Pick A Side

I don’t think it’s really all that simple, Aaron. I think there’s a lot to be said for a Democraticly ruled Iraq. But then again, that’s easy for me to say. I’d like everybody to have elections.

posted by Tom Bridge at January 10, 2005 12:45 PM #

Well done for a cogent summary of the US strategy in Iraq and for stating the simple but controversial truth that the Iraqi resistance is exactly that - a resistance force - whilst coalition forces are occupiers. That does not imply agreement or support for many of the indiscriminate and brutal resistance tactics, which are as guilty for damaging Iraqi society as the actions of the US occupiers, but we need to at least have some perspective on this.

Hope u r enjoying college!

posted by Anon coward at January 10, 2005 12:47 PM #

I think it’s worth reading an open letter to the Stop the War Coalition

posted by Robin Grant at January 10, 2005 01:10 PM #

Of course, that’s simplification. But that’s part of the truth anyway. … and it seems there are more people in Europe who understood this long ago than Americans in America.

posted by RT at January 10, 2005 01:26 PM #

So we screwed up early on. Sure, we can take responsibility for it.

You’re still saying we went in for the oil, tho? If anything, I’d say oil prices have pretty much disproven that. Saying we went into Iraq for oil at this point seems patently absurd to me.

(I also disagree with your assertion that the population as a whole resists us. Some do, many don’t.)

posted by Jeff Walden at January 10, 2005 02:23 PM #

You only just worked this out?

posted by Rob Russell at January 10, 2005 02:23 PM #

Jeff: If we didn’t go in for the oil, what’d we go in for? “Liberation”?

posted by Basil Crow at January 10, 2005 02:32 PM #

Tom: I want democracy too, as do, I expect, much of the “insurgents”. The US certainly isn’t going to bring democracy. The Iraqi population would vote to keep control of their own oil if they had the chance and the US can’t let that happen.

Jeff: As this article (linked above) explains we didn’t go in to use the oil but to control it. It’s a crucial difference.

I never said the population as a whole resists us. I said we were trying to terrorize the population, which is exactly what US officials say: “The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to [not turning in] the terrorists. From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation.” (Newsweek)

posted by Aaron Swartz at January 10, 2005 02:59 PM #

Free Iraqi “I was not living before the 9th of April and now I am, so let me speak!” http://iraqilibe.blogspot.com/

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/photoblogs.html

posted by Dimitar Vesselinov at January 10, 2005 04:18 PM #

Nice summary and links! The world is complicated and your summary does not give the whole picture. The oil complicates things here. But I agree that if Iraq was primarily a question of liberty and peace, why then was North Korea not selected instead for liberation?

posted by JuHa at January 10, 2005 11:50 PM #

You just lost a reader permanetly!

posted by Todd at January 11, 2005 12:29 AM #

@Todd (if you’re still reading, which I doubt):

So, any time you encounter an opinion that you disagree with, you just throw your toys out of the pram and run off? Surely that’s why we have the left/right split that we do (here in the UK as well as the US)?

Why not engage with the opposing view rather than sticking cheese in your ears and saying “nah nah nah - I’m not listening”?

Pathetic.

posted by Tim at January 11, 2005 03:06 AM #

It’s just as JuHa says, why not invade every other country where there is no democracy? And why not wait for the UN to approve the invasion?

Junior was just finishing what his father started, and that’s not a basis for war I would say.

posted by Reinier at January 11, 2005 03:36 AM #

“And why not wait for the UN to approve the invasion?”

Because as long as France is in the security council (and had their sweetheart deal with Iraq, but we can ignore that supposedly) that wasn’t going to happen. It’s reality check time.

posted by duke at January 11, 2005 06:43 AM #

You ask about whether you’ve got this straight and one perpetual problem is that the language used in one of the links doesn’t get leaped on. The item I raise is in regard to the “Salvador option” wherein is “…the U.S. government funded or supported “nationalist” forces that allegedly included so-called death squads”.

