before the war. It was the bombing campaign itself-launched after Serbia failed to submit to NATO's humiliating demand for military access throughout its territory-that provoked the most serious humanitarian crisis. Neglected, too, by those advocating intervention was the fact that the Kosovo Liberation Army had taken up arms to secure independence from Serbia; what were represented as acts of actual or impending genocide by Serbia were measures not terribly different from those that most governments would undertake if confronted with a threat to their territorial integrity. Rather than action to prevent genocide, the Kosovo intervention promised outside support to ethnic groups that seek the territorial dismemberment of an existing state."

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101faessay83603/robert-w-tucker-david-c-hendrickson/the-sources-of-american-legitimacy.html?mode=print

From the December 2004 issue of Foreign Affairs
_____________________________________________________________
This is becoming somewhat urgent in view of Turkey's concerns about an independent Kurdistan, which would precipitate their intervention in Kirkuk - not a bad develpment to the extent it would bury their EU ambitions for another 40 years.

0 Replies

Interesting points Hellen.

I have often thought that the unwarranted and excessive restraint and hesitation exhibited by the European powers, and the U.S. as well, during the Bosnian massacres contributed to precipitous action over the Kosovo crisis. ( Our boy Wesley Clark didn't help matters either. Others (friends)contemporaneously in SOUTHCOM have expressed a rather disturbing picture of his actions.)

I hope you get out of the airport soon!

0 Replies

"Angie - you seem more up-to-date on Islamic countries' press than most of the rest of us here ... "

Huh ?

0 Replies

day's NY Times...

Quote:

Rumsfeld said he doesn't believe President Bush's State of the Union declaration that U.S. troops will leave Iraq when the country ``is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself'' means American forces will be there for years to come.

``What he meant was that the Iraqis' internal security forces would be capable of managing the security situation inside the country,'' Rumsfeld told ABC's ``This Week.''

``It will take some time after that before they would have the kind of capability to dissuade Iran, for example, if Iran decided to try to conduct a war with them again.''

Notice the shift in criteria for American withdrawl...internal stability doesn't make the grade, even as dicey as that goal is in itself, now Iraq has to be capable of military defence such that she can be on some sort of par with Iran. That entails a HUGE military buildup quite over and above anything like a functioning police force and government apparatus.

Why would Bush and Rumsfeld now begin to speak in this manner? Because introducing new criteria at a gradual pace makes it more palatable. It's deceitful of course, but it works. Watch folks on this site begin to fill in the justifications.

Why would Bush and company even have such a goal or horizon? Because they don't intend - never have intended - to leave this piece of real estate. As I said earlier, they'll make pretense that they wish to leave and every troop drawdown will be loudly announced, but that will be for show, mainly domestic.

And let's note the military-industrial bucks associated with re-building the Iraqi military such that it might be capable of defense against Iraq. Big big dollars to corporations which have themselves given big big dollars to forward Republican candidates and causes.

What of the Shiite influence post election? If the US concludes some liklihood that Sistani will push for total US force withdrawl and if they feel that the political dynamics are moving out of their control, they'll assassinate him if need be. Easy enough to blame that on Sunnis. We'll recall US covert assassinations in South and Central America, or the organization and funding of death squads in El Salvador. We'll also note that quite a few of the same people involved in some of those earlier incidents and again placed in this administration.

0 Replies

Blatham,

In the first place you have misinterpreted and misrepresented the obvious intent of Rumsfeld's words. He said that U.S. troops will leave Iraq as the President stated, and that the primary consideration will be the independence and internal security of the country. That is entirely in keeping with previous statements on the matter.

I don't think any serious observer would ever contemplate that the United States (or other countries in the region, or in Europe for that matter) would ever wish to tolerate a (say) Iranian takeover of Iraq. Blatham apparently suggests that the U. S. will use this prospect as a ruse with which to make permanent U.S. base structure in Iraq - presumably as a prelude to a U.S. takeover of the country and its resources.. The fact is that U. S. policy in the region for the last 25 years has been to preserve the independence of both Iran and Iraq and prevent the takeover of either country by the other. We already have the military presence and base structure required to deter and deal with such a possibility- we don't really need much more.
.
Any residual U. S. presence in Iraq will consist of propositioned equipment and a skeleton base structure much as we have maintained in South Korea and Europe. No one has suggested that this kind of presence has ever constituted control of any of these countries or their resources.

