|
|
|
|
|
Jemue
|
Joined: 1/26/2005
Msg: 101 | |
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/9/2008 2:30:48 PM |
The threat they pose is unacceptable and they should be erased while we still can.. We cannot cede the future and the soul of man to the backward, evil garbage of the Koran.
That about sums it up Time . You hit the nail on the head.
You are (both) an exact example of the problem. | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/9/2008 2:46:54 PM | The biggest irony ?
The one that makes the cynical amongst us laugh to the point of tears ?
It's the same God.
That "evil Koran" also talks about Jesus, Mary, and many other people found in the Bible.
We are all the children of Abraham - Jew, Muslim, and Christian alike.
Except that brotherhood is the same as Caine and Able's.  | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/9/2008 3:31:19 PM | I have kept up with this thread...
What bothers me is that soooooo many americans KNOW that this mess with IRAK was just how can I say... a game that amused GWB and his buddies....
So, how come no one in the US seems to care that civilians in Irak are killed by the hundreds of thousands .... Is there a magic number somewhere... ex: 1 american life is worth 15 000 Iraki lives... Once the quota is reached, the US will leave them the hell alone...
I do believe in the idea that if no one does anything, then every one is agreeing with what is going on. Sort of like the idea that many German civilians knew what Hitler was up to but no one did anything... Was the population at large ok with his gasing the Jews?... To me it seems the same...
I am not as well versed but still, the "silence" of the US citizens in this mess speaks volumes...
Those that did speak out, I remember the Dixie Chicks.... They got chastized... It was like no one dared to speak up... What kind of democracy do you have?
I am not well versed politically, but in my country, we can speak our minds... without have the thought police up our arse... Anyway...
I am not trying to offend anyone here... Just trying to understand... Please enlighten me...  | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/9/2008 3:48:51 PM | That documentary was quite interesting. "To study this war, and the mistakes made, is another story. The people responsible for these mistakes should be brought to justice. Their egos, and desire for profit, have killed untold tens of thousands of people - and made the world more dangerous for us all." How true--but I doubt if it will happen in this lifetime.
George Bush's biography tells of him being in college and playing a game called "Pigskin" in which he and his friends would join a cirlce, they would throw up the football, and he'd yell a name (usually a new guy on campus), and everyone would start beating up the new kid. Seems like he never grew up--still trouncing on people he doesn't know very well.
Another film to watch on Google video is "Zeitgeist," another real eye opener.
I did write Laura Bush and asked her why as a Librarian and possibly scholarly, how she could accept the fact that her husband is responsible for all the death and destruction of Iraq (now 4 million made into homeless immigrants over there). She actually sent back a response that what her husband was doing was making this a safer world for future generations, and she was proud of people like my son over there fighting.
Duh, I didn't raise him for that. | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/9/2008 3:54:46 PM |
I do believe in the idea that if no one does anything, then every one is agreeing with what is going on.
I'd suggest watching "Buying The War" as a supplemental aide in better understanding this aspect of the Iraq invasion.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
Propaganda sold this war like a product, to a nation that was recovering from a devastating attack upon it's soil. The people that SHOULD have questioned it, American journalists, were scared into submission by many factors, and surrendered their traditional role - with few notable exceptions.
Once one controls the media, one controls the reality.
( Btw, before anyone mentions it, "Irak" is indeed the proper French word for that country, and the poster is a French speaking person.) | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/9/2008 3:55:36 PM | In 2002, the Bush Administration had no clue that active combat would still be going on 2008 both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. They were so confident of a quick and total victory that the let the contracts to Haliburton for exclusive rights to market Iraqi oil in August of 2002 - seven months before invading Iraq. It is questionable if they actually did ANY planning for what was to happen after their victory. They were only thinking about quick profits, a dramatic victory which would convince the American public to elect a one party dictatorship, and a location for permanent US bases in the Middle East.
Yes, the Republicans invisioned inspirational parades all of America as our triumphant troops returned home. In the thrill of "our team winning" Americans would enthusiastically vote in fascists at all levels of government.
Those of us with potential for leadership and living in one of the prime target areas of the Republican take-over, northern Metro Atlanta went through Hell from 2oo1 to 2007. Most of the pressure was economic, but it was obvious that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies were not protecting constitutional rights or enforcing the laws, out of fear of reprisals from the Republicans. Many local and Georgia state law enforcement officials blatantly tapped phones of businesses and professionals under the guise that these non-Republicans were "being investigated for non-existant crimes. The information was then provided to Republican competitors or to sabotage business contracts.
