Fourth Anniversary

[Cypress]

Tomorrow is the fourth anniversary of the day Dubya made a top gun landing on the USS Lincoln, strutted around with a cod piece on his crotch, and made the Mission Accomplished speech.


For those who voted for Bush, it's a good day for contemplative reflection on the consequences of your vote:


-30,000 dead and wounded American soldiers

-half a trillion tax payer dollars

-the destruction of American moral authority and leadership

-100's of thousands of dead and maimed iraqi civilians.

 

[Cancel7]

Tomorrow is the fourth anniversary of the day Dubya made a top gun landing on the USS Lincoln, strutted around with a cod piece on his crotch, and made the Mission Accomplished speech.


For those who voted for Bush, it's a good day for contemplative reflection on the consequences of your vote:


-30,000 dead and wounded American soldiers

-half a trillion tax payer dollars

-the destruction of American moral authority and leadership

-100's of thousands of dead and maimed iraqi civilians.

Well, I don't really care. As long as we're fighting them over there, we don't have to fight them over here. Unless we leave, then they'll follow us home. They don't know how to get here themselves. That's what pinheads like you fail to grasp, ok? They are waiting, for us to leave Iraq, so they can follow us home. How many times does bush have to tell you that before it sinks in to your thick head?

So we can never leave Iraq, because the second we do, BAM! they know how to get here. And, my life is more precious, than any life of any Iraqi, adult or baby, and holds more worth than any US soldier. The only thing that matters is that I am kept safe so I can die of heart disease in ten years. And that's why I support bush.

 

[uscitizen]

But Darla Bush's mission was accompolished. He had gotten us into a war and became a war president. Routed lots of our money to his buddies, etc...

 

[Cancel7]

But Darla Bush's mission was accompolished. He had gotten us into a war and became a war president. Routed lots of our money to his buddies, etc...

But they could still FOLLOW US HOME. That's why we're in Iraq now, can't you keep up? We can't leave because that's what they're waiting for. They have their bags all packed, and the second we go, they follow us. They don't know about google earth yet, and can't find their way here unless we play right into their trap, and bring our troops home.

 

[Cypress]

Well, I don't really care. As long as we're fighting them over there, we don't have to fight them over here. Unless we leave, then they'll follow us home. They don't know how to get here themselves. That's what pinheads like you fail to grasp, ok? They are waiting, for us to leave Iraq, so they can follow us home. How many times does bush have to tell you that before it sinks in to your thick head?

So we can never leave Iraq, because the second we do, BAM! they know how to get here. And, my life is more precious, than any life of any Iraqi, adult or baby, and holds more worth than any US soldier. The only thing that matters is that I am kept safe so I can die of heart disease in ten years. And that's why I support bush.

lol. That line of thinking only works on rubes.

Read Greg Palast's book. It's amazing. A real eye-opener on the reasons bush invaded iraq. It's the best explanation I've ever seen. Very complicated, involving OPEC, oil supply, and oil price. And some foolish NeoCon dreams of using Iraqi oil to crush the Saudi griphold on OPEC. Meticulously documented, it's far from a fanciful flight of some conspiracy nut's imagination.

 

[Cancel7]

lol. That line of thinking only works on rubes.

Read Greg Palast's book. It's amazing. A real eye-opener on the reasons bush invaded iraq. It's the best explanation I've ever seen. Very complicated, involving OPEC, oil supply, and oil price. And some foolish NeoCon dreams of using Iraqi oil to crush the Saudi griphold on OPEC. Meticulously documented, it's far from a fanciful flight of some conspiracy nut's imagination.

I'm going to get it this weekend.

 

[Damocles]

lol. That line of thinking only works on rubes.

Read Greg Palast's book. It's amazing. A real eye-opener on the reasons bush invaded iraq. It's the best explanation I've ever seen. Very complicated, involving OPEC, oil supply, and oil price. And some foolish NeoCon dreams of using Iraqi oil to crush the Saudi griphold on OPEC. Meticulously documented, it's far from a fanciful flight of some conspiracy nut's imagination.

I still believe that they had the "Domino Theory" of Middle East Policy.

They believed that they could surround Iran, a very western society if not in government, with democracy and it would cause the population of Iran to rise up and remove the theocracy for a more modern democracy.

I believe that all the other reasons were just plausible excuses to go there.

 

[Cypress]

I still believe that they had the "Domino Theory" of Middle East Policy.

They believed that they could surround Iran, a very western society if not in government, with democracy and it would cause the population of Iran to rise up and remove the theocracy for a more modern democracy.

