[Vision2020] Re: The consequences of losing the Iraq war

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Coop et. al.

You should work for the Bush administration's correct think propaganda group. 
 You had me convinced!  Maybe you could make some good money putting together 
those government paid and produced news spots that have been placed in the US 
media as though they are independent journalistic news stories, but are just 
government propaganda presented without informing the listener or viewer that 
what they just heard or saw was not independent journalism.  Incredible.  If 
you have not heard about this, check up on it.  It is quite true.  Yes, the day 
has arrived when the public is being spoon fed US government propaganda under 
false pretenses.  I suppose it has always happened, but maybe not with the 
out front brazen arrogance of the Bush administration.  But I digress...

After we have killed, maimed and injured tens of thousands of Iraqis, 
tortured them in the same prison that Saddam used for torture, using sexual 
humiliation in a culture that finds this treatment particularly degrading, which is why 
we did it, of course, and are attempting to force a form of government and 
culture upon a civilization with multiple generations of conflict and hatred 
between Sunni and Shiite, you expect this will work out hunky dory?  And people 
talk about pie in the sky antimilitary thinkers among us not facing reality!  

So you think the progress we are making in improving Iraq will win them over? 
 This is like saying if someone invades my home and holds me captive while he 
tortures my sons for there brazen opposition, I will accept this if he 
upgrades the wiring, puts in new plumbing and kitchen appliances.

We are there for one main reason, among several, which it seems has been 
somewhat forgotten recently: oil.  

Yes, there will be a vote, but the vote coming up soon will certainly not 
represent a valid democratic effort.  The Soviet Union had voting.  So does 
China.  Democracy can only flourish when all the major players agree to abide by 
the results, when the fourth estate, all the forms of media, are independent and 
serving the publics right to know all the truth.  We don't even have that 
here in the USA!  

Do you think the Sunnis will accept rule under the majority Shiite?  I 
predict the Sunnis will fight tooth and nail against rule by the Shiites: civil war 
for decades is my prediction.  And as far as access to Iraqi oil, the Iraqis 
are not as dumb as some think.  They know we want their oil, and many of them 
will fight us because of this.  And of course many Iraqis are out for revenge 
in the deaths and torture, etc., of their friends and family since the US 
invasion.  No doubt Iraq also has foreign fighters coming into the country.  I 
think the insurgency in Iraq now is very complex, with numerous motivations among 
a variety of groups, that it has become a global symbol in the world of Islam 
of fighting the US in our attempt, as they think, to undermine Islam.  Many in 
the Islamic world would love to see the US fail in Iraq just as they loved 
seeing the Soviet Union defeated in Afghanistan by Islamic forces (thanks Joan).

It would be great if we could remake the middle east with more progressive 
governments, more western friendly, with easy bloodless access to all that oil.  
But lets cut the crap about bringing democracy to the middle east.  We (the 
big players who want to keep US hegemony in the world for as long as possible) 
are mainly concerned that in the future when oil supplies get critical the 
middle east could start pushing us around.  The oil economy is the cornerstone of 
the global economy.  We support brutal dictatorships in the region, Saudi 
Arabia and Kuwait among them, governments that treat women like cattle, who 
torture their citizens, who do not allow political freedom or freedom of the press. 
 Have we invaded them demanding they democratize?  As long as Kuwait and 
Saudi Arabia give us what we want, we make no demands with teeth about human 
rights, women's rights, or freedom of the press or political speech.  

