DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Richpo64 on September 05, 2007, 09:27:34 AM
-
Call It War, Mr. President
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | 9/5/2007
The Islamic Republic of Iran has been waging war against America in Iraq from the very first days of U.S. military operations against Saddam Hussein. And yet, until just recently, no one in the U.S. government has been willing to acknowledge this openly.
Iran began planning operations to undermine an eventual U.S. invasion of Iraq many months before U.S. military forces arrived in the region in late 2002.
As I will reveal in my upcoming book, Shadow Warriors, one aspect of this forward-looking Iranian planning became apparent as U.S. troops were rolling toward Baghdad.
Whereas the United States was still relying on a Commando Solo aircraft to beam crude Arabic-language radio programming into Iraq, the Iranians unrolled a whole series of slick, Arabic language television stations that blanketed the entire country with anti-U.S. propaganda.
The effect on Iraqi public opinion was devastating. At one point, Iran had 42 radio and TV stations in Arabic beaming into Iraq, whereas the U.S.-led coalition had just one.
A new report jointly sponsored by the Weekly Standard and the Institute for the Study of War, released last week, provides extraordinary new details of Iran?s propaganda, intelligence, and military offensive against the U.S. presence in Iraq since those early days of the war.
Kimberly Kagan has done yeoman?s work in pulling together information released in dribs and drabs in recent months by U.S. military spokesmen in Iraq.
Here are just a few of the main points she covers in great detail in this dense 32 page report:
? Iran is using Hezbollah to train Iraqi terrorists, sending top Hezbollah operatives into Iraq periodically to ensure hands-on management of their terror prot?g?s;
? Iran has set up training camps near Tehran where they regularly graduate classes of between 20-70 terrorists, who then return to Iraq as a self-contained network to carry out terrorist operations against U.S. military and Iraqi targets;
? The Revolutionary Guards ?Qods Force? is running operations in Iraq through a network of ?secret cells? within Shia militias, whose agents assassinate key Iraqi leaders, run death squads, infiltrate government ministries, and distribute weaponry to other insurgents.
? Iran is also working with Sunni terrorist groups, include al Qaeda in Iraq and an Ansar al Islam, and has been terrorists from both groups at special camps inside Iran.
This deadly litany of Iranian actions leaves no doubt about the intentions of Iran?s leaders.
They aim to defeat us in Iraq. It?s as simple as that.
They have declared war, and intend to continue waging war until we defeat them, or they defeat us.
Judging by recent statements from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he and his fellow Revolutionary Guards officers have little doubt who is winning.
At a Tehran press conference on Tuesday, the Mighty Midget said that U.S. political influence in Iraq is ?collapsing rapidly,? and he kindly offered to take our place.
"Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region,? he said. ?Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation.?
Over the past nine months, U.S. military leaders in Iraq have gradually started to wake up to the enormity of Iran?s offensive operations inside Iraq, and to target Iranian networks.
The first major U.S. counter-strike took place last December, when the U.S. arrested a top Revolutionary Guards officer in Baghdad and started to learn of Iran?s extensive intelligence and terrorist networks in Iraq during bedside chats with the gentle Iranian.
Already then, I noted on this page that ?Victory in Iraq cannot come until the United States makes it clear to Iran ? even more than Syria, since the Syrians will take their lead from Tehran ? that we will no longer tolerate their intervention in Iraqi affairs.?
That remains true today, and our failure to send a tough message to Tehran and utterly smash their networks in Iraq and their support structures in Iran has only encouraged them to step up attacks on U.S. forces.
U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker has acknowledged that since the U.S. agreed to talk with Iran about Iraq, Iranian operations in Iraq have gone ?up and not down.? The more we talk, the quicker they shoot.
Since the spring, when Sunni tribal leaders started coming over to the coalition and deserting al Qaeda, we have had significant successes against these Iranian terror networts. But they have received little attention in the press ? and for good reason: the State Department has been desperate to hush up Iran?s deadly war against America, in the vain hope they can still negotiate an end of Iran?s nuclear weapons program.
Kimberly Kagan notes that since March 2007, the U.S. has detained, captured, or killed a significant number of Iranian agents and their proxies in Iraq.