I believe that all the other reasons were just plausible excuses to go there.

Iran was the least of our worries. Unless they got a nuke, which they are probably years away from. If they ever even get it.

No, the NeoCon plan had little to do with Iran. Shia Iran is the blood enemy of the sunni extremists, like Al Qaeda, and the arab sunni governments.

There were two schools of though on the rightwing, with regard to Iraq. And none of it had anything significantly to do with Iran. It's all documented in the PNAC papers, and other stuff Palast dug up. It was about OPEC, oil price, and oil supply. Palast goes into the history of Iraq oil, and I learned a lot of things I didn't know.

 

[Cancel7]

I still believe that they had the "Domino Theory" of Middle East Policy.

They believed that they could surround Iran, a very western society if not in government, with democracy and it would cause the population of Iran to rise up and remove the theocracy for a more modern democracy.

I believe that all the other reasons were just plausible excuses to go there.

I believe there was more than one reason. The reason you describe, is the pure neocon "thinking". But not everyone who wanted to go in had that reason for it. First of all, we are watching a fully dysfunctional family play out that dysfunction on the world stage. Second of all, though the neocons might have a pure ideological reason for going in (as f'd up as it is), never discount the military industrial complex and money.

 

[Cypress]

Iran has nothing to do with al qaeda, or other sunni extremists. Sure they support shia hezbollah, but that's a threat to israel, not north america.

The whole business about "surrounding" iran with american forces to win the war on terror, is pure foolishness. Al Qaeda would just as soon kill a shia, as spit on his grave. Iran has nothing to do with the underlying reasons of 9/11. Which involves sunni extremists.

 

[Cancel7]

Iran was the least of our worries. Unless they got a nuke, which they are probably years away from. If they ever even get it.

No, the NeoCon plan had little to do with Iran. Shia Iran is the blood enemy of the sunni extremists, like Al Qaeda, and the arab sunni governments.

There were two schools of though on the rightwing, with regard to Iraq. And none of it had anything significantly to do with Iran. It's all documented in the PNAC papers, and other stuff Palast dug up. It was about OPEC, oil price, and oil supply. Palast goes into the history of Iraq oil, and I learned a lot of things I didn't know.

So, he discounts this notion of neocon ideology, of democratizing the middle east, in some sort of supposed 'wilsonian" utopian vision? I'm very interested in reading it, I'll let you know when I do.

 

[Cypress]

So, he discounts this notion of neocon ideology, of democratizing the middle east, in some sort of supposed 'wilsonian" utopian vision? I'm very interested in reading it, I'll let you know when I do.

Neocons don't believe in democracy. Sure, they say they do. But only if it's "our kind" of democracy. The neocons supported the coup attempt on democratically elected Chavez in venezuela.

Palasts contention is that the Neocons saw an american proxy government in Iraq, as a way to strangle the Saudis and they're grip on OPEC and world oil markets. In effect, as a way to bring down the House of Saud. But, there were other rightwing factions in the bush admin, who had other reasons to invade iraq, which were totally different from the NeoCon "intellectuals.

But, I won't spoil the Palast book for you

 

[Damocles]

Iran has nothing to do with al qaeda, or other sunni extremists. Sure they support shia hezbollah, but that's a threat to israel, not north america.

The whole business about "surrounding" iran with american forces to win the war on terror, is pure foolishness. Al Qaeda would just as soon kill a shia, as spit on his grave. Iran has nothing to do with the underlying reasons of 9/11. Which involves sunni extremists.

Not American forces, with Democracies. I believe that they thought these people would welcome a release from theocratic or dictatorial regimes, that when they became Democracies it would change the face of the Middle East.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Well, I don't really care. As long as we're fighting them over there, we don't have to fight them over here. Unless we leave, then they'll follow us home. They don't know how to get here themselves. That's what pinheads like you fail to grasp, ok? They are waiting, for us to leave Iraq, so they can follow us home. How many times does bush have to tell you that before it sinks in to your thick head?

So we can never leave Iraq, because the second we do, BAM! they know how to get here. And, my life is more precious, than any life of any Iraqi, adult or baby, and holds more worth than any US soldier. The only thing that matters is that I am kept safe so I can die of heart disease in ten years. And that's why I support bush.

Oh, crud. I thought he was talking about puppies, not terrorists! Well, don't that beat all. I guess we'll have to stay in Iraq after all.

