Dear God, could I be leaning towards the right Dave?

Not gonna lie, Jet, I almost had to reread to make sure someone hadn't hacked your BC account. That said, I loved this article. Loved it.

Thanks Jared, I hope this doesn't cost me my membership in the "monnbat" club!

Carus deus, quis have ego commissio?
Jet

Thank you Mr. Rose for the last minute corrections.
Jet

Hey Nancy, sink your teeth into this one!

The chosen "president" of Iraq is already negotiating with Iran! Can we really count on him as an ally?

I'm curious to know what you expected him to do?

Iran is his neighbor, a well-armed, much more populous and potentially dangerous one that Iraq has been at war with before - a neighbor that will be around long-after the US troops depart...

He has Iranian-funded Shia-militias disrupting his domestic stability, the American occupation pushing hard on the other side for crackdowns, Baathist sunnis blowing up everything shia in reach and foreign jihadists making the rubble bounce...

I'd be surprised as hell if he wasn't talking to everyone he can.

So obviously what your saying is that Bush should've thought of that before he rushed headlong into a war THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE AND EXIT STRATEGY FOR.

Knowing what you just pointed out I'd be interested on you're theory of how we're going to get out of there without it looking like we wasted a lot of time and money and lives on a war that we couldn't long-term win!

Why, becasue after we leave, Iraq has to get along with it's neighbors, How? by going back to being a theocracy instead of a bush democracy.

thats how.

By the way Deano, I'm sorry you're disappointed with my attempt to lean towards the right. Maybe next Time?

Jet

Actually, Jet, I agree with you entirely. There is no point in waging war if you're not prepared to pull ALL the plugs, and damn the consequences. To echo you: Dear God, might ... might Bush not be right about ditching the Geneva Conventions? (After all, as Clavos pointed out, our enemies don't adhere to them anyway, so we end up with our hands tied unfairly. Jesus-! I'm supporting Bush!) Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, etc. etc. and the world hates us anyway, so it wouldn't hurt to apply a little real force to our arguments, now would it? What do we stand to lose by turning, say, fallujah into one big sheet of molten glass? Not much, and good riddance, say I. Perhaps if we got the rep of being just crazy enough to use our nukes, we'd get more cooperation & respect/fear out of Kim as well as Iran, Somalia, and a few other places...?

So obviously what your saying is that Bush should've thought of that before he rushed headlong into a war THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE AND EXIT STRATEGY FOR.

Iraq can't ignore the environment within which it exists anymore than anyone else can. The Iraqi government at best is weak and potentially unstable so I find it monumentally unsurprising that Iraq choses to speak to its immediate neighbors (particularly one like Iran which funded the Shia opposition to Saddam for years (long before the US got involved))....and yes long-term stability should have been an objective of the Bush adminsitration's warplan. Instead they tried to do things "on-the-cheap" and avoided anything that smacked of "nation-building". As a result, they are paying the price....part of that price is the fact that the Iraqi government is going to be influenced by and beholden to Iranian proxies. This shouldn't ever have been "a surprise" to the US.

Knowing what you just pointed out I'd be interested on you're theory of how we're going to get out of there without it looking like we wasted a lot of time and money and lives on a war that we couldn't long-term win!

There is no clean "exit" strategy and anyone who claims there is selling you something. Pull out before some type of stable Iraqi govt. and infrastructure is in place, and you probably trigger a three-way civil war - or at least a grinding and bloody anarchy that will arc for years.

Stay in and you will continue to be the target of a vicious ongoing insurgency and civil strife but...and here is the but...if, over a lengthy period of time, you can slowly build the internal capacity of the Iraqi security, build extend and expand Iraqi political institutions and autonomy, and (most important) put economic growth and benefits in the hands of Iraqis, develop and support moderate alternatives, gradually transition power from the militias to a state-run military and police...in short - do everything that should have been in the plan since Day 1 - then you might start to see enough stability to reduce and exit.

It's a doubtful, difficult and highly questionable road but it might happen...

Bear in mind, Iran prefers an anarchic, chaotic environment that ties down the US military and prevents any type of stable Iraq government. They want 'em weak.

Why, becasue after we leave, Iraq has to get along with it's neighbors, How? by going back to being a theocracy instead of a bush democracy.

First - the idea that you could "impose" a democratic system on Iraq by just dropping one out of the sky was always a foolish bit of optimism and one that, I strongly suspect, the US government itself didn't take that seriously - they wanted, ideally, a moderate strongman who could provide the trappings of democracy (i.e. win an influenced election) and provide that nice central authority to replace Saddam.

Reality intruded.

Second point - not to quibble but Iraq wouldn't be going "back" to a theocracy. Until recent years, Iraq was about as secular as you can get under Saddam and the Baathists. They only "found" Islam since the last Gulf War.

As to whether a theocracy is inevitable, I don't know. Certainly moderating voices are rapidly getting marginalized (due to lack of security and lack of funding) in the political process.

Great article Jet. I sadly agree with your points. The checkers/chess anaolgy was perfect to display your point. Drove it home for me.

