 |
New Civilization News: Kerry and Iraq |
Category: Politics 14 comments
23 Jul 2004 @ 15:05 by rishi : The Right Thing 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 Bush...so 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 @ 23:05 by fresian_is : It began on August 2, 1990 Hello, Paul. How far back do you want to go on identifying the festering sore that is now Islamic Fundamentalism? Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution of 1979? Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980? Perhaps the Soviet invasion took place a year before Carter noticed something was out of place in Afghanistan. I saw photos of burned out Soviet armored vehicles, and mujihadin standing on the hulks, in a November 1979 issue of Christian Science Monitor. We can gloss over Cuban troops in the Angola civil war, or Cuban and Soviet advisors in Nicauaragua during the short four year period (Jan 1977- Jan 1981) of weak executive leadership in the USA. Because of the lack of manhood between Carter's legs, there was more global political instability. Perhaps this was the underlying cause of the Royal Saudi Family bringing in the infidels as allies, even though seven-years prior they punished the same United States of America for supporting another Jewish victory over Egyptian and Syrian arms during the three-week Yom Kippur War of 1973? I mean, pick your catalyst event, and there are many candidates. Iraq launches an unprovoked attack on Iran during 1980 (Carter administration), and the world stood by and watched two second-rate military powers slash each other with sublethal wounds for eight years. That's a lot of suffering. Sunni royalists in Kuwait did not want Iranian Shia dictating their business any more than the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia, so the Kuwaitis loaned $30 billion to Iraq to fight Iran for them. After the peace, the Kuwaitis actually asked for the money, back. When the Iraqi army crossed into Kuwait on 2 AUG 1990, the balance of power shifted in Iraq's favor both militarially and economically. By burning the Bank of Kuwait, Saddam took care of those IOU's the Al Sabah family was holding. The USA honored the alliances with Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and a multinational coalition, that included Syrians, Qataris, Omanis, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Bahrainians, and every other Western democracy with manhood between their legs went in and reestablished the status quo. Countries that stayed out of Desert Storm were Sudan, Yemen, Jordan, and Iran. Iraq lost nothing of their natural resources or national boundaries as a result of their invasion, six-month occupation, rape, and butchering in Kuwait. There were a few caveats, privosos, conditions, dictated by the leadership of the United Nations adn the Multinational Force: return what you looted from Kuwait (gold), account for the 20,000 missing Kuwaitis who were removed to God knows where, and demilitarize. Well, there wasn't any demilitarization, no Kuwaitis were repatriated (because they are dead), and returning the gold has been a problem. The United Nations imposed further sanctions on Iraq in an attempt to control the amount of suffering the Iraqi (Sunni dominated) Army could inflict on the Kurds, and Shia Arabs; these were called the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones, and the United States and Britain had been enforcing the peace over Iraq for eleven-years before Saddam was finally removed from power in 2003. Count it up. That was a state of war (absence of peace) with Saddam's Iraq for twelve-years. Clinton-Gore inherited a stable international environment when they took office; they let it go fallow with the exception of a few cruise missile strikes into the Sudan, later in Afghanistan, to punish Al Qaeda for killing 37 Americans, and hundreds of non-American bystanders in places like The World Trade Center (1993), Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (1996), the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (1998), and the USS Cole in Yemen (2000). Then there were the other places that Clinton-Gore committed American military prestige that continues to have nothing to do with National Security: Somalia (1993-1994), Haiti (1993-1994), Bosnia-Herzegovenia (1993 to the Present), Kosovo & the Republic of Macedonia (1998 to the Present). How about the lame Clinton apology (1998!) for not intervening in the Rwandan genocide (1994!)