Things are a little better this year, since the more intelligent law officers involved are beginning to worry a bit about wearing prison orange if the Republicans suffer catastrophic losses at the polls.
Yes, using the incredible sacrafices of brave men and women in American uniforms, the invasion of Iraq was going to be the key to establishing fascism on a permanent basis in the USA.
God had other ideas. | |
|
Jemue
|
Joined: 1/26/2005
Msg: 107 | |
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/9/2008 4:41:30 PM |
So, how come no one in the US seems to care that civilians in Irak are killed by the hundreds of thousands
Well ...... because the vast majority don't, when a nation are bread at the consumerism trough (right next to the 'reality TV' on the LCD) with the idea of "we're perfect and can do no wrong and everyone else should worship us" ..... it's a little hard to care about anyone but #1.
Those that did speak out, I remember the Dixie Chicks.... They got chastized... It was like no one dared to speak up... What kind of democracy do you have?
Well all remember about book burning and where that goes.
They don't, it's a capitalist republic with a very strange and perverse electoral system that depends on how much $$ you have. It just has "democratic tenancies".
Sort of like the idea that many German civilians knew what Hitler was up to but no one did anything
Well that isn't strictly true at all.
I am not as well versed but still, the "silence" of the US citizens in this mess speaks volumes...
The only ones I've seen do much about it are a bunch of girls in pink t-shirts, bless them.
I think things only stop if the guy gets a BJ .............
Then again the country has no credibility or international standing now, and will not be capable of rebuilding it, it's gone too far. Just have to wait for the economic crash now, as that will slow them down and reduce the damage. | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/9/2008 5:01:01 PM | Thanks for watching my back Montreal Guy... 
You know... my brother said the other day and I thought it was interesting...
Lou Dobbs should be the next President of the US...
He has the balls to call a spade a spade and I am surprised his show on CNN has not been censored... (Maybe it has... who knows... I like his no nonsense approach and he will force issues... Ok... sometimes he goes on and on but I relate to his miscontent...)
I have no idea if he is a democrat or republican... Anyway...
| |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/9/2008 5:17:00 PM |
Because the US troops, under the direction of the US government with the support of it's citizens invaded and destroyed a country for it's own means; in doing so created a power vacuum that they knew would destroy the country, as it helps spread the blame to Iran.
I wonder how upset you will be when we bomb Iran. That is the whole point of being in Iraq . To go into Iran after we bomb its weapons plants. You better stock up on cigars and popcorn.This will take awhile. | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/10/2008 3:30:03 AM |
What bothers me is that soooooo many americans KNOW that this mess with IRAK was just how can I say... a game that amused GWB and his buddies....
Anybody who claims to know that (and in my opinion, anybody who believes it to be true) is an idiot.
So, how come no one in the US seems to care that civilians in Irak are killed by the hundreds of thousands .... Is there a magic number somewhere... ex: 1 american life is worth 15 000 Iraki lives... Once the quota is reached, the US will leave them the hell alone...
Why do you insist on misspelling the name of the country?
I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that US troops are in open warfare against Iraqi citizens? No. The US did not topple a dictator and install a democratically elected government, proceed to pour billions of dollars into reconstruction and lose American troops in the process because it holds disdain for the Iraqi citizen. | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/10/2008 7:47:31 AM |
Why do you insist on misspelling the name of the country?
I already addressed that, because I just knew SOMEONE would bring it up .
She's French-Canadian, writing in her second language here. IRAK is how it's spelled in French, properly. I think her ability to write in a second language so well shouldn't be tarnished by spelling the name in the way she's most familiar in seeing it.
The US did not topple a dictator and install a democratically elected government, proceed to pour billions of dollars into reconstruction and lose American troops in the process because it holds disdain for the Iraqi citizen.
Anybody who claims to know that (and in my opinion, anybody who believes it to be true) is an idiot.
Let's see now....
Second largest oilfields in the world, with a rather weak army defending it.
Early in 2001, nine month before 9/11, in the FIRST NSC meetings ever held by this administration, they are pouring over maps of Iraqi oil fields - and deciding to go to war.
