(Iraqi forces)
There wasn't much left of them by that time, which I think was the idea.
This was one of my contentions in the lead up to the war. How can a
nation whose armed forces have been decimated constitute a threat in
the traditional, military sense? Our "solution" to the Iraqi
"problem" was quite conventional from a soldier's point of view. If
they'd REALLY been a threat, wouldn't they have put up a more
effective fight?
Trouble was, they weren't really a threat, so we had to come up with
another story to cover the first lie. How many versions of "truth"
have we been fed thus far?
But does anybody welcome illegal invaders? I don't think many Iraqis
were under many illusions about that.
This is a point I've made to many warmongers over here. They say
things like: "When there's a war going on, civilians should get out of
the way!" Or: "Those people are supporting the insurgency."
Such sentiments are easily maintained whenever we're discussing
someone ELSE'S home. I don't think many Americans would appreciate
being "liberated" by foreigners. We have a lot of guns too, and many
of us know how to use them.
"Actually I agree that the elections were a success ... of opposition
to the United States. What is being suppressed - except for Middle East
specialists, who know about it perfectly well and are writing about it,
or people who in fact have read the newspapers in the last couple of
years - what's being suppressed is the fact that the United States had
to be brought kicking and screaming into accepting elections. The U.S.
was strongly opposed to them. I wrote about the early stages of this in
a book that came out a year ago, which only discussed the early stages
of U.S. opposition. But it increased. The U.S. wanted to write a
constitution, it wanted to impose some kind of caucus system that the
U.S. could control, and it tried to impose extremely harsh neo-liberal
rules, like you mentioned, which even Iraqi businessmen were strongly
opposed to.
Do you have any additional references that support Mr. Chomsky's
view? (He is not well regarded by conservatives in the U.S., who tend
to dismiss anything he says as nonsense.) I get my news from the
radio, so this is the first I've heard of this kind of problem. When
I was in California a few weeks ago, I saw a Newsweek headline
proclaiming the birth of democracy in the Middle East. (It showed a
rather attractive young woman protesting Syrian involvement in
Lebanon.) Daniel Schorr, a journalist whose perspective is generally
more "left" than is mine, made a statement that his opposition to
American Middle East policy is being challenged by the positive
outcomes the Bush administration has been attaining in that region.
I wondered where Mr. Schorr was getting his information. The
headline in Newsweek totally ignored an even larger pro Syrian protest
that followed a few days after the one they cited as an example. I
would find it hard to believe that my government would accept any
electoral outcome in Iraq that essentially opposed American objectives
there. I just heard a feature on NPR concerning graft and corruption
in Iraq; problems never effectively overcome, even with American
involvement. The Iraqi people need officials who are accountable to them.
Given our current situation in the United States, however, I remain
pessimistic that this will happen soon.
(The shifting strategy of NeoCon perspective)
A common view in the hopelessly spun US, but very rare everywhere else,
where there's generally more and better coverage and less disinfo afoot.
Don't you just hate saying "I told you so"??? It would be so much better
to've been wrong sometimes. Often!
I've found that being suspicious about people and their motives leads
me to correct conclusions more often than not. (Sorry Keith! You have
way more faith in human nature than I do!)
It's also said that the ground forces call in the air support when
they've lost control, which would mean they don't have much control
anywhere, much.
But this IS the point of using "force multiplication". We have fewer
troops on the ground because we can obliterate opposition from the
air. A "pinpoint" air strike makes for better news coverage in the
U.S. than does the "Red Badge of Courage" worn by a Marine or Army
soldier. In addition, we're getting very good at "patching up" our
wounded soldiers; a skill which tends to deflate the death count and
make the conflict appear less deadly to American ears.
(Bludgeoning resistance)
If it's even possible at all. Has anyone else ever managed to do it?
What about the Brits with the Mau Mau? Insurgencies have been put
down in the past, but generally with ruthless brutality and great loss
of life. We Americans don't like to see ourselves in that light.
This word "insurgency" is a strange one. Literally speaking, the
Americans are the insurgents, the so-called "insurgents" are indigenous,
despite all the attempts to cast them as foreign jihadists and so on.
Very few foreigners involved, as even US commanders have admitted.
That isn't the story we're hearing over here.
There's a good case for the argument that these are not insurgents, that
it's the Baath government of Iraq that the US is fighting, or at least
mostly. Which would put what at first seems to be the inept resistance
of the Iraqi army at the time of the invasion in a different light. Why
blow up bridges to halt the invading forces anyway? There was no hope of
stopping the invasion, and those are their bridges after all - wouldn't
a policy to limit the damage have been sensible?