0 Replies

george said

Quote:

In the first place you have misinterpreted and misrepresented the obvious intent of Rumsfeld's words. He said that U.S. troops will leave Iraq as the President stated, and that the primary consideration will be the independence and internal security of the country. That is entirely in keeping with previous statements on the matter.

georgie....note the words out of their mouths. Note your use of 'primary' here, echoing the administration, and note how ambiguous that is. Note also Cheney's statement that "we'll stay not a day longer than necessary" or "we'll stay until our mission is done" - both of which are entirely meaningless.

The element I point to..."capability to dissuade Iran" is a new arrival in the sentences of these folks.

Let's remember that this is a predictive thread, and I'll use it to point out along the way how these guys are manipulating language and you.

Quote:

Bush: when Iraq "is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself''

Rumsfeld, on what Bush meant: ``It will take some time after that before they would have the kind of capability to dissuade Iran, for example, if Iran decided to try to conduct a war with them again.''

Quote:

I don't think any serious observer would ever contemplate that the United States (or other countries in the region, or in Europe for that matter) would ever wish to tolerate a (say) Iranian takeover of Iraq.

I didn't say "Iranian" takeover, I referred to a democratically elected shiite majority which might decide to tell the US to get out now. Of course, the admin officials have said if that were the case, well heck golly they'd just head right out then. They are lying. They won't. What they will do is what you've just done...begin to refer to the situation as an "Iranian takeover" (we'll note how Rice's Iranian nukes! rhetoric might facilitate demonization of Iran)

Quote:

Blatham apparently suggests that the U. S. will use this prospect as a ruse with which to make permanent U.S. base structure in Iraq - presumably as a prelude to a U.S. takeover of the country and its resources..

I'm saying this...that the US will not allow control of this real estate to escape them. Whatever situations arise which might threaten this control will be met with a PR/disinformation campaign and actions which will be designed to regain/ensure continued control, including use of land for military bases. I am also saying that Iraqi 'democracy' will fall as a secondary or tertiary concern, regardless of the 'freedom' and 'liberty' rhetoric. I am also saying that ensuring domestic electoral superiority is the prime policy strategy.

Quote:

The fact is that U. S. policy in the region for the last 25 years has been to preserve the independence of both Iran and Iraq and prevent the takeover of either country by the other. We already have the military presence and base structure required to deter and deal with such a possibility- we don't really need much more.

Yes. You state the strategic rationale why Iraqi wishes will not be allowed to come to fruition if they are unaligned with perceived US interests.

0 Replies

And by golly...now we see it echoed in this fellow's statements too...why pretty soon it will seem just like they've always been saying this.

Quote:

Falah al-Naqib said it would depend largely on the country's political situation.

But he did not indicate when coalition troops would leave.

"I would say within 18 months we will be able to have ... full control of our internal security," Mr Naqib said a terrorism conference in Saudi Arabia.

"But that will depend on a couple of things - the political situation in Iraq, and then the ministry of defence also have their own schedule."

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13297350,00.html

ps george...note in the post preceding yours that I suggested we "watch folks here fill in the justifications"....I'm watching you.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I didn't say "Iranian" takeover, I referred to a democratically elected shiite majority which might decide to tell the US to get out now. Of course, the admin officials have said if that were the case, well heck golly they'd just head right out then. They are lying. They won't. What they will do is what you've just done...begin to refer to the situation as an "Iranian takeover" (we'll note how Rice's Iranian nukes! rhetoric might facilitate demonization of Iran)

Quote:
Blatham apparently suggests that the U. S. will use this prospect as a ruse with which to make permanent U.S. base structure in Iraq - presumably as a prelude to a U.S. takeover of the country and its resources..

I'm saying this...that the US will not allow control of this real estate to escape them. Whatever situations arise which might threaten this control will be met with a PR/disinformation campaign and actions which will be designed to regain/ensure continued control, including use of land for military bases. I am also saying that Iraqi 'democracy' will fall as a secondary or tertiary concern, regardless of the 'freedom' and 'liberty' rhetoric. I am also saying that ensuring domestic electoral superiority is the prime policy strategy.