“Allegedly” and “so-called” are bullshit sop/copout terms used to pretend that facts and spin deserve equal time in order to achieve “balance”. The fact that it took 300 years to acknowledge that Galileo was right and it was long after his death that Lenny Bruce got “pardoned” for using certain “illegal” language is at the root of much of our practice of allowing liars’ latitude to the powerful.

There are signs like this-like blogs which promise the demise of the rule of “superstition-based” arguments. The “death squads” were way beyond “so-called” and “alleged”, the language that gets chosen (“insurgent” vs. “freedom fighter”) is an attempt to soften our grandchilrens’ proper outrage at our outrageous behavior.

Love.

posted by William Loughborough at January 11, 2005 08:11 AM #

Some tangential info, regarding the first Gulf War under Powell’s command:

http://www.accuracy.org/unilateral.pdf

posted by matt at January 11, 2005 09:18 AM #

Oh, the brave Iraqui insurgents. Beheading and bombing to restore fascism to their fatherland. Why are they afraid of elections?

posted by Green Garden at January 11, 2005 10:34 AM #

Those who have doubts on the reasons for the attack on Iraq should read the theory that guides Bush’s choices : the National Security Strategy for the USA (Sept. 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html). (In particular, those who are sceptics about oil will find an explicit indication near the end of section VI, in a paragraph called “Enhance energy security”)

posted by RT at January 11, 2005 02:54 PM #

Those who doubt on the reasons for the attack on Iraq should read the theory that guides Bush’s choices : the National Security Strategy for the USA (Sept. 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html). (In particular, the sceptics about the issue of oil will find an explicit indication near the end of section VI, in a paragraph called “Enhance energy security”)

posted by RT at January 11, 2005 02:57 PM #

Aaron: I’ll disagree with you that pressuring Sunnis to stop passively supporting the terrorists counts as terrorizing them. I’ll also disagree with that specific report when it calls covert operations “death squads”. The term is perfectly accurate, true, but it distorts what the teams would do in such a way as to automatically bias the report’s audience against the squads. I think the report should describe what they do, but it shouldn’t give them a biased nickname.

It’s also true you never said population “as a whole”, but that’s how I interpreted “on the other hand we have a population resisting them” (not some segment of a population). We can leave it at that, tho, as a misunderstanding.

Basil Crow: I think we went in because Iraq was a place where terrorists could set up camp in relative security.

Todd: Refusing to discuss positions you don’t like is hardly the best way to handle things. Listening is a good skill to have, even when you don’t like what you’re hearing. You always have the comments to make your point if you’re willing to make a decent argument.

JuHa, Reinier: We knew we could succeed at reducing the threat in an Iraq that condones terrorism with relatively little effort. (I don’t consider the number of deaths we’ve had and civilians who’ve died to be overly large when compared to other wars we’ve fought. The costs have grown faster than we expected, but I think U.S. fiscal problems lie with some of Bush’s other spending and not with the war.) North Korea would be far more difficult (particularly because it’s next to China), as would a country like Iran that has a real, functional government and army.

posted by Jeff Walden at January 11, 2005 03:38 PM #

Invade a neutral African nation, that never attacked the United States, killing defending French soldiers.

Invade France, killing tens of thousands of of French civilians in the bombing operations leading up to the invasion.

Send Special Forces into France to train and operate with non-uniformed insurgents who, let’s face it, probably killed civilians.

Kill tens of thousands more French civilians in the process of occupying France.

Firebomb Dresden, a city in a country that had never attacked the United States, killing 35,000 and 135,000 civilians in two days.

Wow, FDR and the Greatest Generation must have been murderous bastards.

The point being: cynical cherry picking of facts without context isn’t very informative.

posted by Mark J at January 11, 2005 04:28 PM #

True let’s speak about context : a bunch of assh** going to war without a plan, lacking of translators, and thinking nothing can go wrong or be misjudged by the population. Wow, I really wonder how this went wrong now… about the same way I wonder why water is wet.

51% found this shit ok, let the 51% be butchered in Iraq. Didn’t they “approve the message” :) ?

posted by cn at January 11, 2005 05:21 PM #

Aaron my first thought was : right on, brave for saying it. Because that is the media environment we live in. One side is too loudly proclaiming that they are completely right.

