Peanut Gallery: Disallusioned With The American Me Presence?

[♦ nivek ♦]

Why TF is the War in Iraq such a fuckup?

 

kFL

[Vigile]

Who says it is a fuck up? Those who started it probably got everything they want from it. That is, a foot in the door of one of the world's wealthiest oil reserves and a perfect launch site for a potential future war with Iran.

 

All the deaths and destruction that have occured mean nothing to these guys. They only told us it would be a smooth, cheap ride because that was the only way they could get everyone to go along with the plan.

[Amanda]

Why TF is the War in Iraq such a fuckup?

 

kFL

Nivek, my OPINION is that it is very difficult to change the mindset of these oppressed Iraqians of the general population. People who have generationally been terrorized into passivity can not change overnight. Iraqians who have been raised by parents who have been oppressed into submission by a madman and his lunatic sons, have a heck of a time now transforming into a take charge mentality. There is still the compounded suggestions to never contest the delusional leader by his life threatening fear instillled into them, for all their life, their parents' lives, and grandparents' lives as well. A leader addressing his people with a rifle in his hand, his bulldogs surrounding him, can cause a fear ingrained into their very core to just do as he instructed. They need an adjustment time to rectify these pervasive brainwashing techniques on them.

 

Then, I'm sure Saddam's remaining regime has now lost everything and has nothing to lose in fighting back. It is they who have been taught tactics to keep the populus in their place, that's probably all they know. I'm sure they'd like to regain their positions, as I'm sure it has been traumatic for them and their families to lose their echelon in society as well as monetary benefits.

 

The US and Britain probably have made some mistakes also. However, what I've noticed is that even when Kuait was invaded by Iraq, they couldn't even protect themselves. The US was used to help them regain their own country. I'm curious to know if there is something within their culture that is against fighting, except for the terrorists that reside in each country?

 

As for the oil... sure, it would be nice to have another possible supplier... but no one is getting it for free. We would just become another customer. Does any business have too many customers? However, it is perplexing why we don't help places like Haiti that have been subjected by such greedy, self centered theives as Papa Doc and Baby Doc. The latter should be hunted down, put in prison, and stripped of every single penny and given back to the people of Haiti. Could oil be the difference to the US approach to these two different countries?

[Piprus]

Why TF is the War in Iraq such a fuckup?

 

kFL

Nivek, my OPINION is that it is very difficult to change the mindset of these oppressed Iraqians of the general population. People who have generationally been terrorized into passivity can not change overnight. Iraqians who have been raised by parents who have been oppressed into submission by a madman and his lunatic sons, have a heck of a time now transforming into a take charge mentality. There is still the compounded suggestions to never contest the delusional leader by his life threatening fear instillled into them, for all their life, their parents' lives, and grandparents' lives as well. A leader addressing his people with a rifle in his hand, his bulldogs surrounding him, can cause a fear ingrained into their very core to just do as he instructed. They need an adjustment time to rectify these pervasive brainwashing techniques on them.

 

Then, I'm sure Saddam's remaining regime has now lost everything and has nothing to lose in fighting back. It is they who have been taught tactics to keep the populus in their place, that's probably all they know. I'm sure they'd like to regain their positions, as I'm sure it has been traumatic for them and their families to lose their echelon in society as well as monetary benefits.

 

The US and Britain probably have made some mistakes also. However, what I've noticed is that even when Kuait was invaded by Iraq, they couldn't even protect themselves. The US was used to help them regain their own country. I'm curious to know if there is something within their culture that is against fighting, except for the terrorists that reside in each country?

 

As for the oil... sure, it would be nice to have another possible supplier... but no one is getting it for free. We would just become another customer. Does any business have too many customers? However, it is perplexing why we don't help places like Haiti that have been subjected by such greedy, self centered theives as Papa Doc and Baby Doc. The latter should be hunted down, put in prison, and stripped of every single penny and given back to the people of Haiti. Could oil be the difference to the US approach to these two different countries?

Amanda, you're right, IMO.