Then why damage the oil fields? Why loot the Iraqi museum? Why use
Mosques and hospitals as firing positions? Why kill Iraqi policemen
who are trying to maintain order? Why attack the power infrastructure?
Does this stalling of economic recovery and spreading of discontent
serve the purpose of liberating the Iraqi people, or is it a lashing
out at targets my country's soldiers simply can't protect? (There
aren't enough of them to do so!) Perhaps, by disbanding the Iraqi
army, we've simply created a pool of discontented, underemployed young
men for whom destroying things is a spectacular distraction.
I don't have answers. I think it was stupid to go into Iraq in the
first place.
Rather fight the occupation, much more possible and more effective - make life impossible
for them. It's reasonable to assume that they had a strategy planned out
before the invasion, they're not dumb.
No, they're not. Their strategy, however, seems counterproductive to
me.
if wars are truly won or lost in people's living rooms
watching TV then, barring a bunch of misinformed rightwing kooks and
crazed religionists in America, the US has lost already. Even in the US,
it's mounting up steadily, the tide will turn, it's only a matter of
time - how long can people blind-eye stuff like Abu Ghraib and the rest
of that extremely ugly iceberg, how long can you go on hiding the
casualties away, as well as the body bags?
The disinformation campaign from the "misinformed right wing kooks
and crazy religionists" seems pretty effective from over here, Keith.
The NeoCons have a stranglehold on all debate. There's a lot of red
faced screaming, denial and accusations of treason against anyone who
is not applauding our current policies. I certainly hope you are
right in this, but I have a bad feeling. . .
Meanwhile they're digging in for the long haul, building bases and so
on. "Cloud Cuckoo Land"? I think so.
Until we deal with our energy issues, this will continue.
(North Korea)
What a mess that would be! The Koreans, both North and South, are very
tough, very well trained, well armed, well commanded, very dedicated.
And VERY tough! You couldn't beat them.
We've already tried, once. That was a long and bloody conflict that
did nothing to resolve the strong desire of the Korean people to
reunify. We went in there to "stop the spread of communism", but the
armistice that halted the shooting didn't solve the underlying issues.
I think "complications" with China are a given, you'd put South Korea in an extremely difficult
position, probably beyond certainty of their support, and the same goes
for Japan. Talk about dominoes, wow!
The Koreans with whom I've discussed this issue (I've had a number of
Korean clients) speak very carefully. They would like peace and
reunification, not continued conflict. We would damage our
relationship with the Korean people with further warfare. My
experience with them has been a real eye opener; they are very clever
and remain leery of American motives.
I don't think any of this is lost on the folks in Washington, or some of
them anyway, though there's been a deal of hamfisted neocon blundering
there already. Perhaps most important is that North Korea's military
capacity hasn't already been reduced to ruins as Iraq's was (or seemed
to be perhaps). And, critically, that Kim Jong Il and North Korea don't
feature strongly in the Gospel According to Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.
Well, there is that verse in Revelation about "kings from the East". . .
Perhaps even more critically, I've seen quite a few people saying that
Saddam Hussein's real problem wasn't that he had WMDs but that he didn't
have them, a message not lost on many other governments. What do you
think, Robert?
My eldest son has a classmate whose parents are from Iran. This
boy's mother has spoken to me about American involvement in her
country. She says: "I think Iran SHOULD have nuclear weapons. That
way if you Americans invade us, we'll send you to Hell where you belong!"
Mind you, this is a very difficult sentiment for me to hear. (She's
very passionate about this issue, yet I'm confident she makes a
distinction between me and my government's policies.) However, at its
core, her argument about nuclear deterrence is a strong one. It's
dangerous ground, for certain.
(Korean inspired mushroom clouds. . .)
Play hell with the next election results, wouldn't it?
It would put climate change into a much more urgent category for most
of us. . .
It's such nonsense. If any of this WMD crap is to be taken seriously, as
well as all the cant about freedom and democracy, then how to explain
the US treatment of Pakistan? For starters.
Don't confuse us with facts, Keith. We're Americans. We're the
"good guys".
Yes, I can see that, though calling it a "perspective" is stretching it
a bit. As you and Gustl keep saying, it's essential to seeing the
picture clearly - the real perspective.
None of the people with whom I attend church are dispensationalists,
but I've read much dispensationalist "literature" and I've listened to
proponents of their eschatological view--preachers like Jack Van
Impe--for many years. Without understanding how these folk view the
world, it's difficult to appreciate the lengths to which they will go
in their striving to prepare the world for Armageddon.
I have to say they're doing a very effective job.
robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=9782>
Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
