As most of you know I am liberal in my thinking.I do not hope to see any more American blood spilled.But the fact of the matter is,the longer we stay in Iraq,the greater the chance of this happening is.Initially the people of Iraq were grateful for being liberated.However the longer we stay there this will turn to animosity.I am not saying this is right,just that it is human nature.
Lets talk serious here !
These Iraqis melted away after a few days coalition stepped in their country.... some local political turbolence was to be expected due to the fact that opposition has been kept silent for decades there...they're going to bark at the moon for a short while and then things will return to normality. My take.
These Iraqis melted away after a few days coalition stepped in their country.... some local political turbolence was to be expected due to the fact that opposition has been kept silent for decades there...they're going to bark at the moon for a short while and then things will return to normality. My take.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>dda,
There are more than 800 million Muslems in this world.
No chance for jihad? Think again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't believe I said that.
Are the people who desecrated the graves of british soldiers in France, indicative of all feelings of the French ?
It has been proven time and time again, that " Arabs" are more prone to chest thumping, and throw out the word "war" with out understanding the true meaning.
There are more than 800 million Muslems in this world.
No chance for jihad? Think again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't believe I said that.
Are the people who desecrated the graves of british soldiers in France, indicative of all feelings of the French ?
It has been proven time and time again, that " Arabs" are more prone to chest thumping, and throw out the word "war" with out understanding the true meaning.
radiofreecostarica
it is legitimate to think this is not happening spontaneously, Iran has been way too silent these past months, but we shouldn't underhestimate that there are several groups in Iraq, including the largest Catholic community in the middle east to balance off the "loud guys". Some turmoil today doesn't necessarily mean problems tomorrow.
it is legitimate to think this is not happening spontaneously, Iran has been way too silent these past months, but we shouldn't underhestimate that there are several groups in Iraq, including the largest Catholic community in the middle east to balance off the "loud guys". Some turmoil today doesn't necessarily mean problems tomorrow.
Yes, reasons still need to be understood. No evidence of weapons of mass destruction, a ridiculous army that melted away overnight...could it be control over oil resources?
If that's the case I seriously doubt US will pull out soon, as the area needs to be "secured" first. Wanna bet on it ? My vote is 2 years....
If that's the case I seriously doubt US will pull out soon, as the area needs to be "secured" first. Wanna bet on it ? My vote is 2 years....
I can't thump chests and namecall, but I do study history. The British marched into Iraq in 1918 and said, "We aren't here to conquer, we are here to liberate" (Sound familiar?). They discovered that this "country" they took over was in a reality an undemarcated desert filled with seething tribesmen carrying generational blood-fued/grudges against each other. It still is.
They ran the country for the next 30 years or so until, after WWII, they tired of being shot at/killed on a daily basis by fanatics. Believe me when I say that they tried brutal repression and regular executions and it didn't work. The oil was nationalized by arab interests who took over and cancelled all the western contracts unilaterally, until later on when the CIA helped oust them and install Hussein. He continued to be a helpful client until 1991 when he either mistook Ambassador Glaspie's indication that we didn't care if he invaded Kuwait for a 'go-ahead', or was setup in some manner by Bush Sr. who then had Glaspie take a sword for the team. In any event, Gulf War I followed. Bush started the ground invasion then got cold feet, the details of which are too lengthy to get into here.
In the last decade, the Israeli lobby has gained a foothold in U.S. politics and most recently in the Bush administration. The project for the american century's published plan has been set in motion, Iraq being the first nation on the conquer list. So our old boy Saddam is out, likely having fled to Moscow in the middle of the night after brokering an out (probably via his old CIA contacts).
We can now install a military dictatorship which will be required, as the British discovered, to keep the arabs in line, sort of. However, there was no U.N. or international oversight in the freewheeling days of empire in the former half of the 20th century, as there are (allegedly) now.
So what will happen is really a big question mark.
The neocons and Bush appear to be softening rhetoric on further invasions, as they don't have a fall guy like Hussein in the other countries they wish to attack, someone they can sell on propoganda outlets like CNN and FOX and, simultaneously, those countries have been making sudden, diplomatic overtures. This does two things for them, one, it gains international support and two, it probably will fool GWB and co., as they have not shown themselves to be reliable when it comes to understanding foreign interests and actions. They seem to see the world as some sort of chessboard where they can push the pawns around to line their pockets and further their interests. Real, bloody and messy consequences don't seem to occur to them until it's too late. But so far they have stumbled along relatively unharmed.