The people of Iraq have never, never been taught in the context of their history, that they have any inherent right to live as free people. They lived under the autocratic rule of the caliphs. They lived under the autocratic rule of the Ottomans. They lived under the autocratic rule of the British. They lived under the autocratic rule of the Baathists. Now they're living under an occupation by westerners (us). How can we reasonably expect anything less than complete chaos, especially when there are islamic fundies among them that now want to establish Iraq as a copy of Iranian theocracy? Little wonder that the people of that poor nation struggle with the basic question of, "who are we?" While in the meantime, all the western occupiers really want is the oil.

[WCrystal]

I saw a perfect saying on a bumpersticker the other day: "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry!"

 

I didn't vote for Kerry, but I got the general idea.

 

I am both for and against it (the militaristic police action). I am for it because they are trying to liberate the Iraqi people, but, I am more opposed to it because it's full of lies and bullsh*t. One of my dearest friends couldn't pay for college, so he joined the military, only to be sent to Iraq, and to be blown up to bits and die before he could ask me out on a date (he was going to ask me when he got back). Another one of my friends is still there.

 

Yeah, I support our troops.... coming home.

[Devilin]

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=+Alex+Jones

 

? is this real ?

[Amanda]

While in the meantime, all the western occupiers really want is the oil.

Piprus, I'm not so sure that all we want is their oil. What I think we want is a country that is continually supported by its people so that the country can be accountable for their actions. The government voted into office was NOT the one we would have liked to be in there... but so be it, it's the decision of their people that is important. As long as the people are regularly voting into office who they want, open information and the repercussions of the country's decision will drive them into a more harmonious position with the rest of the world. It seems when there are oppressed people in an autocratic country, with a leader that embraces terrorism towards the west, it is hard to hold that whole country accountable for the decisions of a madman who hijacked the country. Would it really be right to impose sanctions against the whole country for too long?

 

Further, it seems to me that oil being a wealthy resource, that we would like to see its capital gains staying out of the hands of terrorists or its promoters. Hopefully we can also stop the monetary gains of the heroine trade they are making from this country. The goal, IMO, should be to end our demand for both. Unfortunately, easier said than done.

[♦ nivek ♦]

I'm torn to hell over this unConstitutional mess we've allowed the Executive Branch to lead us ito.

 

Saddam is gone. WMD what might be left since 91> are unfindable even with Allied troops scouring every square grid of Iraq.

 

The stated goals by uS Admin done, now we're in the middle of the Iraqi Civil War being active participants in a mess with no lines, no innocents, and tons of human targets on all sides.

 

BushUnKo have spent the treasury dry, been printing funny money like it is water, borrowing so much from Japan and China to prop up the dollar (as seen on CSPAN last night, need to look up the exact figures, very scary).

 

Things there in Iraq, waterworks, roads, school, industry, things that make folks want to go to work rather than continue shooting...

All that set aside for what?

 

There has been NO accounting for the tax dollars sent Over There, billions smoked off and little or nothing done for the infrastructure in Iraq or Afghanistan as promised to the peoples there.

 

Dumb, fat happy NASCAR, beer and pizza tempered electorate going along with the "Plan"..

 

Dunno folks, it can't keep going, eventually the Fed presses will run out of green ink.....

 

kFL

[Vigile]

I am for it because they are trying to liberate the Iraqi people

 

right. from their lives. US doesn't spend money on foreign policy unless they can get an economic benefit from it. It's easy to wrap this in a cloak of "liberation." That, and fear mongering is what sells wars.

[Gary Thompson]

I am for it because they are trying to liberate the Iraqi people

 

What about North Korea, oh shit, no oil there.

 

What about Libya, nah, too little oil there.

 

And the list goes on.

 

I appreciate the fact that Hussein was taken care of but I doubt that that was their first priority.

[Japedo]

I am for it because they are trying to liberate the Iraqi people

 

 

I appreciate the fact that Hussein was taken care of but I doubt that that was their first priority.