These included:
? Qayis Khazali, an Iraqi promoted by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to head their ?special groups? inside Iraq. Khazali and his brother, Laith, were captured in March.
? Ali Musa Daqduq, a top Lebanese Hezbollah operative sent by Iran to organize and train secret Iranian cells in Iraq. He was captured by the U.S. on March 20, 2007.
? Abu Yaser al Shibani, the deputy commander of an Iranian network that supplied money, access to the IRGC, and Iranian-made Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP). He was captured on April 20, 2007.
? Azhar Dulaymi, the mastermind of the Jan. 20 raid in Karbala that killed five U.S. soldiers. He was killed by U.S. Special Forces on May 19, 2007;
Since May, more than a dozen additional ?high-value? individuals trained in Iran and used by Iran to run their ?secret cells? inside Iraq have been killed or detained.
And yet, despite these successes by the U.S. military, the Iranians keep sending more agents, more explosives, and training new Iraqi terrorists.
Mr. President, it?s time to call this by its name.
We are at war. And it?s not just the abstract War on Terror.
We are at war with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In Tehran, they know this. And they gloat when we refuse to recognize it and continue to say how eager we are to talk to them.
In his talk with conservative bloggers last week, the Weekly Standard?s Bill Kristol argued that President Bush and the Pentagon need to do a better job of selling the war, especially now that our generals in Iraq believe they are on the way to utterly destroying the insurgency.
But the first step toward ?selling? the war is acknowledging the simple fact that we are at war. With Iran.
In his column last Thursday, the Washington Post?s David Ignatius revealed that the State Department and Democrats in Congress conspired in the fall of 2004 to block a secret CIA program to defeat Iranian efforts to influence the Iraqi elections.
It seems that House speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was briefed on the top secret Presidential finding as Minority Leader at the time, was more concerned with defeating President Bush than in defeating Iran.
We should not be surprised by this news.
As last week?s United Press International/Zogby poll showed, the national security glue that used to unite the two parties against foreign threats has been burned away by the Baghdad sun.
Despite all the facts now being reported out of Iraq of U.S. military victories, the poll found that 66% of Democrats believed the Iraq war is ?lost,? as compared to just 9% of Republicans.
So now it?s official. Republicans are the Party of Victory, and Democrats the Party of Surrender.
Mr. President: it?s time to stop pandering to the Party of Surrender, unless it?s your own rendition you are seeking to negotiate.
We are at war, and Americans are not quitters, despite what Nancy Pelosi believes.
So let?s roll.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth R. Timmerman was nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize along with John Bolton for his work on Iran. He is Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, and author of Countdown to Crisis: the Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran (Crown Forum: 2005).
-
So let's see . . . Iran is at war with the U.S.A. because:
1. Their Arabic-language TV programming said very bad things about America. Don't sound like war to me.
2. They trained Iraqis to fight for their country against American invaders. Nope - - training doesn't count; America trained Cubans to invade Cuba and overthrow the Cuban government, trained Latin American death squad leaders at the School of the Americas in torture and murder, trained "South Vietnamese" soldiers in the field before officially invading the country in 1965 and never once did any American official consider training to be an act of war. In fact that's how they defended their actions - - "It's only training."
3. They are arming the insurgents. This is an act of war? In that case, the U.S. was at war with Russia as soon as it began arming the mujahideen and at war with Nicaragua the moment it began arming the Contras. Gee, I didn't know that arming insurgents was the equivalent of going to war. The U.S. is probably at war in LOTS of places.
4. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards sends officers to operate in Iraq against American interests - - and we know this because Americans <<arrested a top Revolutionary Guards officer in Baghdad and started to learn of Iran?s extensive intelligence and terrorist networks in Iraq during bedside chats with the gentle Iranian.>> So they applied some of their famous tortures to him and he told them what they wanted to hear to stop the pain. Gee. THAT'S impressive.
'well, the nerve of those fucking Iranians - - interfering with the internal affairs of the country right next door to them! If they have to mess around in other sovereign countries' affairs, can't they find some unsuspecting victim four thousand miles away from them to pick on, as any decent imperialist power would?