These are documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under a March 5, 2002 court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents are dated March 2001.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml
The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
Many of the people who made this decision have direct experience in the oil business, and or have investments in such industries - including the President.
Cheney and Commerce Secretary Donald Evans both ran energy-related
companies, earning millions of dollars. National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice spent 10 years as a Chevron director before resigning
to assume her new post.
Among the others with connections are Christine Todd Whitman, the
administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Whitman owns interests in oil wells in Texas
and Colorado valued at between $55,000 and $175,000. She has promised to
divest of them to meet ethics guidelines. Rumsfeld has between $3.25
million and $15.5 million worth of investments in energy-related
companies. He is divesting himself of many financial holdings but has
not provided details.
http://greenyes.grrn.org/2001/02/msg00097.html
At the same time, Cheney's energy task force group is meeting ....at the White House.
The Energy Task Force is commonly known as the Cheney Energy Task Force after Vice President of the United States of America and former CEO of Halliburton,****Cheney.
In his second week in office George W. Bush created the task force, officially known as the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) with****Cheney as chairman. This group was supposed to develop an energy policy for the Bush administration. With both Bush and Cheney coming from the energy industry, which had contributed heavily to their campaign, and with the group proceeding in extreme secrecy, critics charged that the energy industry was exercising undue influence over national policy.
Most of the activities of the Energy Task Force had not been disclosed to the public, even though Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (since 19 April 2001) have sought to gain access to its materials. The organisations Judicial Watch and Sierra Club launched a law suit (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Judicial Watch Inc. v. Department of Energy, et al., Civil Action No. 01-0981) under the FOIA to gain access to the task force's materials. On 5 March 2002 the US Government was ordered to make a full disclosure; this has not happened, pending appeal. In the Summer of 2003 a partial disclosure of these materials was made by the Commerce Department. This resulted in the release of documents, maps, and charts, dated March 2001, of Iraq's, Saudi Arabia's and United Arab Emirates' oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals and development projects. That case eventually went to the Supreme Court and the ruling was to send the case back to the Court of Appeals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_task_force
Still classified, and not released.
Iraq battle: dead in the middle of the national energy supplies
04, 2006
four-star General Barry McCaffrey
Still, McCaffrey says the nation must persevere, because the battle is dead in the middle of the national energy supplies for the U.S., the Europeans, the Japanese and others. If the U.S. does not prevail, the nation will be in hot water in that region of the world for 15 years. He says there are no other options. —reported by NBC's Wes Sarginson
Chalabi on U.S Oil Companies in Post-Conflict Iraq
May 2, 2003
Ahmad Chalabi, formerly of the Iraqi National Congress
"American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil."
Brig. General Looney: We Own Their Country
Jun. 24, 1996
US Brig. General William Looney, Washington Post
"We dictate the way they live and talk... It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need."
Whoever controls Persian Gulf oil has a stanglehold on the world
Dick Cheney to Senate Armed Services Committe, 1990:
"We obviously also have a significant interest because of the energy that is at stake in the gulf. ... Once [Saddam Hussein] acquired Kuwait and deployed an army ... that gave him a stranglehold on our economy and on that of most of the other nations of the world." more
The US has a more permanent role in the Gulf ... Iraq provides the justification
PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses, 2000, p.26.
Cheney and Rumsfeld were PNAC founders.
"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
So where is the oil going to come from? ... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies,"
—Dick Cheney, 1999, while still CEO of the oil services company, Halliburton.
http://zfacts.com/p/682.html
"The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratic regimes friendly to the United States."
-****Cheney
Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html
I'd also suggest a read about Iraq's PSA agreements for their oil fields, and what that will mean in loss of revenues to Iraqi's .
COSTING IRAQ BILLIONS
Economic projections published here for the first time show that the model of oil development that is being proposed will cost Iraq hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue, while providing foreign companies with enormous profits.
Our key findings are:
At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts (2), from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed. These estimates, based on conservative assumptions, represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi government budget.
Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm
Oil is now at 100 dollars a barrel, so multiply those above figures by 250 percent.
See also the Bremer laws, and the total takeover of the Iraqi economy to suit American interests, with reduced taxes, and various other benefits.
So, a bunch of people with all these connections, BY COINCIDENCE ( and months before 9/11 happens) decide.....out of ALL the countries in the world with dictators running them, to......ACCIDENTLY pick the one that has the second largest oilfields ?