 

 

Least I remind everyone that Hussein wouldn't have been their without the US in the first place, same as the next tin pot dictator, who may come from this. The war is complete BS and lies. It is not the United states responsibility to take care of the world or place governments into power around the globe that will give us a free pass and line our pockets, which is what is happening. Please don't use the emotional excuse if you don't support the war you don't support the troops. That is yet more BS Propaganda. I support our troops coming home serving the United States people, not the Middle east or Corporate America. The last thing this war is about is "liberation".

[Piprus]

I am for it because they are trying to liberate the Iraqi people

 

 

I appreciate the fact that Hussein was taken care of but I doubt that that was their first priority.

 

 

Least I remind everyone that Hussein wouldn't have been their without the US in the first place, same as the next tin pot dictator, who may come from this. The war is complete BS and lies. It is not the United states responsibility to take care of the world or place governments into power around the globe that will give us a free pass and line our pockets, which is what is happening. Please don't use the emotional excuse if you don't support the war you don't support the troops. That is yet more BS Propaganda. I support our troops coming home serving the United States people, not the Middle east or Corporate America. The last thing this war is about is "liberation".

You are so right.

I was against this war before the first troops went over, and still am. If we remain there, it will be continued sectarian civil war. If we pull out, there will still be sectarian civil war. Shiite, sunni, kurd...this is a culture we had no grasp of. The bungling, foolish Bush administration had visions of the US being welcomed as liberating heroes instead of infidel invaders. How naive to think that these backward people would see us as anything but.

 

This war is a lost cause. We can end our participation now, or later, but it will be a mess we will have to deal with for generations to come, in terms of the wreckage done to our people and our economy.

[Amanda]

The stated goals by uS Admin done, now we're in the middle of the Iraqi Civil War being active participants in a mess with no lines, no innocents, and tons of human targets on all sides.

Nivek, regarding the war against terrorism, how can we hold a country accountable for its actions if the people are not alligned with the government, and the leaders have control by force? How can we fight terrorism when they hide amongst innocent people? Who are those that consider us a target, and who do we consider our targets?

 

Dunno folks, it can't keep going, eventually the Fed presses will run out of green ink.....

That's the concern of most of us, amongst better strategies, and a very valid one IMO.

 

What do you think is the solution? Do we just go home and forget about it now?

 

What would then be the repercussions of bolstering terrorists activity towards our country if we retreat now?

 

What do we do, how much of it, and how far should we be willing to go for security? Is it better to be proactive, corrective, or complacent?

[Vigile]

Nivek, regarding the war against terrorism, how can we hold a country accountable for its actions if the people are not alligned with the government, and the leaders have control by force? How can we fight terrorism when they hide amongst innocent people? Who are those that consider us a target, and who do we consider our targets?

 

I hope you are applying this argument to Afghanistan, because it in no way applies to Iraq. Iraq did not house terrorist training camps, etc...

 

The government claims that Al Quada, whatever the hell that is, now fights in Iraq. Maybe, but they sure as hell weren't there when we first attacked.

 

What would then be the repercussions of bolstering terrorists activity towards our country if we retreat no?

 

Amanda, do you somehow imagine that terroism can be stopped? What is a terrorist? What makes one a terrorist? Do you imagine that these are just a bunch of guys who hate our freedom as the government has told us? Such a silly argument.

 

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Every time we involve ourselves militarily in the ME we create the incentative for more young people to resort to terror. If we leave Iraq now, I highly doubt we will create any more terrorists. We will, however, have left a country in shambles and an even more destabilied ME.

 

Whatever everyone wants to happen, what will happen is we will remain in Iraq until we guarantee we have control of the oil fields and Iraq has stabilized. That's just a fact. We broke it, probably intentionally, and now we will have to stay and fix it.

 

Certainly not because retreating would create more terror though. But, as I said, because we can't afford a destabilized ME with a giant power vacuum in the Iraqi region. Terrorism is just the cloak that this war was wrapped up in to sell it to people like yourself.

[Lightbearer]

Is there any proof that the Iraq war is being fought for oil?

[Vigile]

Don't be a dumb dumb. Is there any proof the war is being fought for terrorism?

