The criminal Bush.

[Crux]

I think you are right, Mr. K, that their vision is for a permanent "presence" consisting of bases and troops in Iraq. Certainly, we're building facilities there which are not intended to be temporary, and this vision is consistent with the neocons' stated ambitions before 911. However, they've lied to us all along, no? What of the current "surge" in troop strength (not an escalation, they say), while inching closer and close to confrontation with Iran and Syria (not a provocation, they say)?

 

What exactly do you think the current actions might be aimed at?

For years now, I've been listening to reports (AAR) about the construction of permanent U.S. military facilities in Iraq. Now the facilities are in place and populated. The new American embassy in Iraq is the biggest U.S. embassy anywhere. It's surrounded by some of the biggest, newest, and most heavily armed military bases in the world -- and these are American bases.

 

True, it seems obvious there was never any real intention by the Bush administration for the occupation of Iraq to be anything other than long term, i.e. permanent.

 

Yet I hear elected representatives, and even some respectable military experts, talk about the situation as though withdrawal of direct military control is actually an option on the table. It makes me wonder. Are there really a lot of people who know a lot about the Iraqi conflict who also believe that the occupation was meant to be temporary? Or are there really well-informed individuals who now believe the decider would ever view permanent occupation as optional? If so, are these pundits and politicians just being terribly naive or are they reasonably optimistic about the possibilities for a change of direction? In short, are pleas to the president like trusting a hungry crocodile or like begging a Hitler to be nice to the Jews? I don't know. But I do know my own fear and it is as follows:

 

I fear the current actions are aimed at Iran.

 

I note that a second carrier battle group was dispatched to Iran by Bush just days ago. I heard Bush promise immediate delivery of missile defense systems to his remaining allies in the region during his Wednesday night announcement of troop escalation. I'm aware that in the background Cheney has ordered USSTRATCOM to draft plans for tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. And, of course, we've all been hearing the usual preparatory propaganda for some time now.

 

Whatever its aims in the Middle East, it seems likely the failure in Iraq now compels the Bush crime family to expand the occupation to Iran, or at least to destroy it. This won't be good for Iran. It won't be good for you or me. And, even though he may think otherwise, I don't think it will be good for Bush either -- to say the least.

 

[joblo7]

the attack of iran is under way. we'll hear very soon of 'retaliatory' strikes. iran wont play along with american oil domination.

 

the usual 'us' 'boogie man' propaganda as been ramped up for a few years now. we have 'our vilain' deeply ingrained in the shepple's mind. they will not dare stand up !!

[mattp]

I'm afraid you may be right, Virenda. "They" will not dare stand up but some will bring weak objections to the public eye in hopes of cashing in on their prescience later.

 

It doesn't look good. Is there some other interpretation of current events?

[joblo7]

the biggest problem is there is no immediate solution. the 'rulers' are really entrenched at this time and their ties to oil co's, pentagon,white house,senate,imf etc is a real mess.they have a LOT of power right now. it will take 50 years to play itself out it seems.the best we can hope for is a strong majority dem governement next time.there are quite a few closet neocons/zionists on that side too but fewer.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I think you are right, Mr. K, that their vision is for a permanent "presence" consisting of bases and troops in Iraq. Certainly, we're building facilities there which are not intended to be temporary, and this vision is consistent with the neocons' stated ambitions before 911. However, they've lied to us all along, no? What of the current "surge" in troop strength (not an escalation, they say), while inching closer and close to confrontation with Iran and Syria (not a provocation, they say)?

 

What exactly do you think the current actions might be aimed at?

 

The current actions are part of some kind of saber rattling to provoke/antagonize Iran in combination with political goals - including showing there is a "change of plan" to offset the impression that "stay the course" means do nothing differently. Bush spoke of the axis of evil way back at the beginning of his 1st term. I think Iraq was the "easy" target (capable of being toppled by us), and we intended to send a message to Iran by our overthrow of Hussein and permanent occupation of that country. Since then, both Iran and N. Korea have become more of a threat - prophesy come true? Or self-fulfilling prophesy...

In particular, I wonder if the recent threats and crisis with Iran was precipitated by Iran feeling threatened by our military presence so close to them or emboldened by our supposed "losing" in Iraq (and/or on the political front in the US), or both. I suspect both.

 

Much of the insurgency is funded by Iran and supported by them, and I have heard somewhere that Iran has been printing Iraqi currency to destabilize their economy. Interestingly, Iran got those printing presses from the US prior to the revolution of 1979, and their printing of greenbacks which flooded Europe with greenbacks is part of why we changed our currency in recent years.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I think you are right, Mr. K, that their vision is for a permanent "presence" consisting of bases and troops in Iraq. Certainly, we're building facilities there which are not intended to be temporary, and this vision is consistent with the neocons' stated ambitions before 911. However, they've lied to us all along, no? What of the current "surge" in troop strength (not an escalation, they say), while inching closer and close to confrontation with Iran and Syria (not a provocation, they say)?