And then those American oil companies get to make a LANDSLIDE in profits, because of all these other accidental details.
Have I got that right so far ?
I suggest more research.
It didn't turn out how they wanted, that I agree.
But follow the money, and it will lead you right back to the source. | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/10/2008 8:02:52 AM |
The US did not topple a dictator and install a democratically elected government, proceed to pour billions of dollars into reconstruction and lose American troops in the process because it holds disdain for the Iraqi citizen.
Disdain? No. Indifference? Pretty much. | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/10/2008 8:05:33 AM | | oil sand estimates are pegged at 1500 billion barrels in northen alberta , recoveable with todays techology (steam) to separate the sand from the oil, and another 3200 billion barrels yet unable to recover or separate with todays techonolgy...estimated oil reserves in saudi arabia are pegged at 1200 billion barrels...hmmm, for many a year the infrastuctor was put on a back burner when oil was priced around 30 dollars a barrel, as cost to extract a barrel of light sweet crude from Iraq was pegged at around a dollar, albeit at the same time a barrel of oil from the tar-sands was deemed to be 20 times that, or around $20 dollars at the time, with estimated costs now hovering about 40 or so to extract, and refine a barrel from the drayton valley, area...a couple of years back, enbridge signed a deal, or where in negotiation with Petro-China, to run a pipe across northen alberta to BC coast with capsity to send 400,000 barrels a day to China...as they where trying to secure their enegy reserves from a stable ran goverment country...shortly after a****cheney proclaimed there is no need to sell to China, and US would take any oil produced, after being sent up north to see figures and facts of oil reserves. point is, billions being spent on an unstable country, on a regime who funded through ATM deposits the monies necessary to allow 15 of the 16 hi-jackers to live in the United States and take pilot lessons, through banks in qatar(sp?) so there isn't a direct trace back to the saudi royal family, is appaling | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/10/2008 11:12:48 AM |
She's French-Canadian, writing in her second language here. IRAK is how it's spelled in French, properly. I think her ability to write in a second language so well shouldn't be tarnished by spelling the name in the way she's most familiar in seeing it.
Well personally I think it screams 'look at me'.
Let's see now....
Second largest oilfields in the world, with a rather weak army defending it.
Early in 2001, nine month before 9/11, in the FIRST NSC meetings ever held by this administration, they are pouring over maps of Iraqi oil fields - and deciding to go to war.
That doesn't contradict anything I said. Whatever reason you want to believe, the FACT is that the US DID remove a murderous dictator, install a democratically elected government, continues to pour billions of dollars into reconstruction and its own soldiers are dying to defend Iraqis from religious fundamentalists. | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/10/2008 1:39:48 PM | 
That doesn't contradict anything I said. Whatever reason you want to believe, the FACT is that the US DID remove a murderous dictator, install a democratically elected government, continues to pour billions of dollars into reconstruction and its own soldiers are dying to defend Iraqis from religious fundamentalists.
How old were you around 1983???
Please read what I managed to get from Wikepedea (?) I am not sure if I spelled it correctly... Apparently I am looking for attention... Whatever...
Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddāam on 19 December – 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."[1]
The United States supported 1. Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. The support took the form of technological aid, intelligence, the sale of dual-use and military equipment, and direct involvement and warfare against Iran. [2]
Other countries that supported Iraq during the war included Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and West Germany.
The U.S. and Iran had clashed before the war with the Iran Hostage Crisis and verbal attacks on the "Great Satan," as Iran's leader the Ayatollah Khomeini called the U.S. Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives, although the public and news media paid little attention.
On 9 June 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became, and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.”
I did not add anything... I just space out the paragraphs to make it less difficult to read.
Soooooo, in 1983 to roughly 1992, the US helped Saddam Hussein to become as powerful as he could...
At some point, the US did not want to play with him anymore and decided to destroy his power, (that the US helped build), and invent a war...
Notice the setence near the end of the last paragraph ?
The US permitted and frequently encouraged the FLOW of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, CHEMICALS, and weapons to Iraq...
Is it just me or the US citizens have no long term memory?
I do not mean to insult anyone... I do research and I don't just watch CNN... I am somewhat of a news junkie... Oddly, I find grains of truth only after I have OBJECTIVELY listened to CBC, BBC, TV5, sometimes CNN and even AL JEZERA (again I am not sure I spelled it correctly), when the FRENCH channel can put the CORRECT translation below...