? The people we are dealing with operate in broad strokes: Invade Iran, Invade Kuwait, Gas ethnic areas unfriendly to you (the Kurds), Blow-up symbols (USS Cole, WTC w/3,000 killed, Embassies w/over 200 killed, Bali bombing w/200 killed, Madrid bombing w/190+ killed); Bush, Jr., also operates in broad strokes, vice ineffectual incrementalism: invade, destroy, and replace the Taliban in Afghanistan; invade, destroy, replace Ba'athist regime in Iraq, support counter-Islamic fundamentalism in the Philippines (the MPLA made peace; the Abu Sayaff Group chose death); The events of 9/11 were conceptualized two-years before the event (over eight years if you count the first attack in 1993), so it does not matter who was president, Bush or Gore, in 2001. But if you look at the Democratic Convention, who do you see with the incrementalist approaches to foreign policy: Carter, Clinton, and Gore. What makes you think Kerry is a Broad Stroke Guy? Oh sure, he was a small unit leader in Vietnam, but his post-war behavior makes you wonder what he really believes in. Like throwing "somebody elses medals" at the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., instead of his own medals. That's like, "I smoked, but did not inhale..."; OK, so that means if you were a fellow dope smoker with Clinton, he was faking his "HIGH" with you. If you are committed only to your own reputation, then who can be expected to trust you later on? Bush, Jr., flew F-106 aircraft in the Texas Guard. Do you know how dangerous that is? Ever hear of Frank Sinatra's son in the California Air Guard? He plastered himself on a San Bernardino hillside all on his own. Bush is being labeled as a shirker for not serving in Vietnam. So what is Clinton's excuse? If a draft dodger can be president for eight years, and lose American fighting men in places like Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia-Herzegovenia, Kosovo, and Saudi Arabia (if you count Khobar Towers), there can be no comparison to Bush's conduct during Vietnam, or now, on the issue of serving the country through military membership. Joseph Kennedy, Sr., avoided military service in World War I; he encouraged his sons (Joe, Jr., and John) because he noticed that military service offered an advantage when running for elected office. John Kennedy joined the Navy to get away from his family for awhile; Joe Kennedy, Jr., died trying to out-do his younger brother following the PT-109 incident. So what is my point? Simply if you want indecisive leadership, vote for Kerry; he is listening to mentors who failed in international politics and leadership. If you want to blame Bush for empire building, then you need to read more about American History and foreign relations. You should also aquaint yourself with the intellectual work of Paul Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz believes that the best use of American prestige and military power is the liberation of peoples who remain oppressed by socialist, Stalinist, or Communist regimes. This reaction went a little further than I intended, but the observations offered above needed more depth. Whoever wins in November 2004 will inherit the same courses of action. If Kerry wins, we returned to weak, incremental foreign policy that solves nothing in the long-run. To seek the Iraq and Afghanistan policies in their long-term solutions, just look at what Clinton-Gore started in Bosnia-Herzagovenia in 1993...and we are still there despite the Clinton's statement that, "we will be there one year". If his lips are moving, he is lying. Later. 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 @68.9.129.35 : 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. Paul 29 Jul 2004 @ 20:48 by Healthwoman @208.190.253.86 : 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, [link] 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" www.skolnicksreport.com] 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! [link] 30 Jul 2004 @ 13:52 by Quinty @68.9.129.35 : 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. Quinty 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. [link] 30 Jul 2004 @ 14:15 by Quinty @68.9.129.35 : 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. 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. Other entries in Politics 31 Aug 2008 @ 12:48: Election '08: You Make Me Feel So Young! 12 Aug 2008 @ 09:13: Truth, Denial and Fascism 5 Aug 2008 @ 20:08: Alexanders Ragtime Band 24 Mar 2008 @ 20:50: Is it time? 29 Feb 2008 @ 06:49: Vote For MRS. Barack Obama! 24 Feb 2008 @ 13:25: What's With Hillary? 19 Feb 2008 @ 21:28: Letter to presidential candidates 18 Feb 2008 @ 10:26: Is Obama The Answer? 4 Feb 2008 @ 19:45: Citizen McCain 31 Jan 2008 @ 19:53: The King of Mountebanks?
|
23 Jul 2004 @ 14:52, by Paul Quintanilla