 

What exactly do you think the current actions might be aimed at?

For years now, I've been listening to reports (AAR) about the construction of permanent U.S. military facilities in Iraq. Now the facilities are in place and populated. The new American embassy in Iraq is the biggest U.S. embassy anywhere. It's surrounded by some of the biggest, newest, and most heavily armed military bases in the world -- and these are American bases.

 

True, it seems obvious there was never any real intention by the Bush administration for the occupation of Iraq to be anything other than long term, i.e. permanent.

 

Yet I hear elected representatives, and even some respectable military experts, talk about the situation as though withdrawal of direct military control is actually an option on the table. It makes me wonder. Are there really a lot of people who know a lot about the Iraqi conflict who also believe that the occupation was meant to be temporary? Or are there really well-informed individuals who now believe the decider would ever view permanent occupation as optional? If so, are these pundits and politicians just being terribly naive or are they reasonably optimistic about the possibilities for a change of direction? In short, are pleas to the president like trusting a hungry crocodile or like begging a Hitler to be nice to the Jews? I don't know. But I do know my own fear and it is as follows:

 

I fear the current actions are aimed at Iran.

 

I note that a second carrier battle group was dispatched to Iran by Bush just days ago. I heard Bush promise immediate delivery of missile defense systems to his remaining allies in the region during his Wednesday night announcement of troop escalation. I'm aware that in the background Cheney has ordered USSTRATCOM to draft plans for tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. And, of course, we've all been hearing the usual preparatory propaganda for some time now.

 

Whatever its aims in the Middle East, it seems likely the failure in Iraq now compels the Bush crime family to expand the occupation to Iran, or at least to destroy it. This won't be good for Iran. It won't be good for you or me. And, even though he may think otherwise, I don't think it will be good for Bush either -- to say the least.

 

 

The US still has troops stationed in Germany, Japan, and S. Korea, and Saudi Arabia. Of course the bases in Iraq are permanent.

 

As for "troop withdrawal", are you really that naive? Do you really take things so literally, especially from the mouths of politicians? Politicians are always spinning and lying and mixing hyperbole into their rhetoric.

 

What they mean by "withdrawal" is withdrawal from the Sunni triangle, and out of the sights of car bombs and snipers. They mean a reduction in troop strength. And just about any reduction will be spun as "withdrawal".

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

The US still has troops stationed in Germany, Japan, and S. Korea, and Saudi Arabia.

 

We withdrew our forces from Saudi Arabia a couple of years after 911. Only a few military training personnel remain there.

 

The US has forces deployed in about 120 countries.

Edited January 15, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[mattp]

I was unaware that we had withdrawn our troops from Saudia Arabia to that extent, Tvash, but KK's point remains the same: we generally tend to dig in and stay when we identify areas where we have important interests or where we can build a base from which to address events in a broader region where we have important interests.

 

At almost no time have either the President's critics or anybody in the government or the military acknowledged that, since even before 911, the men who brought you Iraq were looking for an opportunity to invade and set up permanent shop.

 

But now they've done it. We have the bases and there will be sufficient instability in Iraq for any foreseeable future that they can justify holding onto that real estate to even the most skeptical members of any Congressional committee.

 

How does escalating things now relate to the goal of setting up long term bases in Iraq - or that of getting the Iraqi's to sign long term oil sharing agreements - or of containing Iran? Will provoking broader war in the region (now) lead to anything like stability in the long run? Don't we run a huge risk that we will drive nations and forces who are now not so unified against us and at least in some cases not engaged in an active military build up to band together and oppose the US? Do we really think that we can whack another hornet's nest and control the swarm?

[mattp]

Last night, Bush acknowledged that the American people do not want an escalation and Congress doesn't want it. I'm not sure he's acknowledged the fact that many if not most or our military leaders are worried about our troop readiness or at least our ability to sustain this level of engagement. But he DID say that he had his finger on the button and Congress couldn't stop him. Given that statement, do those who stated after the election that the Dem's should not talk about impeachment STILL feel that way?

[tvashtarkatena]

Escalation in the face of defeat will produce what it always does; further destabilization of the region. It will also hasten our demise in Afghanistan.

 

Bush is doing what many men who wished to make history before him have done; Napolean, Hitler, Enron's executives, Saddam; he is postponing his inevitable failure, hanging on to a non-existent shred of hope, at the expense of the rest of us. His 'legacy' is more important to him than the good of the nation and the world. Like his historical brethren, he has become a monster.

