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

Blatham's original suggestion was made in a lighthearted way, and, apart from the wish to impose his nutty liberal ideas on us, I'm sure he wishes us no harm - I certainly wish him the best (except, perhaps for Lola).

Lola is still doing that 'other cheek' stuff, despite my brilliant, but ill-tempered, twist on it of the other day. That of course is her usual escape from the tangles that emerge from her arguments about right wing nuts and the like.

I and wife are still in Potomac (DC area), even though my plan was to relocate in mid March -- company stuff has now delayed that 'till mid June. I've got to get there though - we have an empty house that has been ben her permanent fun decorating project for several years - got to move in just to get her to stop spending money.

I just found the PM & will respomnd ASAP. Don't get many and have lost the habit of looking

0 Replies

Quote:

got to move in just to get her to stop spending money.

And you think moving in will help? It never helped me. Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

Lola is still doing that 'other cheek' stuff, despite my brilliant, but ill-tempered, twist on it of the other day. That of course is her usual escape from the tangles that emerge from her arguments about right wing nuts and the like.

Step into my parlour, said the spider to the fly............

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Quote:
got to move in just to get her to stop spending money.

And you think moving in will help? It never helped me.

It's worse than that. She has an Interior design business which in truth is just an excuse for her to keep buying stuff. Habits die hard, but at least I will be able to observe, and possibly restrain, the process as it unfolds. "Till now it's been, "where did the columns in the dining room come from", or "what happened to the furniture in the whatever room?" - all on periodic visits. The answers are of course "Oh they've been there for ages - you just didn't look" or "what furniture?" respectively.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Lola wrote:
Quote:
got to move in just to get her to stop spending money.

And you think moving in will help? It never helped me.

It's worse than that. She has an Interior design business which in truth is just an excuse for her to keep buying stuff. Habits die hard, but at least I will be able to observe, and possibly restrain, the process as it unfolds.

like to live dangerously, eh george ? well, then, stiff upper lip ol' chap. Laughing

0 Replies

Note that I said, "possibly restrain the process". Very modest goals here. I've also noticed that my presence forces her into these fascinating and very convoluted rationalizations and explanations for what she is going to do anyway. They, in themselves, can be quite entertaining - treasures in the family folklore.

0 Replies

george...

0 Replies

Quote:

"The Americans have remained largely in control of intelligence, interior and defence despite the handover of power to Iraqis in June last year," an official said.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=628860

This is how it works. Present a portrayal of what is going on..."Now with the turnover, the Iraqis are in charge of their own country"...a portrayal which is neither accurate nor honest but which is simply what polls and strategists deem will be the acceptable 'reality' to voters.

0 Replies

And this is also how it works...minimize to whatever degree possible the build-up of citizen resentment against war/military involvement through the transfer of such actions from a volunteer or drafted citizen army to corporate mercenaries.

Quote:

It was the first day of Afghanistan's new opium eradication programme and the quiet town of Maiwand in Kandahar province had been chosen for action.

Hundreds of Afghan eradicators under the command of American private security contractors were going to head into the fields around the town and destroy the beautiful red and white blooms days before they could be harvested for their narcotic sap.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=628858

Side benefits:
1) corporate cronies keep sending in those party donations (and why not? Good return on investment)
2) revolving door between government/Pentagon and thriving military-industrial bodies helps alleviate the near poverty-level incomes of all those martyring themselves in civic service up there at the top
3) torture and other war crimes schlepped over onto 'a few bad apples totally unconnected to the military or Donald Rumsfeld'

0 Replies

Blatham, It is obvious they are using contractors instead to lower the demands on an already strained military in what is not really a military matter.

Even by your paranoid standards this is a bit of an overreach to find the usual evil conspiracy by Republican plutocrats.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Blatham, It is obvious they are using contractors instead to lower the demands on an already strained military in what is not really a military matter.

Even by your paranoid standards this is a bit of an overreach to find the usual evil conspiracy by Republican plutocrats.

Dwight Eisenhower...classic paranoic case. Expunge all his words and ideas from the record immediately Mr Feith!

"Not really a military matter". Well, that's pretty dumb george. What constitutes a military matter is defined by whoever wants to do the defining. For whatever purpose they might have for defining the matter. Shooting people (soldiers, farmers) who are targetted by military personnel in an arena of military occupation is what? Plumbing?

They are using "private contractors" because of privatization ideology, because of undeniable PR benefits, and because of crony-sharing of all the wonderful dollars to be made from war.

