New Civilization News: Kerry and Iraq    
 Kerry and Iraq13 comments
picture23 Jul 2004 @ 14:52, by Paul Quintanilla

We all know that politicians always talk about doing the “courageous” thing, perhaps because they so rarely do so. And that boasting of being “courageous” is merely another method of pandering. They know, or believe, this is what voters may want to hear.

My great fear about Kerry is that he might play politics with Iraq rather than do the right thing. Or, the right thing, I should perhaps say, as many of us see it. Which would be to allow Iraq to follow its own direction, rather than become an imperial puppet state of the US. A stepping stone to the rest of the Middle East.

If Kerry becomes president he may be afraid of being accused of "losing" Iraq. He may desire to "stay the course." Which would mean completing those 14 permanent military bases and occupying them. Kerry must know that if the US stays, discretely attempting to hide its face behind an Iraqi government of our choice, the fighting will continue. And the prospect of remaining in a "quagmire" must alarm Kerry. But if he "gives up" Iraq, allowing the Iraqis to pursue their own direction, and the country eventually falls into anarchy, civil war, or becomes overtly hostile to the United States, then his political enemies will say he "lost" Iraq. And politically this possibility might create more heat than he wants to endure.

He could, of course, explain all this to the American people, which he has failed to do, so far, in this campaign. But if he were open and logical with the people he might get the support he needs. For the war is becoming increasingly unpopular. Or has Bush and his crowd so terrified the people that nothing short of "winning the war on terrorism" (which is not Iraq) satisfy them? And the violence, in order not to lose face, will continue? But, Kerry must be asking himself, toward what? To what ultimate end?

If Kerry plays politics in Iraq and fails then it may become his war, in the same way Vietnam became LBJ’s and then Nixon’s. He must be aware of this.

I don't envy Kerry for being in this predicament. But then, on the other hand, he himself decided he wanted to be President of the United States. So we have every right to expect him to solve these enormous problems.

It 's easy to read into what he says what we (those of us who oppose the war) would like to hear. When he talks about involving the UN is he actually talking about eventually withdrawing the United States and giving up control? Is that what he means? Or, like Bush, is he simply asking that other countries share the burden and, need I add, the casualties? That they won't, of course, should be understandable. And Bush's overtures to the UN are, in truth, window dressing. For he has no desire to give up control unless, finally, forced to.

We all know by now, or should know, that Kerry is a politician to the tips of his fingers. Will he do the right thing?

[< Back] [New Civilization News]



23 Jul 2004 @ 15:05 by rishi : The Right Thing
The first right thing to do about Iraq is to fully admit the intentions of EMPIRE in wrongly invading it to start with. To admit that, as you said, it had nothing to do with the "war on terror" but with acquiring the second largest reserve of oil in the world, just as world supplies are seriously dwindling.

The second right thing to do about Iraq is to give it back to its' people, pay them hefty reparations for our war crimes there, try American war criminals in the International Court in the Hague, issue a sincere international apology to the entire world, and mind our own damned business.  

23 Jul 2004 @ 15:12 by craiglang : I believe that Kerry's stated aim
is to stay the course in Iraq. That's what he described earlier, during the primaries. Not sure what the implications of this are, but as you said, it's really a no-win situation.

On another note, in an offensive war, status quo is bad for the attacker. Just look at the Germans or the French in Russia, etc. When on the attack, it is important to keep moving, so the momentum isn't lost. So my guess is that there will be plans to attack other regions - Iran, Syria, etc. In the "New Americal Century" strategy, those are next on the hit list. This would aim to cut off support for the insurgents from other states.

What this probably means, though, is that it will take many times the present military resources to do this. It would basically require a total U.S. commitment to war. So look for whoever wins the election to begin preparing us for this eventuality...

(Note that in this regard, I don't separate Kerry and Bush by much...)  

24 Jul 2004 @ 04:54 by jazzolog : We Need To Watch It This Time
In the last election people said they saw little difference between Gore and who cares and why bother? I can vote for Nader. I can not vote at all. Hopefully hindsight makes it possible to see there was tremendous difference between Gore and Bush. For one thing, with Gore we'd never be in this fucking mess in Iraq. I'd say that's a significant difference. (Thanks Paul for starting a new thread on Kerry!)  