Know what I think? I think America should GET TOUGH with Iran. Send John Bolton over to cuss them out. THREATEN them. They'll shit in their pants after a few loud threats. They see how easily you are grinding the Iraqi Resistance into the dust. How can they, with a mere 73 million people, hope to withstand the might of the American Empire? LOL.
Ahh, the impotent fury of the ageing clown who still thinks he's a gangsta. The boasts, the empty threats. Very impressive. Let me explain something to you, Rich. The involvement of Iran in this mess - - which I and others predicted from the beginning - - is not good news for you. It's very BAD news. It means that you have not only been fighting the 23 million people of Iraq, but the people who stand behind them, the 73 million people of Iran. Deal with the Shi'ites, as you were, and you will face the Sunni; deal with the Sunni, and you will face the Shi'ites. You are fucked, my friend, royally and truly fucked, and the simple fact is, this is exactly what you deserve. And the longer you stay in the game, the worse the fucking that you are going to receive. And all the tough talk and lies and bullshit of the Bush administration will not and cannot change that single inescapable fact.
-
I agree Rich.
Good post.
Iran is fighting a proxy war against the United States and Israel because
the Iranian Theocrats realize they can not survive an all out war with the US.
I think we should destroy their military from the air as early as yesterday.
The cheap talk about enraging the Muslims, is just that.
Look at the videos below, as if they don't already hate us.
Destroy the Iranian military now instead of later when it would be more difficult.
They would certianly destroy ours if they could.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XHoVuFlrcjA (http://youtube.com/watch?v=XHoVuFlrcjA)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1OIUieD2KN4 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=1OIUieD2KN4)
-
I saw "The Maltese Falcon" again on the Turner Classics channel a couple of nights back. The hotel scene where Bogie gets the Fat Man's gunslinger turfed out of the hotel lobby.
"The cheaper the hood, the tougher the talk." (probably not the exact quote, but you get the idea)
I hope they DO bomb Iran. The current Iranian regime is probably one of the few governments in the world today that could match the U.S.A. atrocity for atrocity. This looks to be a win-win situation for anyone interested in a better world. Unfortunately, I don't think they have the balls.
-
The current Iranian regime is probably one of the few governments in the world today that could match the U.S.A. atrocity for atrocity.
with the iranian military totally destroyed there wouldn't be any "current iranian regime"
with virtually no military they would be hard pressed to even control their own insurgencies that they currently battle
rather that worry about the us, they would be very very busy fighting for their own survival
-
How big can Kurdistan get?
-
<<with the iranian military totally destroyed there wouldn't be any "current iranian regime">>
Oh. I see. Kinda like Iraq. With the Iraqi military totally destroyed there wouldn't be any "current Iraqi regime." Well, whatever there was - - and for want of a better word, you could call it the Iraqi people, all 23 million of them - - they managed to create a few problems for the World's Only Super-Power, didn't they?
<<with virtually no military they would be hard pressed to even control their own insurgencies that they currently battle>>
Yeah, I guess. Kinda like Iraq again, eh? They are so busy fighting one another that they don't have time to focus on the Americans. Which is why the U.S. is winning the fight for Iraq. Hey, don't take MY word for it - - read Michael Yon.
<<rather that worry about the us, they would be very very busy fighting for their own survival>>
Oh, I can see that you learned a LOT from Iraq. TONS of useful stuff. Sure, go ahead - - bomb the living shit out of those Iranians. Really. You have my blessing. This is gonna be some fun to watch.
-
Oh, I can see that you learned a LOT from Iraq. TONS of useful stuff. Sure, go ahead - - bomb the living shit out of those Iranians. Really. You have my blessing. This is gonna be some fun to watch.
I don't believe that there is really a faction of the US government that wants to utterly destroy Iran , this has the ring of fiction and there is no real party to claim it.
On the other hand in Iran there is a President that likes to speak on the subject of how wonderfull the world will be after the US and Israel are destroyed.
I wouldn't reccomend to anyone that they start up a spitting conest with a snake , a kicking contest with a mule , a hugging contest with a Bear or a biting Contest with a Great White Shark.