But mostly because they know a draft will totally eviscerate Republican control. US citizens don't much like the idea of empire paid for with sons and daughters limbs and lives, even if the present administration, crazed elements in the Pentagon, and business interests find empire just a peachy state of affairs - their sons and daughters quite exempt from risk greater than their Porches being a year older than someone else's.

0 Replies

You are in the grip of paranoid delusion. Alternatively, you are being deliberately deceptive in your propaganda>)

Destroying opium crops is not a military function. The Army doesn't want the mission, and it isn't particularly well-suited to perform it. The core issue in Afghanistan is economic and one of inducing alternate economically beneficial activities for these farmers, and, of course, of limiting the scourge of heroin trafficking.

You are reaching very far to find nefarious-sounding and highly convoluted reasons, when the real one stares you in the face.

0 Replies

Duplicate.

0 Replies

What role does the army want? Who establishes what role the army 'wants'? Why would the army 'want' one role but not another?

The US military has been the key personnel and force instrument in the 'war on drugs' wherever the US has chosen to wage that 'war'.

These actions have provided training grounds for military personnel, and testing grounds for new technologies and weaponry. In other words, such actions are 'wanted' in a very real way though they may not be ideal for the purposes (a real shoot-em up war like Iraq being way better...to quote Rumsfeld on 9-12 "Let's go after Iraq, there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan.")

0 Replies

It is rather obvious that you have never served in our military - Army or otherwise.

The DEA is the primary instrument of the Federal government in international drug enforcement. The U.S. military is not significantly involved in the war on drugs (except for the Coast Guard). Our actions in Columbia have to do with an armed insurgency - one that happens to be deeply involved in the drug trade - but it is the political & military insurgency that has prompted the provision if training and intelligence support to the Colonbian government.

The Navy was briefly involved a few years ago in tracking ship and aircraft movements across the Carribbean. However the surveillance and interdiction vehicles have long since been transferred to the DEA.

It is important to know what you are talking about.

0 Replies

Well, ok, you've got me here. I was thinking of Central America and now Afghanistan and that is too limited a view and disregards the political reasons why the US has troops in those places.

So, where were we?

0 Replies

Damnesif I know, Bernie - I've lost track. It was just the good sport of arguing that kept me going.

0 Replies

the really nasty part of the "contractors", and as i understand it they do get involved in a lot of the military type operations, is that they make such an obscene amount of money compared to what the average soldier is payed for the same and more hazardous duties. it seems like the contractors are getting the tasks of guarding diplomats and government officials such as the u.s. ambassador, etc.

one report had it at about 2200-2400/mo for the military and 10,000/mo and up for the contractors.

it just seems to me that any "true and good intentions" that may have existed for the iraq war (and i have my doubts that there were any) are totally over shadowed by, at the very least, the perception of corruption, ineptitude and coverup by those that started it all. even more so in light of commission findings that every thing we were told was false.

nope, i think we should have done afghanistan, done it well, and by it's example made whatever statement on democracy that was needed. afterall, it is more than a little impressive that the u.s. removed the, now corrupt, mujahadin that confounded and then routed russia.

0 Replies

Quote:

Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, vowed to continue expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank despite his admitted differences with President George Bush on the issue.

In his most uncompromising comments yet on the settler question, Mr Sharon depicted the planned withdrawal from Gaza as the only way of preserving the largest settlement blocks on the Palestinian side of the pre-1967 border with Israel. "I am doing everything I can to preserve as much [of the West Bank settlements] as I can," he said.

link

As there are really no serious students of the middle east problem who don't see the Israeli/Palestinian issue as dead central to cause and to remedy, how the Bush administration deals with Israel provides some clear insight on just what it is the administration is doing in this part of the world.

We'll recall that before the onset of the war in Iraq, Blair insisted that Bush acknowledge and deal with this matter, which got us the 'roadmap'. Of course, we have no good reason to think that that policy/plan wasn't really designed as much for (or more for) public consumption as towards any serious attempt to fix the problem. Admittedly a difficult problem, but previous to the campaign to justify the war on Iraq, Bush had shown no initiative or interest in the Israel/Palestine matter.

And as Bush and Sharon met only two weeks ago, we probably ought to assume that Sharon's plans are well understood by Bush, and vice versa. And essentially agreed upon. If Rice makes some loud and angry and clear public statement in a day or two denouncing Sharon's words, then we might imagine Bush is being truthful about his roadmap. Twenty bucks wagered that no such statement will be forthcoming.

0 Replies

The government has just been named.

In charge of oil?

Chalabi.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know