But dualistic judgement won’t help in this day and age. Yes, bush rumsfeld wolfkowitz et. al have screwed up. any of us armchair commentators spotted that invading iraq was going to be a mess, good intentions or no. Were there intentions strictly evil ? No, they saw altruistic goals but also profit and a potential to change the world (middle east) as they saw fit, but this has been egotistical, flawed and unrealistic in its execution. As a US official said to Saudi Arabia “Iraq is doable”.

Some of their goals are truly evil (corporate profit off of the situation). Some of them (liberal democracy is the final state) we shouldn’t snivel at. (as if the US was really a liberal democracy) (oh and why was rumsfeld shaking sadaam’s hand back in the 80s ?)

At this point the best any of us can do is scream at them because they walk off thinking they only did good (or claiming so). A controlled media statement that “this is reality: we only did right” needs to be acted against. They are controlling media reality and that needs to be counter acted with cold truth.

But Aaron, that doesn’t mean “choose sides” ! These “jihadists” don’t and can’t do anything other than scream and cut off people’s heads. I’m sure its a bit hard to come up with a solid world political philosophy in a rapidly changing world while you are busy running from US troops, worrying about weapons logistics, sharpening your blade and planning your next insane physical maneuver. (not to mention finding a decent video editor to upload your screed)

Many of them are not Iraqis, and the Iraqis themselves are mainly pissed that the US haven’t controlled the situation, they aren’t aligned with them.

I regard the removal of Sadaam to be a lucky side effect of US global agenda. No-one else would have done it, and the Iraqis would have been left to suffer as did the Rwandans, as are those in Darfur.

These “sides” are both wrong.

“right” is the everyday people trying to get an everyday life. That will only happen after the a**holes stop stuggling with their political statements. their oh-so-important “stance”. As if Sadaam throughtout your life wasn’t bad enough, now you have to deal with some egotistical country and some crazy extremists trying to prove themselves on your soil.

Thank God this is (relatively speaking) one of the more bloodless wars in modern history. Its a minor skirmish with a big media profile.

You know millions are dying in Africa right now… if we weren’t so focused on oil and empire, the return of the messiah and all dat shit…we might find time to do God’s work.

posted by crucial felix at January 11, 2005 08:11 PM #

The problem is that complex situations can never be right or wrong, good or evil. It always depends on YOUR point of view. So the only way to act RIGHT is to avoid situations you cannot undo: Killing, wasting enviroment, etc… but keep on talking about things you dislike.

For us germans it was enbelievable that more the half of the US seriosly thought the tales from the white house could be true (expecially after having bombed the iraq for almost 10 years between the 2nd and 3rd Gulf War).

But the pragmatic way the USA acts is sometimes the better way. Remember the flood in asia? The french goverment told that they are going to coordinate the help, Chirac sends an old Helicopter Carrier to asia (I think it’s still on the way), while the US marines already arrived and help a lot. The european goverments grants many millions to rebuild the cities (and keep takling about it), while the US just offered a multiple amount…

One more thing: Furious comments of marines at the guestbook of imagesagainstwar.com enable you to have a close look at the mental situation of warriors in war zones.

posted by Harald at January 12, 2005 03:11 AM #

What are you missing? Well for one thing, your link supporting the idea that the U.S. is trying to “control the area’s oil resources” is to an article on public opinion polls of Baghdad residents, which raises the question: how long is the emperor of China’s nose?

The followup link you supply is to Chomsky, who also cites Iraqi popular opinion as authoritative on the matter, even as he discounts U.S. public opinion as hopelessly malleable. He gives other reasons of course, but his M.O. is to stack assertions as far as he can to favor the most damning interpretation of U.S. motives. My favorite of the bunch: absent sanctions, the Iraqis would surely have overthrown Hussein, therefore the U.S.’s effort to overthrow him must have been spurious.

Just a thought: If our goal is to “control” the region’s oil, I fail to see how a strong alliance with Israel could possibly help.

posted by sierra at January 12, 2005 08:39 AM #

Aaron, Just to make sure I am not misunderstanding you. You are chosing to support Insurgents in Iraq who are killing United States Marines.