[Lightbearer]

The Iraq war? Not too much proof. There is more "terrorism" there now because of the retarded fuck-up of a foreign policy we have. You asked what a terrorist is, which is a good question too and brings up the much larger point, which not to be evasive but like I said earlier i'm about to make a thread about this so I don't want to delve too deep into it right now.

 

I was just curious about the whole oil thing, because if the need for oil was that bad we it would save time, money and lives if we actually allowed oil companies to drill on the oil reserves in our own country. I see alot of people pushing this "We are only it in for the oil thing" with no show of proof or evidence only to say "Their is oil there! Our troops are there! Must be there for the oil!!!" then it goes into something like this --

 

IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS -desu.

 

 

Just food for thought.

[Vigile]

LB, just because there are those out there making emotional appeals such as the one you quoted does not mean that there is not a legitimate charge that this war is all about oil.

 

For starters don't you find it odd that the first thing American troops did when they invaded was to secure the oil fields? They had limited resources due to Rummy's fouled-up idea that he could invade on a skeleton crew and then they sent the few troops they had to guard the oil.

 

Hell, I remember this well. I made and lost thousands of dollars as I bet oil fighting company Boots & Coots would make a fortune putting out oil fires like they did in the first Iraqi war. I was up about 250% on the trade, but when the troops beelined to the oil fields as soon as the war started the stock dropped like a rock. I got out with a 100% profit, which really hurt after being up much more. So believe me, these events are seared into my memory until those cells are eaten by alzheimers or death.

 

Due to this, Iraqi infrastructure, including water, power and such (not to mention historically important museums, et al) were raided and destroyed. Due to this weapons were not secured and have disappeared into the country's rabbit holes only to emerge every now and again in the form of more dead Americans and Iraqi citizens. This set of twisted priorities lends in large part to the ongoing problems that now exist in the country. For all Iraq's problems, it was a country that actually worked before we invaded it. Now it has to be rebuilt from the ground up.

 

So you tell me why we are there? Because Sadam was a big bad dictator? Give me time and I'll put together a list of dictators we don't care about right this minute. WMDs? Lies, damned lies. What's left? Why would we spend billions of dollars and the lives of our young men? Regional stability? Didn't the region have more stability under Sadam? Didn't we already pay billions of dollars to prop up Sadam in the first place for exactly that? A balance of power in the region?

 

So, what we have are billions of dollars spent, thousands of dead troops, a country in shambles, countless dead and lives ruined, and all of it was easily predictable from the get go. I've been opposed to this war from the start and I paid attention. There were all kinds of critics arguing that this outcome is precisely what we would get if we invaded. Hell, this is why Europe wouldn't go along with the plan in the first place (apart from the neo fascist prototype Berlusconi (Forza Italia!). This is why the coalition of the willing was a rag tag bunch of countries who find themselves on the bottom of the UN heap.

 

All of this and yet we still pushed forward. Why? The answer is not hard if you just connect the dots. And there aren't so many dots that one might get sidetracked.

 

You are always complaining about my criticisms of the US. Well it's better that I accuse them of lying and calculating global energy strategy than to accuse them of being just generally bumbling idiots with their heads planted firmly up their asses is it not?

[Japedo]

I was just curious about the whole oil thing, because if the need for oil was that bad we it would save time, money and lives if we actually allowed oil companies to drill on the oil reserves in our own country. I see alot of people pushing this "We are only it in for the oil thing" with no show of proof or evidence only to say "Their is oil there! Our troops are there! Must be there for the oil!!!" then it goes into something like this --

 

IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL; THE MORE I REPEAT THE MORE TRUE IT IS -desu.

 

 

Just food for thought.

 

Pay attention..