26 Jul 2004 @ 23:09 by vibrani : Maybe it's up to
the public, citizens, to make sure those who work for us, those we elect, will do the right thing. Of course, every person has their own idea of what is the right thing - how do you please everybody? Will everybody have a voice? What would you do if you were President? Who would you listen to - only yourself, or those whose welfare you are supposed to protect? Just some questions....  

27 Jul 2004 @ 12:33 by Quinty @ : Dear Fresian

You bring up most of world history over the past twenty or thirty years, and to adequately deal with it could require a book length response. I do want to thank you though for the time and energy you put into your lengthy response.

Let me talk about just one of the many issues you raise. Bush's military record. Yes, Clinton and the others you mention were draft dodgers. But there is a difference between their avoidance of going to war and Bush's. Bush came down as supporting the Vietnam War. As far as I know he has not ever said it was a mistake. (Frankly, I don't believe he has the brains to see what the issues were, but that's another matter.) Clinton was opposed to the war, and by avoiding the draft expressed his lack of belief. It is not so much that Bush used his father's pull to avoid the draft (I would have done the same thing) but that he was such a bloody hypocrite about it. For he waved the flag in favor of the war. That does make a difference, doesn't it? One more tiny thing. Yes, it must be dangerous to fly an F 106 (if that is the sort of plane Bush flew.) It is far more dangerous to fly one in actual combat. Don't you think Bush had that in mind?

Anyway, there is much in what you said. Thanks for your response.


29 Jul 2004 @ 20:48 by Healthwoman @ : Yes, if Gore had won
we wouldn't be in Iraq- or in Afghanistan. We'd be sitting here with our thumbs up our butts getting hit hard- over and over and over!  

29 Jul 2004 @ 23:01 by vaxen : Quinty...
If this is too long let me know please and I'll delete it but it is relevent in response to the rather 'establihmentarian' views of our friend the 'M'zunga Trader who should really study 'PNAC' in depth. Wolfowitz? Ha! :

Historians, with Establishment credentials, seldom emphasize a cascade of events as possibly having a little understood if actual singular cause. The liars and whores of the press too often portray happenings as mere unrelated episodes of random selection. That is, unconnected railroad boxcars of news, with no known driving force.

It is so of past as well as current events. After all, when are we, the peons, the shirtless ones, ever told that the warlords of espionage/dope and satanic finance---the ever Secret Societies of the planet---have fallen back upon their panic mode?

To search engine-eyed examiners, some things are self-evident.

On November 6, 2000, as a reasonable starting point, began the deluge of intentional episodes. It was the day before the Presidential Election. Saddam Hussein, appearing to break away from CIA control, proclaimed he will accept only the Euro currency as payment for Iraq's oil.

There began an obvious danger that this rebel fixation would spread elsewhere in the oilfields of the Muslims and the Persians. If so, it would destroy the credit and financial infrastructure of a declining former world power, the U.S. The so-called "U.S. Dollar" would be destroyed. Of course, it is actually backed only by hot air ---Federal Reserve notes--- masquerading as U.S. government currency.

Under these circumstances, the stooge and scapegoat of a faction in the Aristocracy, George W. Bush, had to be selected and arbitrarily installed as the occupant and resident of the Oval Office. It mattered nothing that Albert Gore, Jr., won the popular vote by 600,000 and the essential Florida Electoral College vote was stolen by bribery. Strange, but the circumstances were nearly identical to that of 1876, when the election winner was refused to be inaugurated.

[Even more strange, was that in the Spring of 2000, was reprinted as paperback, Gore Vidal's prophetic opus entitled simply "1876" detailing how at that time corruption of the Florida election officials and corrupt high court judges installed Rutherford Hayes as the President, yet Samuel Tilden won the election. Hence, thereafter Hayes was called "Rutherfraud" and now we call "Dubya" as Bushfraud. How was it that the purported 2000 Election was patterned, almost identical, to the 1876 Election, involving the selfsame Florida, bribery of judges, and more. ]

[Scroll way down the website, for numerous stories about the 2000 election, bribery of Florida officials and such. Also, as to the corruption of U.S. Supreme Court Judges in 2000, in Bush vs. Gore, see part 9, "Coca-Cola,CIA, and the Courts".]