Noted. Nick Chalko, Capt USMCR

posted by Nick Chalko at January 12, 2005 11:02 AM #

Unfortunately, Nick has it right.

I loathe this war and this president, but the answer to ‘whose side should we take’ is: our armed services. Their leader has done them wrong, but they are paying the price, and it’s their blood we should be caring about first.

Yes, work to mitigate the damage W can do. Yes, work for political change in the USA. Yes, work to make sure that the next time Congress is asked to support a presidential war effort, they won’t write a blank check.

No, there is no justification for supporting people fighting against our own troops, insurgents, terrorists, whatever. Not now, not ever.

They are our friends, family, our coworkers. They could be us, but for slightly different paths in our lives.

They are there because they’ve been told to be there. Because our government decided it needs them there. You can disagree with the government, you can disagree with the policies, but for whatever you believe in’s sake give the people who actually have to bleed and die for the government’s policies your support over the people trying to MAKE them bleed and die.

As for calling those fighting in Iraq ‘freedom fighters’, the ‘insurgents’ in Iraq are nothing of the sort. When the PEOPLE (not the government!) are told, ‘Vote and you’ll be killed’, it’s quite obvious the insurgents are NOT for freedom. When they say to people who want to become police officers to help alleviate the lawless situation, ‘Try and enforce the law as a police officer, and you’ll be killed’, it’s obvious they are trying to keep the POPULACE in fear. The police officers are Iraqis not American soldiers, so why bomb the police? It’s solely to keep the population afraid, off balance, not thinking clearly. These are not the tactics of fighters for freedom against a tyrannical government, these are the tactics of terrorists.

Freedom fighters fight despotic governments, for change. Those fighting in Iraq want no government (instability suits some groups), or if there has to be one, one that is a religious tyranny of their particular persuasion.

No. I wish to everything I believe in, that we hadn’t gone in. I wish we weren’t there. I wish W had not been re-elected, or elected in the first place.

But you are right, there is no question whose side we should be on. Our soldiers rely on us and our support, and (for better or worse) the population as a whole of Iraq now has no choice but to rely on OUR soldiers to stop the violence and terror which is being directed against the people of Iraq by the insurgents.

Put aside your feelings of hatred for the situation, the president, and the war. They do you credit, but will lead you down the path to the dark side. :) Focus on compassion for the soldiers, asked to do a fundamentally thankless job in terrible conditions on the vague hope that they’re doing good in the end, and doing it pretty well sometimes.

Best of luck to you.

[Roger Harrison]

posted by Roger Harrison at January 12, 2005 03:28 PM #

Nick: If, say, German soldiers invaded your country, broke down your door, took your wife, put a bag over her head, dragged her off, and likely tortured her or something, wouldn’t you try to kill them too?

posted by Aaron Swartz at January 12, 2005 04:53 PM #

Seriously. What am I missing?
First, I think you present public debate (Should we use/support right-wing death squads like in colombia and nicaragua) as fact - this modus operandi is wrong, because you are skipping many levels of possible counteraction. (Apart from making false statements). I agree that the military actions Rumsfeld and others are ordering (I see the army as a tool here, but think any person currently serving in the army deserves better than beeing put into the middle of hell on the other side of the globe into a situation they don’t understand) are mostly beyond insane.
So in the end, the only reason the army is in that other country, commiting these gruesome things you rightly denounce, is the government - that lied to you to scare you into conformance with their war, that gave orders breaking geneva conventions to their soldiers (“shoot the ambulance”, “torture that person” etc.), that has no diplomatic skills whatsoever (see the whole “with or against us” fiasco), that has almost no control over the three letter agencies, but that is intelligent enough to sell the public “Martha Stuart going to jail for some minor offense” as a substitute punishment for “rich white buddies of the administration steal money and savings from thousands of americans (aka. enron/worldcom/accenture)”.
From my point of view you seem to be missing that this seems to be a non-issue shadow debate. There is no question wether or not the war in iraq is unjust (it is). there is no question wether or not the army is ordered to do horrible things to civillians (it is). There is no question if Rumsfelds dreamed up mini-army of highly skilled killers is able to do police work (it isn’t). There is no question if keeping the populace armed during the war was a dumb descision (it was).
There is just the question what the root cause for all of these described problems is.
There are more than two sides. Just because you oppose the action of your government (and therefore it’s army), does not mean you automatically support the religious loonie also opposing your government’s army.