Anyway...
I realize that it is easy to critisize after the fact, but from the onset, I could see soooooo easily behind the REAL AGENDA of BUSH and his croonies... I am not a super political person either, but lest's face it. The writing WAS on the WAll all along.
I have seen from afar the consequences of war... For whatever reason... I will state that the next generation of Iraqi citizens will remember... Their country is being pillaged by the US for the whole world to see. Believe me, there will be long term effects. I would not be suprised that other civilized countries will think twice before making any type of arrangements with the US... They basically treated Iraq as their B I T C H.
Form a humanitarian point of view. Every day that goes by, women die in childbirth where a simple procedure is only needed. Families are destroyed by the thousands.
I see it as a ligitimate genocide all invented by the US government.
I do not blame the US citizens... It is the US government that I have a concern with. (How do those leaders sleep at night?) I just find it appalling that no one in the US seems to give a damn... Please enlighten me... | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/10/2008 2:51:39 PM |
the FACT is that the US DID remove a murderous dictator,
One that the US had in fact empowered, from his earliest days, and supported heavily - when it suited their agenda against Iran. Who cared about the Iraqi people that were enslaved then ?
The sins of the father:
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts6448093.aspx
All through this era, Americans profited in many ways, politically and economically. This is irrefutable, part of the historical record, and seemingly forgotten.
install a democratically elected government,
That cannot function properly, even today, because of the sectarian rifts unleashed by both the manner and means of the invasion - because it was not properly understood, even though the US military had in fact warned EXACTLY about this problem - after war gaming the concept of an invasion of Iraq, and a removal of Saddam.
"Desert Crossing" 1999 Assumed
400,000 Troops and Still a Mess
The results of Desert Crossing, however, drew pessimistic conclusions regarding the immediate possible outcomes of such action. Some of these conclusions are interestingly similar to the events which actually occurred after Saddam was overthrown. (Note 1) The report forewarned that regime change may cause regional instability by opening the doors to "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines" and antagonize "aggressive neighbors." Further, the report illuminated worries that secure borders and a restoration of civil order may not be enough to stabilize Iraq if the replacement government were perceived as weak, subservient to outside powers, or out of touch with other regional governments. An exit strategy, the report said, would also be complicated by differing visions for a post-Saddam Iraq among those involved in the conflict.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm
Both Bush Sr. and Cheney , post Desert Storm, are on the public record as not wanting to invade Iraq for EXACTLY the same reasons.
"Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose.
We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire C-SPAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
EXACTLY what occurred, predicted a decade earlier.
continues to pour billions of dollars into reconstruction
And far too often that money went to American contractors, and foreigners. If one looks at the totality of money being spent, especially in the first part of the war, MOST of it was going to non-Iraqis . Much of the money that WAS going to them was going to the wrong people, crooks and liars.
Corruption is at a scale there, that when it's finally investigated , it will probably be the LARGEST single case of corruption the world has ever seen. This isn't an exaggeration.
Search Google News with the keywords "Global Corruption Report," and you'll realize what Americans are missing: Transparency International's "Global Corruption Report 2005," which says that "f urgent steps are not taken, Iraq will . . . become the biggest corruption scandal in history" (emphasis added, p. 87). No corporate media outlet in the United States has said a single word about the report.
http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/03/iraq-reconstruction-biggest-corruption.html
Chalabi and the INC were very unpopular with the Iraqi people, pre-invasion :
INC's critics note that Chalabi, despite years of effort and millions of dollars in American aid, is intensely unpopular today among many elements in Iraq. 'If Chalabi is the guy, there could be a civil war after Saddam's overthrow,' one former C.I.A. operative told me. A former high-level Pentagon official added, 'There are some things that a President can't order up, and an internal opposition is one.'" (Hersh, 2002).
They were still pushed as the solution:
Notwithstanding these concerns, Hersh reported that "INC supporters in and around the Administration, including Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, believe, like Chalabi, that any show of force would immediately trigger a revolt against Saddam within Iraq, and that it would quickly expand." In December 2002, Robert Dreyfuss reported that the administration of George W. Bush actually preferred INC-supplied analyses of Iraq over analyses provided by long-standing analysts within the CIA. "Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency.," he wrote. "The Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the agency to produce intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq. ... Morale inside the U.S. national-security apparatus is said to be low, with career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify the push for war." Much of the pro-war faction's information came from INC, even though "most Iraq hands with long experience in dealing with that country's tumultuous politics consider the INC's intelligence-gathering abilities to be nearly nil. ... The Pentagon's critics are appalled that intelligence provided by the INC might shape U.S. decisions about going to war against Baghdad. At the CIA and at the State Department, Ahmed Chalabi, the INC's leader, is viewed as the ineffectual head of a self-inflated and corrupt organization skilled at lobbying and public relations, but not much else."