That any party in Iran would think it wise to start a bombing contest with the worlds champion deliverer of bombs strikes me as stupid.
-
<<I don't believe that there is really a faction of the US government that wants to utterly destroy Iran , this has the ring of fiction and there is no real party to claim it.>>
OTOH, they really want that oil and they'll do anything they think they can get away with to get their hands on it. Lying and inventing false pretexts being the least of it.
<<On the other hand in Iran there is a President that likes to speak on the subject of how wonderfull the world will be after the US and Israel are destroyed.>>
Yeah and you've got a President too - - one who likes to talk about the Axis of Evil and what he's gonna do to them.
<<I wouldn't reccomend to anyone that they start up a spitting conest with a snake , a kicking contest with a mule , a hugging contest with a Bear or a biting Contest with a Great White Shark.>>
That's cuz you're usually speaking with people who are afraid to die. People like me. The Iranians, like the Iraqis, aren't afraid to get into a biting contest with anyone, including the U.S.A. They're starting to see that the bark is worse than the bite. And that while they can take some pretty big bites, the U.S. Army tends to come running home after taking a series of little ones.
<<That any party in Iran would think it wise to start a bombing contest with the worlds champion deliverer of bombs strikes me as stupid.>>
You Yanks do talk a great fight, I'll give you that. Wonder what's the Arabic for LMFAO?
-
"...they can take some pretty big bites, the U.S. Army tends to come running home after taking a series of little ones."
Do you consider this a characteristic of our Army or our nation?
-
<<Do you consider this [running home after taking a series of small bites] a characteristic of our Army or our nation?>>
Keeping in mind that I'm not a military man, so that this is pretty much of a layman's opinion, albeit a pretty well-informed and reasonably intelligent layman, I'd guess that armies are pretty much the same all over the world - - due to training, discipline and their own extremely low IQs, they'll probably stay in harm's way till they're told to come out. I think it's more characteristic of the nation, and it's a function of democracy and freedom of information.
The public won't put up with the appalling loss of life and senseless destruction that they see unless there's a very good reason for it. Thus they put up with WWII for as long as it took. That is because they believed in the cause. Iraq and Viet Nam were crocks of shit. The public was sold on war in both cases by a pack of lies and the pressure kept growing to pull the plug - - they saw the losses, they knew there was no corresponding benefit worth the losses, they knew they'd been lied to, and the people finally were able to get the message through to the ruling class: this shit has got to end. Of course the government will keep on lying but it keeps haemorrhaging credibility as it does so.
It's very difficult in a democracy to sell a lemon and make the sale stick. In the beginning, there are well-tried tricks that will get the war started, but unless it ends quickly, the lies that got them in start to unravel, the truth ultimately comes out and the people increasingly turn against the project; not all at once, but gradually over time, the smartest first and the dumbest last, as in life generally. The Lincoln dictum, "You can fool all of the people some of the time . . . " There you have the strength of a democracy; a dictator like Hitler can keep the whole disaster spinning on until total collapse, but in a democracy, sooner or later, common sense will reassert itself and the web of lies and bullshit just sort of disintegrates.
-
Oh. I see. Kinda like Iraq.
do you not read my posts?
no not anything like iraq
we do not have the same goals in Iran as we do in Iraq
iran would be an on-going aerial destruction of the iranian military, no ground troops like in iraq
difficulty in Iraq is related to ground troops and there would be no ground troops in iran
IED's dont work well against B-1 bombers and cruise missles
iran / iraq
totally different situations, totally different goals
frankly i dont care what happens in iran (civil war/no civil war) as long as they are stopped from exporting islamic terror/funds/guns/ammo/training
our bombing would not be a precursor to set up a gvt in iran like in iraq
it is to change behavior
in iraq the aerial bombing was the beginning of a ground invasion, in iran the aerial bombing like kosovo would be the end goal
if regime change happens and (it probably would) the clerics are thrown out like the Shah, so be it. (what a fitting ending)
iran would have no military and we would have no ground troops there
we would "wait and see" who takes over and what their geo-political goals are
but we would not tolerate an iran acting in the way they have been
if they do, then their military would be again destroyed as needed
With the Iraqi military totally destroyed there wouldn't be any "current Iraqi regime."