posted by g. at January 12, 2005 05:11 PM #

Nick doesn’t quite have it right. Just today it was reported that, indeed, the Pentagon command is beginning to recognize the vast majority of the resistance as a Sunni uprising. The foriegn participation is marginal, although hilighted for propaganda purposes on both sides and associated with the most ‘glamorous’ and offense rhetoric…

It’s not sexy when US Marines are killing people defending their homes or when the US, in general, appears to be trying to maintain an Iraqi state that is a piece of fiction, created by the Brits, to begin with. Ethnically, culturally, it would have probably evolved into about 3 states had other empires not interjected.

US Marines lives aren’t any more sacred than anyone else’s. And they sure as hell aren’t fighting for my freedom over there. (They might believe they are.)

• RJ

posted by RJ at January 12, 2005 10:45 PM #

I think it’s good that Saddam Hussein is not the dictator of Iraq anymore. I just don’t think the way it happened was that great.

We can all disagree about the war or the President, but always support the troops.

Thank you Capt. Chalko for your service.

*The Burger King at the 29 Palms Marine Corp base rocks! California forever!

posted by Aaron Miller at January 12, 2005 11:14 PM #

RJ says: ick doesn’t quite have it right. Just today it was reported that, indeed, the Pentagon command is beginning to recognize the vast majority of the resistance as a Sunni uprising. The foriegn participation is marginal, although hilighted for propaganda purposes on both sides and associated with the most ‘glamorous’ and offense rhetoric…

Link, please?

posted by bryan at January 13, 2005 05:56 AM #

Aaron asks: “If, say, German soldiers invaded your country, broke down your door, took your wife, put a bag over her head, dragged her off, and likely tortured her or something, wouldn’t you try to kill them too?” That analogy is weakened by the fact that Shi’ites and Kurds were also invaded, but the insurgency is being conducted overwhelmingly by Sunnis.

posted by sierra at January 13, 2005 06:58 AM #

I’ve been asked why an alliance with Israel would not help control mideast oil. How about because they have no oil and everybody hates them?

It also occurs to me that if controlling oil supplies were our goal, we would have at least threatened Venezuela by now, as opposed to this relatively lame response.

posted by sierra at January 13, 2005 07:12 AM #

Roger Harrison says, “They could be us, but for slightly different paths in our lives.”

So could the insurgents, if you take a path earlier in human history. In other words, there is no place for “our boys” in the argument.

Just a little over a year ago, there were fewer than 5,000 active insurgents, according to General John Abizaid. Now, there are at least 40,000, according to General Muhammed Abdullah Shahwani. Numbers like that don’t appear for no reason. Do you really believe in your government and media to paint the picture of insurgents accurately? Perhaps many people are right to see the US-sanctioned police force as a puppet extension of the army?

posted by Hamish at January 13, 2005 10:39 AM #

Aaron asks me: “Germans invaded red states and blue states, but it was overhwelmingly people in gun-toting pickups and members of militias who joined the insurgency. Not a surprise.” Wow, how sophisticated. Gotta get on the line with Rumsfeld and tell him the reason he’s having special trouble with with the Sunnis is their higher rate of gun ownership. Jeez.

posted by sierra at January 13, 2005 12:24 PM #

For Bryan: Not sure where RJ read, saw or heard it — but the same thing he mentioned was alluded to in this NPR report:

http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=4281403

“US Commanders say they’re…getting a better idea of who the ‘insurgents’ are… U.S. officials increasingly see the movement as a Sunni uprising…”

This is of course old news. Critics and natives have said as much — the foreign/terrorist links are minor in number (perhaps not influence), and taking advantage of a true home-brew resistance. the foreign/terrorist elements really didn’t come in until after we stirred it all up (on false pretenses).

This month’s Harper’s mentioned that an Iraqi is 2.5 times more likely die a violent death in Iraq now, from all the possible threats (local, foriegn, imperial) than under the last decade of Saddam’s reign.

