<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Coop et. al.<BR>
<BR>
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...<BR>
<BR>
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! <BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
We are there for one main reason, among several, which it seems has been somewhat forgotten recently: oil. <BR>
<BR>
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! <BR>
<BR>
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).<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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?<BR>
<BR>
It is amazing how easily the US public's attention can be distracted. <BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>