 

 

Bush gives new reason for Iraq war

Says US must prevent oil fields from falling into hands of terrorists

Boston.Com

 

''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

 

Global Policy.org Oil Companies in Iraq

 

(Bold emphasis Mine)

 

The administration of President George W. Bush represents an especially close set of personal ties between the oil companies and the government – at the very highest level. The president and his father were both longtime industry insiders from Texas and chief executives of their own oil companies. Other oil figures at the top of the administration include Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton, the nation’s largest oil-services company, and National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice, a former director of Chevron Texaco, after whom the company named one of its supertankers. These very visible figures give the administration its peculiarly strong oil flavor. In the earliest days of the administration, they promoted a number of striking industry-favorable policy decisions, such as the rejection of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming, the ouster of the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the elaboration of a strongly pro-oil national energy plan.

 

 

Everyone of importance has Direct ties to the Bottom line Dollar amount in this administration regarding Oil. Please don't dismiss this as happenstance, the facts are the facts. If you're interested you can read a good debate here where their are many things sourced: The Debate.Org

[HuaiDan]

My theory:

It's not abut oil, entirely. I'm more cynical than that. It's about wealth, at any expense. Ex-chairman of an infrastructure development multinational becomes vice president, starts a war to pulverize the infrastructure of Iraq, and swindles the world bank out of enough bucks to build a small nation, literally.

 

Totally tinfoil hat, nothing to back it up, but it makes sense to me. GWB is a talking head (why they didn't choose someone better even for that role I'll never know), and Cheney et al run the show. Better to keep a lower profile with their method of conduct.

[Amanda]

I hope you are applying this argument to Afghanistan, because it in no way applies to Iraq. Iraq did not house terrorist training camps, etc...

 

The government claims that Al Quada, whatever the hell that is, now fights in Iraq. Maybe, but they sure as hell weren't there when we first attacked.

Vigile Del Fuoco 1, the only people coming to the aid of preserving Saddam Hussein's positions in Iraq are the terrorists. Why?

 

Everyone in congress, at one time or another, deemed Saddam to be a threat to the US. Even the UN had authorized sanctions against him. Not one of his neighbors came to his defense and it appears his only allies are terrorists. If you want to say he was a good guy and everyone loved him but us, I just don't see the evidence for it.

 

Vigile, I hope you're not just getting mad at me because we have a difference of opinion in these regards. I really do like and respect you! Additionally, you'll be happy to know that no one in a political office is asking me for my opinion to make any major decisions... nor any minor ones either, for that matter.

 

Amanda, do you somehow imagine that terroism can be stopped? What is a terrorist? What makes one a terrorist? Do you imagine that these are just a bunch of guys who hate our freedom as the government has told us? Such a silly argument.

 

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Every time we involve ourselves militarily in the ME we create the incentative for more young people to resort to terror. If we leave Iraq now, I highly doubt we will create any more terrorists. We will, however, have left a country in shambles and an even more destabilied ME.

 

Whatever everyone wants to happen, what will happen is we will remain in Iraq until we guarantee we have control of the oil fields and Iraq has stabilized. That's just a fact. We broke it, probably intentionally, and now we will have to stay and fix it.

 

Certainly not because retreating would create more terror though. But, as I said, because we can't afford a destabilized ME with a giant power vacuum in the Iraqi region. Terrorism is just the cloak that this war was wrapped up in to sell it to people like yourself.

 

I understand your position of freedom fighters vs terrorists. Yet, when one uses fear by the killing of innocent people to terrorize a country into their position by a bullying force... yet hide their faces, there seems to be something wrong with that picture. When you send a suicide bomber into a mall or onto a bus or planes full of innocent people into towering buildings of innocent international people, to terrorize the masses into doing what they want... is different than a Ghandi or Nelson Mandela approach. I'm sure if they came out with a leader that was willing to negotiate with the rest of the world, people would listen to their side. However, to just kill us because we are the infidels is not going to be tolerated and they know it.... so these tactics they use speak for themself, IMO.

 

Sometimes people have to make decisions beyond just going to war or not, but on how they can secure the least amount of deaths as possible. If there is a movement bent on killing us so that they can be the only mindset left, what do we do? Yes, it seems very much like what was the Christian movement at one time... so do we learn from that, or do we all now become fanatical Muslims?

 

Hey, I know some wonderful Muslims, and I know some wonderful Christians, but it seems the fanatical ones can make life hell for everyone else.