Now, he’s not a nice guy — he’s a real fucker, Saddam — but we haven’t liberated shit as of yet. And RJ has it right — we weren’t threatened. If we’re going to “liberate” the world, we’re going to ahve to actually liberate them (as opposed to the puppet stuff we’re pulling in Iraq now and pulled all through central and latin America). And we might re-evaluate our criteria for launching these offensives/”Liberations.” If justice, and not selfish control of strategic geographical points and resources, is our goal there are plenty other candidates for this kind of police work.

posted by Who Are The Insurgents? at January 13, 2005 02:13 PM #

The elite few in the US are after one thing and that is to retain our [United States] hegemony through the use of force. It has happened for many years and it will continue to happen unless the people of the United States rise up. If you want a decent description of our quest for dominance, I would suggest you read this book:

Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance

and also as one poster said above take the time to read and truly understand the National Security Strategy.

posted by Ghibertii at January 14, 2005 03:28 PM #

“Seriously. What am I missing?” - that just about every reason you posted is either a lie or an exagerration or misrepresentation of the truth?

“support of the murderous tyrant” — “well, you have to be realistic”, they say, politics goes, and much of the Europe that was lamenting over the US invading Iraq had no problem do deal with Hussein. Moreover, you contradict yourself when first you whine about ‘support of the tyrant’ and then of the actions necessary to topple him. ‘supporting the tyrant’ is rather an exagerration of the deals you have to live with in tricky and hairy Middle East.

‘They install sanctions to strengthen him and end up killing 1.5M people.’ - you want to see the tyrant strong in place or not? Looks like you don’t like war, you don’t like sanctions and you don’t like tyrant himself. So what else is US or whoever supposed to actually do? Have any miracle button to push around? Geez, they’re evil cuz they don’t push this button, your thinking seems to go. Get real, man, you’re just on drugs of naive sentiments.

‘They then invade the country to control the area’s oil resources.’ - stupid idea. It’s cheaper to buy oil than to go for war for it. Even Kissinger, a utterly cynical man, knew that. Really, ‘blood for oil’ is a mantra of intellectual children.

‘They kill over 100,000 more people through their invasion.’ - that’s just Lancet whoring itself.

‘They torture and humiliate innocents in their prisons.’ - Abu Ghraib a ‘torture’? Get real. Humiliation, yes, smth not pretty, yes, but ‘torture’? Compare it with real torture from history. Childish whining.

‘They evacuate entire cities, killing anyone left behind.’ - oh poor guys ‘left behind’ and murdered! OTOH, elsewhere you say ‘population resisting’ - so which is it, people ‘left behind’ in their wheelchairs that are doing this ‘resisting’, blowing up pipelines and planting bombs indiscriminately killing their own countrymen?

Reality check: it’s an ugly war for domination by Sunnis, who were relatively well treated and privileged by Hussein. That’s all. It would take place with or without US in place and it would doom Iraq for good.

‘They institute death squads to terrorize the population into submission.’ - get some medication, man.

You’re whining like a little child not wanting to acknowledge the ugly real world. If only we all believed it’s not there, it would not be there, but that’s just childish rationalization.

posted by bulba at January 14, 2005 04:14 PM #

I think most of you people are missing the point. I mean, assuming that Irak really was in need of “democracy” and “liberation”, assuming that Saddam Hussein had to be kicked off and peace to be re-established in Middle East, granted all that, what exactly is giving the US government the right to step in to achieve all these marvels ? The question is not why don’t they invade N.Korea instead of Irak, or why did they go in Irak. The question is what gives them the right to invade. Accepting that it is the US government right to invade a country, for any reason whatsoever, is equivalent to asserting the US gov will to act globally as an imperial power. Whenever there is an empire there are insurgents. The next question is who’s side are u on ?

posted by achilleas at January 15, 2005 07:30 PM #

The Struggle for Power:

When we successfully dominate others in this way, we feel more powerful, but they are left weakened and often fight back. Competition for scarce human energy is the cause of all conflict between people.