In February 2003, as the Bush administration neared the end of its preparations for war, an internal fight erupted over INC's plan to actually become the government of Iraq after the U.S. invasion. Chalabi wanted to "declare a provisional government when the war starts,"a plan that "alienated some of Mr. Chalabi's most enthusiastic backers in the Pentagon and in Congress, who fear the announcement of a provisional government made up of exiles would split anti-Saddam sentiment inside Iraq." (Borger, et al., 2003) Eventually a governing council, including Chalabi was set up, but when it came time to chose an interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, head of rival Iraqi National Accord, was chosen.
In preparation for the December 2005 Iraqi election, INC broke with the United Iraqi Alliance and formed its own multi-ethnic coalition, the National Congress Coalition. It did not win any seats in the election.
- Ibid
The coalition actually CHOSE a new flag for Iraq, designed outside of Iraq - with no Iraqi input....and it failed. It resembled (to the Iraqi eye) the Israeli flag.
D'uh.
and its own soldiers are dying to defend Iraqis from religious fundamentalists.
Wrong again, at least in implied intent.
Almost all of the Iraqi insurgency is due to internal Iraqis dissent. Foreign fighters are in the minority, but do cause heavy damage - in particular to Iraqi civilians.
The US and the Iraqi government have overstated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq, "feeding the myth" that they are the backbone of the insurgency, an American thinktank says in a new report.
Foreign militants - mainly from Algeria, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - account for less than 10% of the estimated 30,000 insurgents, according to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/23/iraq.ewenmacaskill
They are a destabilizing force, and a sometimes very lethal one.
They were not inside Iraq BEFORE the invasion. They are widely disliked by Iraqi's , because of their willingness to kill anyone that gets in their way. | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/10/2008 4:12:49 PM | 
Great stuff Montreal Guy!!!
Go have a look at this link. It is a good read...
Note, the views are from people from all walks of life and ALL OVER THE WORLD.
Some comments can be painful to US citizens...
Hopefully, with an objective view, one can take the information.
Anyway... Hope the link works for those of you who dare.
http://www.juancole.com/2007/11/20000-brain-injured-troops-not-counted.html | |
|
| |
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/10/2008 5:52:47 PM | Thanks Montreal Guy...
It is true... A difficult read...
I equate Riverbend's eloquent writing to the book, The Diary of Ann Frank...
To all others out there... Go have a look... Words from an ordinary woman, living an ordinary life and caught up in this mess...
I also believe that she is most likely risking her life doing this. Brave brave woman...
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/10/2008 6:00:27 PM | Dancecard I love you. Thats says it all.
You see it as it is, I think all who read this understand this man and what he is expressing, Hes sick of the super market mind, the status quo. That most of you are into. Its over for him. Hes a brother. on the other side. Looking at something is not like being there. It makes changes. Whats this worth.
We watch the media, short segments of shit. Then you go out with a friend. As you get older, you look at it a different way. Youth is diffentatly wasted on the young. Live, its better.
--It will take me weeks to cool down again.--
What does that say.
--He has the balls to call a spade a spade and I am surprised his show on CNN has not been censored...--
Shes European, I can guess that. And what she has just said was, how come this show was not censored. Which refers to the idea that Americans are not getting the fuill story. So where is this coming from. Outside America, many believe that most of what you are told is false. You are not given the full story. And that comes from the idea that people are not stupid. You don't have to believe what you are told.
Since 911 its the American people are who are under scrutiny. Since 911 the attack on the constitution was by your own people, Since 911 there are two wars not one. None have been solved. A money maker.
Since 911 the majority of people now do not believe the official story. What has been answered.
No end in sight. Preparing you for the ultimate doom. Get you conditioned early. This is it. They die, we eat turkey. Nice. Thats whats going on. Who mandated this, it certainly was not Bush, hes too stupid, hes a puppet. Who make the money. | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/10/2008 7:12:35 PM |
Early in 2001, nine month before 9/11, in the FIRST NSC meetings ever held by this administration, they are pouring over maps of Iraqi oil fields - and deciding to go to war.