[Amanda]

Is there any proof that the Iraq war is being fought for oil?

Do people think Iraq is going to be giving it away or that the US is just going to steal it all for themself or something?

 

Of course, do we want the major monetary resources from such a valuable asset to go to terrorist activity? Especially one that hides behind innocent people?

 

Hey, I HATE war too! Does someone have any better ideas, ones that we hadn't tried first? I will admit that I'm trusting our government to be one that really wants a peaceful solution as is possible.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Author makes a few points worth reading... "Forever War" for America?

 

kFL

***********

 

 

The War Goes Ever On

by Paul Craig Roberts

 

Is the Iraq war to become a permanent feature?

 

The war persists despite the opposition of a majority of Americans and Iraqis.

 

The war persists despite warnings from US generals that the stress is breaking the US Army.

 

The war persists despite its enormous cost in red ink and dependence on foreign loans.

 

The war persists despite its total failure.

 

The war persists despite the known fact that it was based on Bush administration lies and deception.

 

President Bush’s latest delusion – the surge – has not increased security. The surge has been accompanied by new records of daily Iraqi civilian casualties, such as the 312 Iraqis killed and 305 wounded on April 18. Recently, US commanding general David Petraeus said that Iraqis would just have to learn to live with daily bombing attacks. Petraeus promises Iraqis decades of violence when he says, "Iraq is going to have to learn – as did Northern Ireland – to live with some degree of sensational attacks."

 

For the past two years polls of the US public have shown that a majority of Americans believe that it was a mistake to invade Iraq.

 

Polls of Iraqis show that large majorities support attacks on US troops and want US forces withdrawn from their country.

 

The Iraqi Ministry of Health has concluded that 70% of primary school students in Baghdad suffer from trauma-related stress from passing dead bodies in the streets, from witnessing relatives being killed, and from being injured in attacks.

 

President Bush and his dwindling band of apologists allege that the US cannot withdraw from Iraq without a bloodbath between Sunnis and Shiites. This bloodbath is already occurring. Indeed, the bloodbath was caused by the US invasion, which took political power from Sunnis and gave it to Shiites in the form of a US protectorate or colony.

 

Bush’s invasion of Iraq had no justification. Continuing the war has no positive effects. Each day that the war continues produces more pointless casualties, more red ink and dependence on foreign creditors, more trauma, and more hatreds.

 

The Bush administration is continuing the war without a realizable or defensible goal. Although the Iraqi government is supposedly a democratically elected majority Shiite government, in reality it is a puppet creature of the US occupation without real power and without public support. The "Iraqi government" exists only within the heavily fortified and US guarded "green zone" in Baghdad. Even this protected zone is subject to attacks. Just last week the parliament was bombed.

 

As a colony or protectorate, Iraq is too costly to maintain. The US has already incurred out-of-pocket and future costs of $1 trillion or more. The total gains from oil exploitation and military-security complex profits do not approach this massive figure imposed on US taxpayers which is growing by the day.

 

As bad as it is, the situation could suddenly become much worse. Those in charge of US policy want to expand their targets from Sunni insurgents to Shiite militias. US forces have been unable to prevail over a lightly armed insurgency drawn from 20% of the population. The Shiite population is three times larger. Moreover, Shiites control southern Iraq, the territory through which US supplies must pass from Kuwait to Baghdad. If the Bush administration manages to get itself at war with 80% of the Iraqi population, US troops could be cut off and destroyed.

 

How would an unstable egomaniac such as President Bush deal with the humiliation?

 

The US dollar, already under pressure from large and growing trade deficits, has lost more of its value to the Bush administration’s dependence on foreign borrowing to finance its war. With foreigners accumulating huge annual sums in US denominated assets, the US dollar’s reserve currency role is jeopardized. If the dollar loses its reserve currency role, foreigners will not finance our wars or our trade and budget deficits.

 

The risks of Bush’s war both to Iraqis and Americans is out of proportion to any conceivable gains. The war is all cost and no benefit. Iraqis have been made massively insecure, and their country has undergone tremendous destruction and turned into a training ground for terrorists.