 

[Cypress]

Not American forces, with Democracies. I believe that they thought these people would welcome a release from theocratic or dictatorial regimes, that when they became Democracies it would change the face of the Middle East.

Damo, with all due respect, you need to stop listening to the reasons Glenn Beck is telling you we invaded

The neocons weren't interested in Democracies. Nor was Cheney. For God's sake, they wanted to try to install Ahmed Chalabi as president of Iraq - a dude who hadn't lived in Iraq since he was a child in the 1950s, and who had no popular support in the country. Except that he was assumed to be a pro-american puppet.

Karzai in afghanistan is only marginally better than Chalabi. He has no real support among the pashtun majority of afghanistan. But, he can be counted on to be nominally pro-western.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, with all due respect, you need to stop listening to the reasons Glenn Beck is telling you we invaded

The neocons weren't interested in Democracies. Nor was Cheney. For God's sake, they wanted to try to install Ahmed Chalabi as president of Iraq - a dude who hadn't lived in Iraq since he was a child in the 1950s, and who had no popular support in the country. Except that he was assumed to be a pro-american puppet.

Karzai in afghanistan is only marginally better than Chalabi. He has no real support among the pashtun majority of afghanistan. But, he can be counted on to be nominally pro-western.

It doesn't change my basic theory. Their belief that pro-western democracies would change the face of the Middle East.

Personally I think that those who don't earn freedom do not appreciate it. They will either find their own version of freedom or they will not get it. Giving it away like a present doesn't work.

 

[Cypress]

Damo, with all due respect, you need to stop listening to the reasons Glenn Beck is telling you we invaded

The neocons weren't interested in Democracies. Nor was Cheney. For God's sake, they wanted to try to install Ahmed Chalabi as president of Iraq - a dude who hadn't lived in Iraq since he was a child in the 1950s, and who had no popular support in the country. Except that he was assumed to be a pro-american puppet.

Karzai in afghanistan is only marginally better than Chalabi. He has no real support among the pashtun majority of afghanistan. But, he can be counted on to be nominally pro-western.

And think about it. This whole business about focusing our money, blood, and treasure to "surround" iran doesn't make any sense.

Shia Iran had nothing to do with 9/11, and nothing to do with sunni extremist groups like al qaeda. In fact, they are blood enemies. Sunni extremists would rather behead a shia persian and spit on his dead body, than cooperate with him.

So why all the focus on "surrounding" Iran? The threat to us comes from the sunni nations of the arabian pennisula, not persia. Why aren't we "surrounding" saudi arabia? We could invade Yemen, Jordan, and UAE and surround Saudi Arabia with democracies.

 

[Cancel7]

And think about it. This whole business about focusing our money, blood, and treasure to "surround" iran doesn't make any sense.

Shia Iran had nothing to do with 9/11, and nothing to do with sunni extremist groups like al qaeda. In fact, they are blood enemies. Sunni extremists would rather behead a shia persian and spit on his dead body, than cooperate with him.

So why all the focus on "surrounding" Iran? The threat to us comes from the sunni nations of the arabian pennisula, not persia. Why aren't we "surrounding" saudi arabia? We could invade Yemen, Jordan, and UAE and surround Saudi Arabia with democracies.

But PNAC was written and signed years before 9/11. What was their theory then?

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Personally I think that those who don't earn freedom do not appreciate it. They will either find their own version of freedom or they will not get it. Giving it away like a present doesn't work.

I agree, though for different reasons than those you mention. The struggle against a oppressive government, foreign or domestic, tends to be a unifying force. It allows diverse interests to sublimate their differences for a common goal, something absolutely necessary for the formation of a stable, secular government.

Either way, it can't be given or imposed. It has to be chosen -- and "earned" if you insist.

 

[Damocles]

And think about it. This whole business about focusing our money, blood, and treasure to "surround" iran doesn't make any sense.

Shia Iran had nothing to do with 9/11, and nothing to do with sunni extremist groups like al qaeda. In fact, they are blood enemies. Sunni extremists would rather behead a shia persian and spit on his dead body, than cooperate with him.

So why all the focus on "surrounding" Iran? The threat to us comes from the sunni nations of the arabian pennisula, not persia. Why aren't we "surrounding" saudi arabia? We could invade Yemen, Jordan, and UAE and surround Saudi Arabia with democracies.

LOL. It makes sense when you think about the fight against the nukes, that they often do support terrorism and several other options. Once again, the goal wasn't to have the US surround them, it was to have others. They believed that Iran could be theirs without a fight, then we could turn to Saudi Arabia and other regimes.