Exactly the opposite
Yes very quickly in relative terms Iraq had an election and produced "a regime"
when you referred to the "regime" you obviously implied the same people would still be in charge in Iran
i very seriously doubt they would
the youth of iran are approaching a boiling point
with no military to impose the clerics iron fisted rule a new regime would ensue
they managed to create a few problems for the World's Only Super-Power, didn't they?
yes because we have ground troops there trying to be police on the ground
there would be no us ground troops in iran
nice analogy that does not apply
we have the power to destroy their military, they do not have the power to destroy ours
just ask milosevic (except he's dead)
-
<<Do you consider this [running home after taking a series of small bites] a characteristic of our Army or our nation?>>
Keeping in mind that I'm not a military man, so that this is pretty much of a layman's opinion, albeit a pretty well-informed and reasonably intelligent layman, I'd guess that armies are pretty much the same all over the world - - due to training, discipline and their own extremely low IQs, they'll probably stay in harm's way till they're told to come out. I think it's more characteristic of the nation, and it's a function of democracy and freedom of information.
The public won't put up with the appalling loss of life and senseless destruction that they see unless there's a very good reason for it. Thus they put up with WWII for as long as it took. That is because they believed in the cause. Iraq and Viet Nam were crocks of shit. The public was sold on war in both cases by a pack of lies and the pressure kept growing to pull the plug - - they saw the losses, they knew there was no corresponding benefit worth the losses, they knew they'd been lied to, and the people finally were able to get the message through to the ruling class: this shit has got to end. Of course the government will keep on lying but it keeps hemorrhaging credibility as it does so.
It's very difficult in a democracy to sell a lemon and make the sale stick. In the beginning, there are well-tried tricks that will get the war started, but unless it ends quickly, the lies that got them in start to unravel, the truth ultimately comes out and the people increasingly turn against the project; not all at once, but gradually over time, the smartest first and the dumbest last, as in life generally. The Lincoln dictum, "You can fool all of the people some of the time . . . " There you have the strength of a democracy; a dictator like Hitler can keep the whole disaster spinning on until total collapse, but in a democracy, sooner or later, common sense will reassert itself and the web of lies and bullshit just sort of disintegrates.
And there you have it , well stated indeed, the reason that we very much want to foster the establishment of Democracy in the quarter of the world that might become our enemy , thank you.
On the other hand Americans are not getting any more wealth off of Iraqi oil than Iranian or Canadian oil , if oil were the real reason for it all Saddam would have served as well as anyone.
-
it the Iraqi people, all 23 million of them - - they managed to create a few problems for the World's Only Super-Power, didn't they?
A majority ofthe Iriqui people cme ot to vote and establish a new Iriqui Government .
A very small minrity of Iriquis are causeing the deaths that so excite admiration.
-
<<And there you have it , well stated indeed, the reason that we very much want to foster the establishment of Democracy in the quarter of the world that might become our enemy , thank you.>>
Nice theory, except the reasons you are in Iraq have nothing to do with the establishment of a democracy. In fact the U.S. has NEVER fostered the establishment of a democracy anywhere in the Middle East, ever. Quite the opposite in fact. Not only does the U.S. support the most tyrannical Middle Eastern dictatorships, ones which do not hesitate to use horrible forms of torture on their opponents, but it actually supports the active undermining and/or overthrow of democratically elected governments in the Middle East, such as Hamas recently and the Mossadegh government of Iran before that.
<<On the other hand Americans are not getting any more wealth off of Iraqi oil than Iranian or Canadian oil , if oil were the real reason for it all Saddam would have served as well as anyone.>>
Uh, that's an extremely naive and unrealistic view of American intentions in Iraq. When the Iraqi hydrocarbons law is finally passed, a substantial share of the profits of new wells will go to foreign concessions. It is inconceivable that the lion's share of those profits, those from the most lucrative investments, will not go to Americans directly or indirectly. Under the Saddam-era hydrocarbons law, no foreigners got their hands on ANY of the profits of the oil wells. You can take it as a given that the Americans did not fight this war so that the primary foreign beneficiaries of the new hydrocarbons law would be the French, the Russians or the Chinese. This is an old-fashioned colonial war for resources, nothing more, nothing less. The only thing new about it is the rationalization.
