Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (14001)	1/15/2007 3:49:34 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22250

'Crusade' Against an Evil War by Charley Reese. antiwar.com >>Fellow columnist Molly Ivins has launched a crusade of sorts to end what she calls "this evil war." I'm afraid that columnists, other than having the ability to occasionally embarrass a politician who still has a conscience, are pretty much without influence in the corridors of Washington. There, the lobbyist and his money get the attention. Nevertheless, it won't hurt to enlist in Miss Molly's crusade. It is definitely an evil war. Let's go over some of the reasons it deserves that adjective. One, it is a war of aggression. Iraq had not attacked us, had not threatened to attack us and lacked the capability to attack us. Iraq had no connection with al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist government was a secular government. Al-Qaeda is a religious – or at least a pseudo-religious – organization. Osama bin Laden despised Saddam Hussein, who in turn despised him. Finally, Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack on the World Trade Center. There was, morally, no difference between our invasion of Iraq and Hitler's invasion of Poland. Two, it was a war sold to the American public on false pretenses. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. In case you have a short memory, that was the justification for the war right up to the day of the invasion. The Bush administration would have you believe that everybody thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. That is a lie. The U.N. inspectors didn't think he did. Scott Ritter, a former arms inspector, didn't think he did. For what it's worth, I didn't think he did, and several of our European allies had extreme doubts on the matter. Saddam Hussein had complied or was in the process of complying with all U.N. resolutions. But weapons of mass destruction weren't the only deception practiced on the American people. Defense officials said U.S. troops would be greeted with sweets and flowers (they were greeted with bullets instead). Defense officials said the war would pay for itself with Iraqi oil revenues (the cost is now approaching half a trillion of our dollars). Civilian defense officials, scoffing at professional advice, said the war could be fought with very few troops. Soldiers were told that it would be a short war. Remember the phrase "The way home leads through Baghdad''? Three, it was a bungled war. There were enough troops to defeat Saddam's dilapidated and technologically inferior army, but not enough to provide security for the country. The orgy of looting, while American troops stood by and watched, was the first step toward a disastrous occupation. The occupation itself has been a tragic farce. Political cronies and even the sons and daughters of rich donors staffed the occupational government. Lucrative contracts were handed out without bidding. Corruption is rampant. All the Ba'athists who could run the government were fired. Some 400,000 soldiers were fired and found themselves with no income and lost pensions. One CIA man supposedly said, "Now you've (expletive) 400,000 men, and they have guns." More than 3,000 Americans have died since George Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" during that photo stunt aboard an aircraft carrier. The Iraqi people are clearly worse off now than they were under Saddam Hussein, who, after all, only killed his political enemies, and only when they rebelled. Now, no Iraqi feels safe. George Bush launched that evil war ignorant of Iraq, ignorant of the Middle East and ignorant of military strategy. He has no exit strategy. He can't even define what we would consider a victory. If Bush is sane, then he's dullest blade in the Bush family kitchen. Those are harsh words, but not nearly as harsh as the consequences of his evil war for America and the American people. <<

To: sea_urchin who wrote (14001)	1/16/2007 4:02:19 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 22250

Re: Had Iraq gone according to plan then they could have easily proceeded with Iran, that's obvious. Actually, someone has yet to explain to me why the snafu in Iraq should preclude the US from taking on Iran... Let's not lose from sight the fact that the US military is deployed all around Iran --Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Does Iran intend to strike Iraqi cities in retaliation for US bombing? And what are Iran's ballistic capabilities anyway? Don't you have a feeling of déjà vu? Iran is cracked up to be a powerful country, a strong military by the same people who billed Iraq as the world's fourth most powerful country back in 2003... No, on its own, Iran is but a sitting duck in the US-Israeli behemoth's crosshairs. Iran's best defense against a Judeofascist onslaught is China, period. Here's the sentence excerpted from the IHT article (post #13996) that sums it all up: The strategy, officials say, is to raise the cost for Iranians so much that they question the hard-line tactics of the country's current leadership, especially that of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That's the strategy Israel waged upon Lebanon last summer: wreaking havoc and bombing plants, airports, public facilities, oil spills, etc to make the Lebanese get the message that being unfriendly to Israel can be costly, too costly.... Re: But now is another story, especially when the Iraqi shiites dominate both the so-called government and the insurgency. That statement betrays the Judeo-Protestant mentality, a mentality that twists and turns every conflict into a religious feud --Christians vs Muslims, Sunnis vs Shiites, Jews vs everbody else... LOL! Iraqi Shiites are Arab, not Persian, that's why you don't hear them calling for Iran annexing Shia Iraq... Iraqi Shiites are not secessionist like the Kurds. Overlooking Iraqis' nationalism/arabism was another blunder by US Judeofascists.... Re: Meanwhile, Iran gets stronger and stronger militarily and geopolitically and they are certainly well-prepared for any kind of air or military strike. Again, Iran's best asset in the coming war with the US doesn't consist of bomb shelters and homemade missiles. Iran's only hope is for China to show her displeasure by unsettling the geopolitical balance in the far east --vis-a-vis Taiwan, Japan, South Korea,... and even India (via Pakistan). Gus