Saudi Arabia had within its borders more connections to 9/11, with 15 of the 
19 high jackers being Saudi nationals, and the money trail leading right into 
that Kingdom, than there were connections to Afghanistan.  Did we invade to 
wipe out all this support for terrorism originating in Saudi Arabia?  With 
billions in the US economy controlled by the Saudis, and all that oil coming our 
way in part from the cozy relationship the Bush family has had for years with 
the Saudi Royal family, why mess up a good relationship?  After all, the war on 
terrorism was a wonderful tool to manipulate the US population into accepting 
the goals of the PNAC group and others.  We had other goals rather than 
catching Bin Laden, which was part of the reason we invaded Iraq with a much more 
decisive goal of catching Saddam and his family, than we invaded Afghanistan 
with the top priority of catching Bin Laden.  It is clear we let Bin Laden slip 
through, or rather just did not prioritize with an all out effort the goal of 
catching him.  It was more important to try and secure the oil in Iraq and 
establish a military base in that region to protect our interests.  The Saudis 
were having trouble keeping their fundamentalist religious leaders happy with a 
US military presence near Mecca, and the US figured they could just push Saddam 
aside and get oil, a huge permanent military presence in the middle east, and 
keep Iran and/or Saudi Arabia in line to keep the oil flowing for the 
foreseeable future.

As for Afghanistan, now that the opium crop has reached record levels after 
the US invasion, creating an economy dependent on crime and the dark players in 
that business, these same players are more than happy the USA invaded to 
"liberate" that country.  Karzai only controls Kabul during the day, for the most 
part.  Most of the country is controlled and carved up into kingdoms run by 
brutal war lords who are no better than the Taliban, war lords who under their 
"jurisdiction" allow horrendous violations of women's rights.  The Taliban were 
of course cruel and extreme, but they were limiting the opium crop, and they 
were not agreeing to the energy goals inherent in the pipe line deal through 
Afghanistan that was being pushed.  Energy and opium, two huge sources of money 
on a global scale.  Some think this was part of the reason for the US to get 
rid of them.  They were interfering with the billions involved in the opium 
and energy business, billions going to some very powerful interests who did not 
appreciate being pushed around by some fundamentalist Islamic extremists.  

Of course there were terrorist training camps in that county, but one of the 
main terrorist training camps involved in 9/11 were the flight schools in the 
US where the 9/11 high jackers learned to fly.  Terrorists can train all over 
the world and indeed they do.  It has been greatly exaggerated the extent to 
which Afghanistan is directly involved in most of the terrorist attacks in the 
world.  But it made great motivational footage to fuel the flames of the US 
publics ire toward the Taliban and Bin Laden.

Of course there are positive developments in that country, but for the most 
part the US is happy with a poor marginalized Afghanistan that we can control.  
We have shifted our priorities to Iraq, and Afghanistan is not receiving the 
reconstruction effort from the US some thought would materialize.

As to our "success" in the war on terrorism, there are many analysts who 
believe that invading Iraq was a "Christmas gift to Bin Laden," using the wording 
of the CIA analyst who wrote "Imperial Hubris."  With little or no connection 
to 9/11 or Al Quada in Iraq, with the well known hatred of Saddam by Bin 
Laden, who viewed Saddam as just as much of an infidel as he viewed the US, we 
invaded a country in the heart of the middle east, enraging and fueling hatred of 
the US throughout the Islamic world, leading to a recruitment boon for Al 
Quada.  Some think Bin Laden's goal was to force the US to overextend itself and 
use military force to impose our will upon the middle east, proving to his 
followers that the US indeed was an immoral nation out to destroy Islam.  And when 
the US does not follow its own propaganda about human rights, torturing 
Iraqis in the same prison Saddam used for torture, it is easy to imagine this 
inspiring a demonic view of the US goals in Iraq in much of the Islamic world.

By the way, it seems Bin Laden has dropped out of the news mostly.  The great 
evil mastermind of 9/11 remains at large while we try to force democracy at 
the end of a gun barrel upon a country that had little if anything do to with 
9/11.  Pardon me if I am simple minded, but wasn't getting Bin Laden, who was 
charged with being the brains behind 9/11, a top priority?  So what happened?  
Why do we not have over 100,000 troops with a budget of 100s of billions to 
catch Bin Laden?  What kind of a "war on terror" is this when we clearly do not 
give our best effort to catch the man behind a terrorist attack killing 3000 
in the USA?  Doesn't this send a message that a terrorist can get away with a 
terrorist attack?  And have we not left a powerful leader and symbol of Islamic 
extremism at large?

It is amazing how easily the US public's attention can be distracted.  

Ted Moffett





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050121/bd637ae5/attachment.htm