Now, to continue discussion as to oil. After all, key petroleum players were the degenerate Saudi royals. The Saudis, since 1973 were jointly with Japan, large buyers of U.S. Treasury securities. They propped up ballooning U.S. debt. These two are the only ones guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury to be paid, if asked or demanded, in gold, were the two to want to redeem or sell the securities. Of course, U.S. citizens are not so benefitted or privileged.

In the 1970s, was a little-remembered campaign by a very brave, outspoken journalist, Tom Valentine, to force an audit of the supposed U.S. gold at Fort Knox. After one vault there was finally opened, all that was found was an orangish mess, not suitable for world trade, apparently very impure melted down gold coins from the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration in 1934, outlawing gold to be possessed by U.S. citizens, and ordering the U.S. Secret Service and others to grab whatever gold U.S. citizens may have had tucked into their "deposit boxes" (run by a separate entity, not generally known, a safe deposit box company, separate and apart from the bank but within the bank house).

The American Ruling Class, with foreknowledge, shipped THEIR gold out of the nation before President-elect Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933. The banker-judge reactionaries, sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, arbitrarily, in an infamous, poisonous ruling in the Gold Clause cases, in the1930s, approved of this grabbing of the gold of common Americans.

Only a populist publication, "Spotlight", dared publish the comments of a U.S. General, as to where the U.S. gold had gone years before the public inspection of one Fort Knox vault in the 1970s. A convoy of trucks, under the General's command, whisked away the Fort Knox gold to New York. From there, it was shipped to the Bank of England, 1968, to stem a run upon that rotten, treasonous enterprise.

The faction in the Aristocracy, installing Bush, had to use these corrupt means. The purpose was simple. To use supposed foreign terrorists inflicting violence on American soil as an excuse to invade Afghanistan, as step one, to the invasion of Iraq as step two. Demanding payment in Euros instead of Dollars had to be stopped. It was the basic excuse to want to seize Iraqi strongman, Saddam Hussein. He was a son-of-a-bitch, BUT he was the Iraqi son-of-a-bitch, acceptable to most of his countrymen. Yes, he was brutal to the dissident element the Kurds. Yes, he cut off the ears of those who deserted his Army. As we have detailed in earlier stories, Iraq was one of the most prosperous nations, secular government not clerical, in the Mid-East. That was, until Saddam had a falling out with his private business partner, in 1990, George Herbert Walker Bush. [Visit the website story "The Secrets of Timothy McVeigh" as well as numerous parts of the series, "The Overthrow of the American Republic"]

In earlier articles, have been raised in the Overthrow series, that Kurds turned over in December, 2003, a virtual twin or double of Saddam, to the American military. The real Saddam, as we stated in April, 2003, may well be in a basement somewhere in Moscow. And remember, the U.S. is so fearful of what "Saddam" or actually his double might say, that at a recent court hearing, the audio of what "Saddam" was saying was mostly all turned off, and the written reports heavily censored.

If the inclination for the Mid-East to demand payment for their oil treasure in Euro currency to become commonplace, what would it mean? The upshot would be that the European Union would have cheap if not free energy. They would run their printing presses, churning out paper money, to pay for oil.

In the struggle between the "U.S.Dollar" and the Euro currency, the winner would control the Western World. The insidious Queen Elizabeth II of England, actually of German royalty, not fully satisfied with the Euro, would nevertheless have an even stronger hold on America, infested as now, by a heavily pro-British American monopoly press. Continental Europe, as the winner, could have more and more of an armlock, growing now, on America.

It would be the Overthrow of the American Republic, the final, fatal shot to American Imperialism.

So the demand of the Euro currency instead of Dollars, for oil, starting at least right before the U.S. Presidential Election, 2000, if not before, was the single most important event. It was the driving force. All the other descriptions of episodes by the press fakers and propagandists, were just so much diverting noise.

In their often sexified, often degenerate mind, the Aristocracy justified fraud, treason, corruption, and vast bloodshed, as mere collateral damage. The fight between the Dollar and the Euro currency, in their mindset, warranted the corruption of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush versus Gore. Bush could be counted on to follow orders. It made acceptable, killing three thousand Americans in the home-grown violence of 9-11, to be falsely blamed on Arab patsies. This, to cancel the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It made proper and appropriate, to pretend to "Bomb Iraq Into Democracy", as a pretext to stop the oil-soakers becoming addicted to the Euro, not the Dollar.