Quote:
The fact is that U. S. policy in the region for the last 25 years has been to preserve the independence of both Iran and Iraq and prevent the takeover of either country by the other. We already have the military presence and base structure required to deter and deal with such a possibility- we don't really need much more.

Yes. You state the strategic rationale why Iraqi wishes will not be allowed to come to fruition if they are unaligned with perceived US interests.

In this yiu may be correct. We will certainly not allow a worse situation than the one we found to result in Iraq. However, that is neither a novel or particularly interesting development. We have been very clear about that from the beginning. However we are not there to control the country and its resources in the sense that the Beirish and the French did to many of these same peope in their colonial adventures.

You have defined a possibility with sufficient latitude and vague conditions to declare yourself right, no matter what happens. Why wait? Do it now!

0 Replies

Quote:

"You have defined a possibility with sufficient latitude and vague conditions to declare yourself right, no matter what happens. Why wait? Do it now!"

Totally agree, on the other hand the Bush admin and his many cohorts have yet to offer a single measurable goal/objective and is, therefor, free at any time tp declare "objective met, I/We won!!!"

0 Replies

That's not entirely fair, Dys. The Administration have been fairly clear about what they want the new Iraq to become. It is also true that most of the Dems who are trying to pin them down on the details of troop withdrawal are doing so for utterly cynical purposes that have the side effect of hurting our country. I don't mind their efforts to make political points, but at what cost?

The game of national strategy has high stakes, and it is almost never a good idea to let your opponent know of any constraints on your behavior or plans. As Churchill once said the truth about these things is so precious, it must be wrapped in an impenetrable layer of lies.

Blatham's expressions of cynical mistrust are a sufficient reason for him to doubt, but assuaging them is not in the interest of our country and not a serious thing we should be concerned about. He will know when the results are in. He has no claim on our government, which must be satisfied.

To any serious observer the goal and intent of our policy in Iraq ia abundantly clear. The only ones who are confused are the ignorant and those who choose to be confused for their own cynical reasons. Neither is deserving of any special explanation by our government.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

To any serious observer the goal and intent of our policy in Iraq ia abundantly clear. The only ones who are confused are the ignorant and those who choose to be confused for their own cynical reasons. Neither is deserving of any special explanation by our government.

this caught my eye george.

while i understand the intent of your comment, it forgoes two simple precepts;

1) government by, for and of the people.

2) the government, one and all, are public servants. by, for and of the people.

that means all of the people. all of the time.

any person a citizen of the united states of america is due a complete and full explanation of what the representitives of the nation intend and/or plan.

for myself... i'm not content to sit around waving the flag waiting for the fat lady to sing. it's unproductive and irresponsible.

i expect more than yip yap from our leaders be they republican or democrat, green, libertarian or that pest nader.

0 Replies

Well, I'm pretty sure the US government isn't much interested in blatham's views and abrupt policy course changes aren't likely to result from my posts.

Quote:

To any serious observer the goal and intent of our policy in Iraq ia abundantly clear.

That's maybe the most insulated bit of cognition you've poured out onto a screen, george. That's a bit like suggesting that there is no serious internal discussion in Israel as to Likud policies and motives, when in fact there is far more of it than we ever see here. The thoughtful questioning of US goals and intentions in the Middle East constitutes a huge body of commentary, both in the US and in the international community but you just don't bother to investigate it. You believe.

Here's a review written by Brian Urquhart of a new book by Anatol Lieven that is a case in point.

Quote:

MORE HERE[/b]

0 Replies

Ill bet the FBI is doing a second to second examination of his life right now with an eye to discrediting him for the bush administration.

0 Replies

slime politics seems to be the order of the day, all around. but the bush bunch have taken it to high art. they already started in on harry reid because he didn't bend over fast enough.

i don't get what is so hard to understand about the simple fact that the republican party does not represent 100% of the people. the democrats, if you look at the presidential election results, represents nearly half the country.

0 Replies

Iraq...what is going to happen and what will Bush/Rove do?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know