-
<<And there you have it , well stated indeed, the reason that we very much want to foster the establishment of Democracy in the quarter of the world that might become our enemy , thank you.>>
Nice theory, except the reasons you are in Iraq have nothing to do with the establishment of a democracy. In fact the U.S. has NEVER fostered the establishment of a democracy anywhere in the Middle East, ever. Quite the opposite in fact. Not only does the U.S. support the most tyrannical Middle Eastern dictatorships, ones which do not hesitate to use horrible forms of torture on their opponents, but it actually supports the active undermining and/or overthrow of democratically elected governments in the Middle East, such as Hamas recently and the Mossadegh government of Iran before that.
<<On the other hand Americans are not getting any more wealth off of Iraqi oil than Iranian or Canadian oil , if oil were the real reason for it all Saddam would have served as well as anyone.>>
Uh, that's an extremely naive and unrealistic view of American intentions in Iraq. When the Iraqi hydrocarbons law is finally passed, a substantial share of the profits of new wells will go to foreign concessions. It is inconceivable that the lion's share of those profits, those from the most lucrative investments, will not go to Americans directly or indirectly. Under the Saddam-era hydrocarbons law, no foreigners got their hands on ANY of the profits of the oil wells. You can take it as a given that the Americans did not fight this war so that the primary foreign beneficiaries of the new hydrocarbons law would be the French, the Russians or the Chinese. This is an old-fashioned colonial war for resources, nothing more, nothing less. The only thing new about it is the rationalization.
I can conceive of a lot more idealism than you can apparently.
Iraq needs a hydrocarbon law, but Iraqis are writing it I can't conceive of them turning down a better deal offered by a Chinese drilling concern , they are in no condition to waste money.
If American drillers want a slice of the business they had best bid competitively.
You have to qualify that the US has not fostered democracy in the middle east because we have indeed fostered democracy in Europe and Asia , and havet we benefited a lot from the establishment of democracy where it has succeeded?
-
<<do you not read my posts?
<<no not anything like iraq
<<we do not have the same goals in Iran as we do in Iraq>>
Sorry. I did overlook your point.
However, I don't think you will be able to destroy the Iranian military by bombing. That's a pipe dream. I'm sure they have contingency plans for dealing with bombing and they'd be pretty similar to Iraq's plans. Disperse into small units. Maintain a command and communication system that can survive the destruction of the current level of available technology. Adapt to guerrilla or secret-army conditions. IMHO, they'd probably retain the capacity to strike back at American bases in the Middle East and possibly elsewhere. Plans for dispersal and/or reconstitution of the current state of nuclear development are probably underway already. Duplicate sites. Dummy targets. Safe havens. Pre-purchase options on vital equipment from third parties. You're not exactly dealing with unsophisticated morons here.
-
<<I can conceive of a lot more idealism than you can apparently.>>
I think in this case what you mean is that you are a lot more gullible than I am concerning America's nefarious intentions in Iraq.
<<Iraq needs a hydrocarbon law [WRONG!] but Iraqis are writing it [wrong again]>>
Iraq already has a perfectly good hydrocarbons law. It was written during the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party rule. It prohibited foreigners from owning any of the oil wells or sharing in any of the oil profits. This kept all the profits of the wells in Iraq and ensured the development of a native Iraqi petroleum industry. Needless to say, the law is not favoured by the Americans and the government, which owes its very existence and protection from their own people to the American army, is re-writing the hydrocarbons law to something that the Americans can accept, i.e. to one that will give them partial (up to 90% according to the first draft) ownership of the wells.