posted by Jon Wright at January 16, 2005 11:54 AM #

Nah, you didn’t miss much. If you were alive and ware you couldn’t miss the pattern of “tax and war” from the Raygunites, the neocons and the war profiteers…

1. Ron Raygun, fought the “Evil Empire,” and built the largest military budget ever (Star Wars and the national debt came with it). His CIA armed the Mujahideen and spent million$ in Musharaf’s Pakistani secret service. We left Afghanistan in tatters and without economic support after a decade of brutalization.
2. GHW Bush, on Ron’s coattails, sold us the Persian Gulf War and spent $50 Billion on 1 military base alone in Saudi Arabia. This after our diplomatic corp failed to oppose to Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.
3. Powell (then General), at Bush’s behest, pulls up on Schwarzkopf’s reigns before he can depose Hussein and disarm his Sunni army who we’re fighting now. We left the evil madman’s regime intact so as not to “destabilize” the mideast, anger the Saudis or theaten Israel.
4. Rumsfled downsized the army at huge public expense (and private profit). The DoD readies a New World Order force defined by military readiness in a world with no opposiong super power, none the less, it required a increased Star Wars expense and left us unprepared for the responsibilities of occupation mandated by our signature on the Geneva Conventions. ~   (Maybe Bush and Putin aren’t as solid as we’ve been led to believe.)
5. Wolfowitz pens the neocon position on use the U.S. hegemony to reshape the world to our economic advantage. ~   (He leaves out the messy parts.)
6. Cheney helps steer Halliburton’s global military construction strategy and accidentally lines up Kellog, Brown and Root with billion$ in no compete contracts necessary to stave off bankruptcy. ~   (They still cheat and get caught..)
7. 90’s - Clinton sets the dangerous precedents by involving the UN and NATO before warring and defending people against genocide where there’s no strategic resource.
8. 2001 - G ‘Wingnut’ Bush vacations more than any other president in history until he learns, while in his brother’s 2nd grade classroom, that Cheney has authorized lethal force against American Airlines flights because the Mujahideen is back and boy are they pissed about our our infidel presence in the holyland and support of the Saudis.
9. We go to war against Bin Laden and his Mullah in Afghanistan but decline to chase them into the recently nuclearized Pakstan. Gen. Musharaf’s secret service tells us nothing. ~   (Until we find out that Musharaf’s scientists are runing a successful free market enterprize selling nuclear technology to N. Korea, et al.)
10. “Bush the W” uses his superman-like, Harvard MBA negotiating skills to undermine nearly all international sympathy or US credibility, by going to war unilaterally in the face or a legitimate questions. “How can any civilzed country preempt an unsubstantiated threat using its military?”
    ~   (VP Cheney repeated these allegations at every opportunity but always stops short of showing the evidence. I would have hoped for hard evidence before killing thousands of innocents..)
    Several suggestions were offered:
    • Chemical, biological or nuclear “weapons of mass distraction.”
      ~   (Search unsuccesfully ended just before Christmas, Bush forgets to tell Scott McClellan in hurry to cut down a Christ’s Mass tree in back at the ranch.)
    • Hussein’s alledged support for terrorists like the Mujahideen or other paramilitary style terrorist groups. ~   (Like those we use elsewhere.)
    • Or maybe it was the heinous nature of Saddam Hussein himself that finally moved us to realize that the Oil for Food thing wasted profits which might have accrued to “our” companies, most of whom aviod paying federal income tax by off-shoring and outsourcing.

Should I forget all this and “support our troops?” I believe that the best way to support our troops is to from the illegimate use of their lives. I oppose systematic attacks on our constitutional rights and the puny lack of foresight in the abuse of foreign nationals, interrogating them using Mussad-like techniqes in prisons constructed to avoid habeas corpus and international scrutiny.

I point to explanations like war profiteering in the Bush family? Prescott Bush’s invlovement with the United Banking Corporation that illegally supported the Nazi’s during WWII, and GHW Bush’s involvement the multi-$-billion Carlisle Group shows a historical pattern. Look it up on the national archives, or read about it in Fixing America.

posted by Hu Johnson at January 17, 2005 05:33 AM #