Have we all forgotten, upon the fraudulent decision of the high court in Washington, that Gore the actual duly elected President and winner but not to be inaugurated, did NOT concede supposed defeat? Gore merely permitted, for the moment, for Bush to be the evil King of America, the stick-up man of Justice, the squatter eating and sleeping in the White House.

History may not soon enough chronicle the Euro-Dollar war. and Iraq. But an accurate report would profoundly explain plenty.

30 Jul 2004 @ 00:27 by b : Fresian
That was a terrific summary of Islamofascist events leading to USA conquering Iraq then nation building to exit.

Quinty: beautiful art at the top of the thread. The artist really caught the emotion, the slap and the suggestion of the man.  

30 Jul 2004 @ 00:44 by vaxen : I guess...
you've found an establishmentarian cohort b to coddle you along in your illusioned illuminism. ;) Too bad that you are in for such a long spiraling path downwards towards the inevitableness of the horrible truth! Oh yes, it will catch up to you. Promise you that!  

30 Jul 2004 @ 13:52 by Quinty @ : Write what you want

Vaxen, please write and say whatever you desire. If someone's response is essay length and I don't agree with its conclussions, I may not want to chew on so much. But please say whatever you wish, so long as it follows NCN's guidelines.

I've heard that Euro/dollar argument before, and, not being an economist, I frankly don't know how much this issue influenced Bush et al. But I can see how it could, since these rapine people would do anything to keep power. And the Neocons have indeed expressed a desire to pretty much rule the world. That's there in their literature, if someone doesn't believe me.

Thank you B for your complimentary remark about the painting. I think it's beautiful too.

Healthwoman - One of the Bush administration's many lies was linking Saddam with terrorism. Saddam was active in this area only in one way: by giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The rest is all historical or hypothetical, and no reason to go to war. Yes, Saddam didn't like us, he would have liked to see us destroyed, he may have had "evil" thoughts about us. But there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. No, if we had played our cards differently, I think, Saddam would have only been too willing to be a good little puppet of the United States, enjoying our protection and generosity. Instead we chose to bump him off. He posed no threat to the United States or anyone else, no matter how "evil" his thoughts were.


30 Jul 2004 @ 14:07 by vaxen : Thankyou quinty...
I do'nt mean to harp on B for he is actually a good sort and sometimes I get on his case. The info is factual, however, but is not the only reason for the Neo-Con's (cf:PNAC) war in Iraq etc.,

"Fascism should more appropriately be called "corporatism" becasue it is a merger of state and corporate power."--Giovanni Gentile

That definition of fascism, by its' creator, was claimed by Mussolini as his own.  

30 Jul 2004 @ 14:15 by Quinty @ : More on the Euro

Here's a story which supports your euro argument. Whenever these guys like Bush start a war our challenge always becomes trying to figure out what the truth is, since they always -always - lie. So we had to find out about PNAC and how Bush's advisors think.... here's more on the debacle.

{link:|The Real Reasons Bush Went to War}
By John Chapman
The Guardian U.K.  

31 Jul 2004 @ 04:55 by jazzolog : Healthwoman
I was quite amazed to see her comment above. She used to be rather more active in NCN, and I'm glad she still looks in once in a while. I haven't seen a comment though in many months. I didn't know of her political position however, and I presume some of the emails I've forwarded along may have offended her. I hope her family is doing well.  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
17 Nov 2008 @ 10:11: My 'story' I just uploaded to
8 Nov 2008 @ 16:06: A Boy Named Sue and the False American Dream
7 Nov 2008 @ 16:01: No He Can't...
6 Nov 2008 @ 09:16: History is NOW
5 Nov 2008 @ 16:58: Obamas World - Africa and the World beyond Poverty !? - but how? - what world?
5 Nov 2008 @ 14:02: Proud to be An American
26 Oct 2008 @ 15:26: Systemic Intelligence: How to teach Systemic Thinking effectively

[< Back] [New Civilization News] [PermaLink]?