<<I can't conceive of them turning down a better deal offered by a Chinese drilling concern , they are in no condition to waste money.>>
You better conceive of it, because by accepting the law the Americans are ramming down their throats, they've already rejected the BEST of all possible deals: they develop their own wells with their own people and their own resources, as they have always been able to do in the past without outside help, AND they get to keep 100% of the profits. So, yeah, I CAN conceive of them turning down some nice Chinese deals in favour of some not-so-nice U.S. deals. If the U.S. invaded them once on a phony pretext to get that oil, they'll do it again, and again and again, if need be. Fortunately none of the Iraqi puppets, er, I mean legislators, are stupid enough to miss that rather basic point.
<<If American drillers want a slice of the business they had best bid competitively.>>
Or tell Dick Cheney that they smell WMD under that sand.
<<You have to qualify that the US has not fostered democracy in the middle east because we have indeed fostered democracy in Europe and Asia , and havet we benefited a lot from the establishment of democracy where it has succeeded?>>
You didn't "foster democracy" in Europe or Japan because they already had democracy of their own. You certainly didn't foster democracy in South Korea or China, in fact you backed the Syngman Rhee and KMT dictatorships. Conditions in Europe are very much different than the middle east, there are large homogeneous populations with long histories of independence and strong cultural identities, not to say well-developed militaries. What happened in Europe is peculiar to Europe. The U.S.A., in conjunction with its allies, Great Britain, France and the U.S.S.R., defeated fascism. At that point, the European powers, France and Britain, would not have tolerated American-backed fascist dictatorships anywhere in western Europe and the U.S.S.R. would not have tolerated them anywhere in eastern Europe. So what you "fostered" in Europe had very little to do with what you wished for and very much to do with what was inevitable anyway.
The fact is that you have never fostered any democracy in the Middle East but have actively worked against them. It is ridiculous to claim that somehow Iraq is different, that THERE and nowhere else America is fostering a democracy. That is such egregious bullshit that I can't think of anyone outside the U.S.A. who would even consider it for a minute. What the U.S. wants in Iraq is a pliable satellite much like Egypt or Jordan, someone to do their bidding and carry their water.
-
Why do you think that the US is involved in Iraqi law writing? Especially the hydrocarbon law?
The election of the legislature was too much effort to make a sham of it we re invested in blood as well as money.
Why do you think that the Iraqi oil fields could ever have been exploited without assistance from foreign firms?
Why do you think that the Iraqi people were benefited from the policy's that were untended to house Saddam in fifty castles and enrich his support?
I don't see the profit rolling in that you do , nor how it couldn't have been arranged with Saddam if that was all we wanted.
-
<<Why do you think that the US is involved in Iraqi law writing? Especially the hydrocarbon law?>>
[shakes his head sadly] The money, plane. It's for the money.
<<The election of the legislature was too much effort to make a sham of it we re invested in blood as well as money.>>
I beg to differ. You got a fig-leaf that fooled a relatively small number of people, yourself evidently included, but the Bush administration doesn't really give a shit. They got the biggest fig leaf they were able to get and for the rest of the people here and all over the world, who AREN'T taken in by any of it, the Bush administration has a simple answer: "Fuck 'em."
<<Why do you think that the Iraqi oil fields could ever have been exploited without assistance from foreign firms?>>
Because that's how they were exploited before, under Saddam Hussein. Maybe they needed foreign firms in the beginning, but that was then and this is now. They DON'T need foreign firms now. It's like the U.S.A. - - once they needed British capital and British military protection. Now they don't.
<<Why do you think that the Iraqi people were benefited from the policy's that were untended to house Saddam in fifty castles and enrich his support?>>
Because they got free education and health care, short work hours and long vacations. Could they have had even better free education and medical care if they didn't have to support Saddam's life-style? Probably not, the money would have gone into national reserves or the military. They already had one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East - - how much more could 23 million people have squeezed out of fifty palaces anyway?
<<I don't see the profit rolling in that you do , nor how it couldn't have been arranged with Saddam if that was all we wanted.>>
You're kidding me, right? You couldn't even "persuade" Saddam to keep selling his oil for dollars instead of euros, let alone to share his wealth with you. Saddam was a puppet who cut his strings, and THAT was what you couldn't stand. If you did a deal with THAT puppet, who knows what the others would start to demand?