 

The entire Middle East has been put at risk of Sunni-Shiite conflict. Muslim hostility to US puppet regimes in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan is rising. The Saudis have warned Washington that the Iraq war is causing the ground to shake beneath their feet.

 

Bush claims that he invaded Iraq because he so highly values democracy that he desired to establish one in Iraq as an example for other Middle Eastern countries to follow. However, what Bush has demonstrated to Muslims is that American democracy is unresponsive to citizens and voters. Bush has demonstrated to the world that the US government is controlled by a small oligopoly of vested interests, the public be damned. Democracy means a government that follows the will of the people. Bush is ignoring public opinion and has made it clear that he will continue the practice.

 

Bush has shown the world that the only difference between American dictatorship and other dictatorships is that, for now, Americans are permitted to remove their dictator after his term is served.

 

April 25, 2007

 

Paul Craig Roberts [send him mail] wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is author or coauthor of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholar journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He is also coauthor with Karen Araujo of Chile: Dos Visiones – La Era Allende-Pinochet (Santiago: Universidad Andres Bello, 2000).

 

Copyright © 2007 Creators Syndicate

 

Paul Craig Roberts Archives

 

Links referenced within this article

 

Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/mailto:...berts@yahoo.com

DIGG THIS

http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=htt...l&title=The War Goes Ever On&topic=political_opinion

send him mail

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/mailto:...berts@yahoo.com

The Supply-Side Revolution

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067485621...ASIN=067485621X

The Tyranny of Good Intentions

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/076...3X/lewrockwell/

Paul Craig Roberts Archives

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts-arch.html

 

Find this article at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts206.html

[Japedo]

the only people coming to the aid of preserving Saddam Hussein's positions in Iraq are the terrorists. Why?

 

 

 

It's a Civil war with tribal people, each tribe wants to control the country. It's no different then our civil war, just more groups want to control is all. No one is preserving Saddams Positions, he's gone his position is irrelevant and obsolete.

 

Everyone in congress, at one time or another, deemed Saddam to be a threat to the US. Even the UN had authorized sanctions against him. Not one of his neighbors came to his defense and it appears his only allies are terrorists. If you want to say he was a good guy and everyone loved him but us, I just don't see the evidence for it.

 

Yes when Information is convoluted and twisted of course people agree and support. You're also forgetting other things that came to light after the fact. People are allowed to change their opinion on situations once they obtain more information, which is what happened here. We were all led to believe that Iraq had WMDs, we were lied to and the government so much admitted as such by changing the reason of the week we're there in the first place.

 

 

 

I understand your position of freedom fighters vs terrorists. Yet, when one uses fear by the killing of innocent people to terrorize a country into their position by a bullying force... yet hide their faces, there seems to be something wrong with that picture. When you send a suicide bomber into a mall or onto a bus or planes full of innocent people into towering buildings of innocent international people, to terrorize the masses into doing what they want... is different than a Ghandi or Nelson Mandela approach. I'm sure if they came out with a leader that was willing to negotiate with the rest of the world, people would listen to their side. However, to just kill us because we are the infidels is not going to be tolerated and they know it.... so these tactics they use speak for themself, IMO.

 

 

We are not being attacked for being Infidels. We are being attacked because of US Government policies, force and occupation around the globe, especially in the middle east, that has existed since pre-9-11. Who gave the poor people of Iraq the horrific dictator Saddam in the first place? You honestly think they are going to give us another chance to 'hand' them a leader? The sooner Americans realize this and take responsibility for our governments actions (both present and past) the better we'll be. A government can not declare war on single persons, only other governments. This country was founded on what today would be defined as ' terrorist actions'. We went against the government of England. Which is a freedom fighter view from our stance.

[Vigile]

Amanda, I've already gone through this with you. You just ignore my points and then rewire your arguments and pretty much keep repeating the same things without addressing my rebuttals of your points. I don't have the energy to keep doing this.

 

I'm not mad at you. Just frustrated with having to keep repeating the same thing.