That says it all,and some people still believe the bullsh*t!Sad really. | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/10/2008 7:35:59 PM | And more "good news"
THE RECKONING
The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More
TOOLBOX By Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz
Sunday, March 9, 2008; Page B01
There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.
Some people will scoff at that number, but we've done the math. Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages.
The end result of all this wishful thinking? As we approach the fifth anniversary of the invasion, Iraq is not only the second longest war in U.S. history (after Vietnam), it is also the second most costly -- surpassed only by World War II.
Why doesn't the public understand the staggering scale of our expenditures? In part because the administration talks only about the upfront costs, which are mostly handled by emergency appropriations. (Iraq funding is apparently still an emergency five years after the war began.) These costs, by our calculations, are now running at $12 billion a month -- $16 billion if you include Afghanistan. By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we'll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion.
But the costs to our society and economy are far greater. When a young soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, his or her family will receive a U.S. government check for just $500,000 (combining life insurance with a "death gratuity") -- far less than the typical amount paid by insurance companies for the death of a young person in a car accident. The stark "budgetary cost" of $500,000 is clearly only a fraction of the total cost society pays for the loss of life -- and no one can ever really compensate the families. Moreover, disability pay seldom provides adequate compensation for wounded troops or their families. Indeed, in one out of five cases of seriously injured soldiers, someone in their family has to give up a job to take care of them.
But beyond this is the cost to the already sputtering U.S. economy. All told, the bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate.
President Bush tried to sell the American people on the idea that we could have a war with little or no economic sacrifice. Even after the United States went to war, Bush and Congress cut taxes, especially on the rich -- even though the United States already had a massive deficit. So the war had to be funded by more borrowing. By the end of the Bush administration, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the cumulative interest on the increased borrowing used to fund them, will have added about $1 trillion to the national debt.
The long-term burden of paying for the conflicts will curtail the country's ability to tackle other urgent problems, no matter who wins the presidency in November. Our vast and growing indebtedness inevitably makes it harder to afford new health-care plans, make large-scale repairs to crumbling roads and bridges, or build better-equipped schools. Already, the escalating cost of the wars has crowded out spending on virtually all other discretionary federal programs, including the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and federal aid to states and cities, all of which have been scaled back significantly since the invasion of Iraq.
To make matters worse, the U.S. economy is facing a recession. But our ability to implement a truly effective economic-stimulus package is crimped by expenditures of close to $200 billion on the two wars this year alone and by a skyrocketing national debt.
 | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/11/2008 8:11:00 AM | After reading Riverbend's blog last night, I had trouble sleeping... This exerpt especially haunted me....
Friday, December 29, 2006
End of Another Year...
You know your country is in trouble when:
The UN has to open a special branch just to keep track of the chaos and bloodshed, UNAMI.
Abovementioned branch cannot be run from your country.
The politicians who worked to put your country in this sorry state can no longer be found inside of, or anywhere near, its borders.
The only thing the US and Iran can agree about is the deteriorating state of your nation.
An 8-year war and 13-year blockade are looking like the country's 'Golden Years'.
Your country is purportedly 'selling' 2 million barrels of oil a day, but you are standing in line for 4 hours for black market gasoline for the generator.
For every 5 hours of no electricity, you get one hour of public electricity and then the government announces it's going to cut back on providing that hour.
Politicians who supported the war spend tv time debating whether it is 'sectarian bloodshed' or 'civil war'.
People consider themselves lucky if they can actually identify the corpse of the relative that's been missing for two weeks.
A day in the life of the average Iraqi has been reduced to identifying corpses, avoiding car bombs and attempting to keep track of which family members have been detained, which ones have been exiled and which ones have been abducted.
I relate in a way that is scary... As a child, I had a similar experience... This experience was not anywhere near the intensity but I sooooo relate.
Do those of you remember when Trudeau brought in the war measures act in the 70'S.
The possibily of civil was are real in Québec... (Those that remember?)
Anyway... When I was around 10 years old, the army and mounted police came to our farm. There are details I hesistate to give becasue in a way I still "fear" for my families saftety. It was scary...
The soldier in charge firmly told my mother to go outside in the front yard with the children and they were going to search the house and the barns. That was that.