[mattp]

In last night's broadcast, he looked straight at the camera and said "I'm not one of those guys who worries about his legacy."

[tvashtarkatena]

...nor his veracity.

[joblo7]

what about securing the oil fields? his 'peers' will pat him on the back for that coup. daddy will be proud.big big business be happy.

[mattp]

Will provoking war with Syria and Iran help secure oil fields?

[underworld]

not to mention all car drivers....

[underworld]

Will provoking war with Syria and Iran help secure oil fields?

 

of course WE are provoking the war.

 

what would another country have to do, in your eyes, to be provoking a war

[joblo7]

i think securing the iraqi oil fields entails the forceful control of all its neighbors. iran is being defiant because IT knows what is happening next door. it is sending a warning that it will defend its natural resources.

[mattp]

Underworld: they could park aircraft carriers off our coast, announce to the world that we've been doing bad things and better not step further out of line, and maybe raid one of our consular offices somewhere, for starters.

[mattp]

Vierenda:

I agree, Iran is being defiant for their own purposes and I have no great urge to defend their actions nor will I suggest they are harmless or benevolent or anything like that. However, in the case of both Iran and N. Korea, I think it is not hard to imagine why they might be building up their military capabilities and being as threatening as they possibly can given our administrations actions.

[joblo7]

we as in 'w' have declare to the world, ' a new order' , and 'you are with us or we kill you' approach. we bomb anyone, anytime. we say fuck the U.N. arrogance always runs its course. we think we're invincible. friends are few. vultures many.

[tvashtarkatena]

what about securing the oil fields? his 'peers' will pat him on the back for that coup. daddy will be proud.big big business be happy.

 

The fact that US and British oil companies are trying to secure a long term oil deal with Iraq in the face of it's rapid deterioration rather than waiting for a more peaceful time is a sign that they've lost confidence that things are going to work out there. It's more of an act of desparation than anything else.

 

If Bush hits Syria, the easier of the two targets, to 'send a message', the Iraqi Sunni will be weakened, and, with their backs against the wall, become even more violent. Shiite Iran, of course, can only benefit.

 

If Bush hits Iran, Iraq's Shia will go nuts, the Sunnis will be made stronger, and Iran will escalate it's funding of the insurgency in retaliation. A US airstrike would certainly include hitting Iran's oil facilities (we have little chance of such a strike knocking out their nuclear program, which is undoubtedly well hidden and buried), creating an oil based worldwide economic shock which will hit the US as hard as anywhere. It's pretty much lose, lose, yet as I write this another carrier battle group steams for the Persian Gulf. This can only mean "airstrike". There is no bottom to W's poor judgement

[joblo7]

it seems to me that the whole plan, even the 1990 war and this invasion ,was to get to the point that you install a puppet governement in iraq and one of its first business is to pass laws that grant access to oil to the invader!

 

its not a business deal ! its a severely hostile takeover !

[underworld]

seems like a chicken and egg situation to me.... pick your side and stick with it tho, eh

[tvashtarkatena]

Will provoking war with Syria and Iran help secure oil fields?

 

of course WE are provoking the war.

 

what would another country have to do, in your eyes, to be provoking a war

 

Iran has, in no way, been provoking war. They've denied military intentions for their nuclear program to the world, not just the US. Whether this is true or not, it certainly doesn't constitute a provocation of war to any specific country. They are 'probably' funding the Shiite militias, but, to date, I've read no factual proof of this. Iran has made no offensive threats to anyone but Israel (what else is new?). That's their problem, not ours.

 

The US, on the other hand, ignored Iran's graciously extended olive branch and sympathy after 911, and thus missed a rare opportunity to bring Iran back into the international fold and reestablish a constructive dialogue. Instead, W hands them the 'Axis of Evil' label, basically a direct military threat, invades and occupies the country next door, and repeatedly threatens them with 'serious consequences' (which, in the case of Saddam, meant war). Now, with Iraq's desintegration, rather than engage Syria and Iran to create a constructive plan for the region (the advice of the Iraq steady group and everyone else outside the administration), W is sending a carrier battle group. Make no mistake, if WE were Iran, we'd be mobilizing as massively and rapidly as possible under the same circumstances.

[catbirdseat]

I'd have to agree. This country has a problem with it's inability to see ourselves the way others see us. Our leaders never stop to think, "hmm, if I were in his shoes, what would I do?" It's either that or we simply don't give a damn and think we can just roll over everyone. Diplomacy is just so much cheaper than war. It can be damn slow and frustrating as hell, but it is overall better to have some balance between diplomacy and the stick. We're too damn quick to use the stick.