In any event, I would see GWB's best move as pulling back to the oilfields and letting the fanatics have Iraq. They will get busy killing each other and hopefully remain disorganized and unable to seriously resist U.S. control of their oil interests. Of course this will greatly further damage to U.S. international standing but in the realm of diplomacy all will be carefully chosen rhetoric while the real knife-sharpening goes on behind the scenes as always. The subtle international take-down of the U.S. economy and gradual move to the Euro as currency of choice will be further accelerated, hastening our economic decline. Of course it should be said that the Iraqi conquest does in the short term greatly strengthen the US hand in terms of keeping OPEC from denominating in Euros. This is something that Hussein announced a few years ago and this is a big reason why he is the first target. It sends the message to the rest of the cartel. The above is a worst-case scenario, but I haven't heard anything better yet, not that my ear is not firmly to the ground at all times
The U.S. military can meantime fortify the fields and perhaps convince Chevron and Texaco et al to come in and drill and pump and so forth, doing the very costly work that is needed to realize full Iraqi production without having their executives and production workers and their families, if they come, shot at and killed in random acts of vengeance. I don't know how to sell this long-term occupation to an increasingly economically put-upon American public, but that's not my job. Or my interest, for that matter. It has often been said that conquest is easy, control is not.
At any rate, if you can't bother with history or reading or other difficult endeavors, at least rent "Lawrence of Arabia," it will give you a general idea of what we are dealing with here, and it's a damned fine movie all on its own. Lots of chest-thumpers in there too for you tough guys!
Goodnight.
They ran the country for the next 30 years or so until, after WWII, they tired of being shot at/killed on a daily basis by fanatics. Believe me when I say that they tried brutal repression and regular executions and it didn't work. The oil was nationalized by arab interests who took over and cancelled all the western contracts unilaterally, until later on when the CIA helped oust them and install Hussein. He continued to be a helpful client until 1991 when he either mistook Ambassador Glaspie's indication that we didn't care if he invaded Kuwait for a 'go-ahead', or was setup in some manner by Bush Sr. who then had Glaspie take a sword for the team. In any event, Gulf War I followed. Bush started the ground invasion then got cold feet, the details of which are too lengthy to get into here.
In the last decade, the Israeli lobby has gained a foothold in U.S. politics and most recently in the Bush administration. The project for the american century's published plan has been set in motion, Iraq being the first nation on the conquer list. So our old boy Saddam is out, likely having fled to Moscow in the middle of the night after brokering an out (probably via his old CIA contacts).
We can now install a military dictatorship which will be required, as the British discovered, to keep the arabs in line, sort of. However, there was no U.N. or international oversight in the freewheeling days of empire in the former half of the 20th century, as there are (allegedly) now.
So what will happen is really a big question mark.
The neocons and Bush appear to be softening rhetoric on further invasions, as they don't have a fall guy like Hussein in the other countries they wish to attack, someone they can sell on propoganda outlets like CNN and FOX and, simultaneously, those countries have been making sudden, diplomatic overtures. This does two things for them, one, it gains international support and two, it probably will fool GWB and co., as they have not shown themselves to be reliable when it comes to understanding foreign interests and actions. They seem to see the world as some sort of chessboard where they can push the pawns around to line their pockets and further their interests. Real, bloody and messy consequences don't seem to occur to them until it's too late. But so far they have stumbled along relatively unharmed.
In any event, I would see GWB's best move as pulling back to the oilfields and letting the fanatics have Iraq. They will get busy killing each other and hopefully remain disorganized and unable to seriously resist U.S. control of their oil interests. Of course this will greatly further damage to U.S. international standing but in the realm of diplomacy all will be carefully chosen rhetoric while the real knife-sharpening goes on behind the scenes as always. The subtle international take-down of the U.S. economy and gradual move to the Euro as currency of choice will be further accelerated, hastening our economic decline. Of course it should be said that the Iraqi conquest does in the short term greatly strengthen the US hand in terms of keeping OPEC from denominating in Euros. This is something that Hussein announced a few years ago and this is a big reason why he is the first target. It sends the message to the rest of the cartel. The above is a worst-case scenario, but I haven't heard anything better yet, not that my ear is not firmly to the ground at all times
The U.S. military can meantime fortify the fields and perhaps convince Chevron and Texaco et al to come in and drill and pump and so forth, doing the very costly work that is needed to realize full Iraqi production without having their executives and production workers and their families, if they come, shot at and killed in random acts of vengeance. I don't know how to sell this long-term occupation to an increasingly economically put-upon American public, but that's not my job. Or my interest, for that matter. It has often been said that conquest is easy, control is not.
At any rate, if you can't bother with history or reading or other difficult endeavors, at least rent "Lawrence of Arabia," it will give you a general idea of what we are dealing with here, and it's a damned fine movie all on its own. Lots of chest-thumpers in there too for you tough guys!
Goodnight.