The soldiers did not break anything nor did they do any beatings... What stuck in my mind was the fact that we were outside in the sunshine, and there was a soldier on the left side of my mother, she held the hand of my little brother on her right side and my sister was beside my brother and I was beside my sister and an other soldier was beside me.
I was at his waist level... He had full army gear. I saw bullets, grenades, a handgun and a knife (?), not sure about the knife, around his waist.
It was very very scary... There must have been at least a hundred of them walking around the property.
The man in charge took my mother aside, of course my little brother of 3 years old started whaling, which I could tell was very annoying to the men near us... I did my best to console him but he only wanted "Maman". Anyway... After the discussion with my mother, they left. No charges were laid.
My father was not home at the time.
I still have goose bumps when I "remember" this.
I just cannot imagine the depth of the imprint of the memories on the souls of the Iraqi people.
Anyway....
I will bow out of this thread...
It amazes me that the US citizens cannot even try to understand the atrocities being done and the mess they helped create.
What angers me more is the inactivity of the other so called "civilized " countries on this issue.
I am starting to think we are all guilty.
| |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/11/2008 8:53:16 AM | I remember those times , too.
Our nation had it's own 9/11, for us.
Not in the blood shed, nor the depths of destruction. That was minimal, really.
But the shock to the system ? That we were at this crossroads ? That armed men were holding two officials hostage, and other armed men were walking around my neighborhood - like a WW2 movie. I ran into a Canadian Army squad, literally.
For us..... Canadians, and especially Quebecer's ?
We had had injustice, nationalism, and division. A small amount of FLQ terrorists, the radical few ?
But always little violence, in any real terms, except for a few incidents.
And then THIS ?
We had an FLQ cell in the next apartment. The RCMP had come (undercover) to monitor it. They were suspects, as many were. Even innocent people were. No one knew who was on which side anymore.
War Measures enacted. People arrested and held without trial. Popular support was growing , for violent means.
Annasthasia and I were on opposite sides of that issue, it seems, and saw it the same - and yet differently. Perhaps like Shia and Sunni do.
One seeking safety, the other seeking justice.
Both held hostage by ideology, and scared of a spark that might ignite an inferno on either side that neither could control.
I read Riverbend, and I go back in time too. Nothing as bad, these were our own troops that were walking the streets, not really foreign invaders. No massive death, destruction, or poverty and despair.... A small tiny drop , compared to the ocean she was in.
But you know what ?
I can feel it. I still can.
Had people done something wrong, really wrong, we could have had our own version of this nightmare, in a far simpler time. People killed , tortured, two people divided forever by a hatred that escaped to overcome all with it's madness.
Had a French-Canadian killed my friends, or my family ?
Or an Anglo killed Annasthasia's ?
That could have happened, it's not something that was impossible to consider. Many people spoke in hushed whispers of such things, afraid that the very uttering ot those words would doom us all if overheard by anyone.
I thank God for the reason of good men, in impossible times. And I realize how lucky she and I , and everyone else really was.
Maybe we were both lucky to have shared that experience, along with everyone else. Maybe somewhere deep inside, there's this memory of how easy it is for life to change in an instant.
Maybe that's why some can never see this, because they haven't had this terrible vision come into their hearts and lives as reality. | |
|
| Iraq war documentary No End in Sight
Posted: 3/11/2008 11:07:51 AM |
the FACT is that the US DID remove a murderous dictator,
One that the US had in fact empowered, from his earliest days, and supported heavily - when it suited their agenda against Iran.
Exactly. Installing Saddam Hussein was a very shameful thing to do and it's refreshing to see the US turn around and try and fix what it did.
install a democratically elected government,
That cannot function properly, even today, because of the sectarian rifts unleashed by both the manner and means of the invasion - because it was not properly understood, even though the US military had in fact warned EXACTLY about this problem - after war gaming the concept of an invasion of Iraq, and a removal of Saddam.
This is a misconception that really bothers me. The invasion didn't cause sectarian violence. They were there all along, but Saddam had his country by the throat.
Are we supposed to say 'we could get rid of Saddam and lead the country into a new era, but then we'd have to deal with the religious crazies......hmm, I guess the Iraqis will have to go on suffering'?
Almost all of the Iraqi insurgency is due to internal Iraqis dissent.
I simply do not believe that. | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