While I'm not surprised at their approaching Iran, I am, considering not too long ago Iran & Iraq fought a particularly bloody & nasty war with each other, and have not been buddies for a long, long time. Iran would be crazy to want a stabilized Iraq on its borders again, flexing its muscles. Of course, if its not headed by another homicidal strongman like Hussein, that problem might not ever arise, but its unlikely, given the religious divides between the two which almost guarantees conflict both verbal & armed. IMO Ahmedinajad (sp?) wants nuclear deterrants as much for a future Iraq on its borders as for possibly wiping out Israel, if not more. After all, Israel isn't directly on the borders. Iraq is, and Iraq has already gone a few rounds w/Iran in the past. And then there's Turkey, & Russia & all the '-Stans' which have nukes, not to mention India not too far away & they & Pakistan definitely have nukes, so I don't wonder Ahmedinajad is desperately trying to stall for time & get his, too. I would if I were Iranian.

I still maintain however if we don't set a timetable, there is no incentive for the Iraqis to pull themselves together & get their act in gear for self-policing, self-defense, and self-stabilization. Like democracy, stabilization is just as unrealistic for us to try to 'impose'. We can't & we never will. They have to do it themselves. And like squabbling kids, as long as Mom or Dad is willing to intervene, they're going to keep on trying to kill each other. It's only if we say, OK - fine: kill each other, and when you're all dead, Iran will move in & take over, that I think they'll have any incentive to do anything about this insane internal fighting. Because at that point, they'll all either learn to be Iraqis together, or they'll all be dead Iraqis together, or Iraqis living under an Iranian regime. But we most certainly shouldn't compound Bush's error & stupidity by staying there & continuing to leach American lives & blood for an endless, thankless, unrealistic goal. We've spent enough. It's time to close the wallet & the vein.

By the way Deano, I'm sorry you're disappointed with my attempt to lean towards the right. Maybe next Time?

I'm not disappointed, it was an interesting opinion piece.

I don't generally view stuff like this as a Left-Right thing. I find that's a rather narrow lens through which to view the world. Everyone tries to stuff you into little boxes and pre-made categories - and then get mad when you refuse to fit....

Amen, Deano. Most people are left & right according to the issue being discussed. I don't know too many who are blanket left or right all the way. Myself I'm all over the map.

The whole "horizontal" Left-Right spectrum has always seemed to me to be a less than useful gauge and one that has now become such a politically charged, accustory term, it is devoid of context or meaning.

I find that fanatics and opportunists from both ends of the spectrum probably have far more in common, in both their views and their tactics, with each other then they do with the moderate middle ground. The tend to demonize and minimize the opposition, use ideological terminology to frame their positions, frame every issues as strictly black or white and have little or not toleration for dissent or disagreement.

A full circle might be a better diagram - one with fanaticism at the top of the circle and moderation at the bottom.

Interesting Jet,

When I say that we shouldn't give a damn how many people we kill, everyone screams "genocidal maniac!!!"

Not a peep criticizing you. Every warm heart has a cold spot in it for a Jew.

Interesting.

So, send me the car bomb kit, Jet. There are loads of people who want to kill us. It's time we got to work eliminating problems out here. Do I get a volume discount? If I have relatives in Columbus, can I get a family discount?

I reckon Jet just peaked the up cycle of his bipolar disorder and was feeling particularly gung-ho when he wrote this. Boiled down it says "abandon every value we hold dear and espouse mass murder".

It's just as stupid, immoral and finally ineffective as a military tactic, as countless examples from Korea, Thailand, Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon have shown, as it ever was.

Hey Jet,
I never could figure why we didn't bomb every camp in the desert immediately after 9/11. Even if we didn't get Bin Ladin we would sure as hell have put a dent in numbers.

Wow, Take a nap for an hour or so to rest my eyes and heaven's to Mergatroid, give me a sect o get to each of you...

Carus deus, quis have ego commissio?
Jet

Nancy 9... Nicely put. Damn it, why should the U.S. be the only nation in this conflict with one hand tied behind its back?

Jet

With our technological advantages we ought to be able to build some really excellent car bombs. Actually, I like the idea of little remote control Hummers like you can buy at Radio Shack, but loaded with explosives. They're big enough to hold a good bit of Semtex, and you could mount a video camera on them and drive them just about anywhere. Excellent for assassinations, and cheap as hell. Our soldiers are mostly of about the right age to love video games and high tech toys, so why not let them have them and go wild? We ought to be ramping up development of every kind of remote control weapon so our men can sit in bunkers eating cheetos and blowing the hell out of the enemy with a computer and a joystick.

Dave

Dear God, Deano are we... we agreeing??? So in effect what the fuck to we have to lose by playing by their rules rather than the ones that we're losing my now?
Jet

Brad 12-Thanks Brad... I hope this doesn't cause me to lose my "moonbat" achievement badge!

Nancy... boiled down Iran doesn't want U.S. airbases on land right next door to them. This might hamper re-taking Kuwait again.

Right?

Deano-13 Kinda like what to make of some gay guy writing stuff like this. I mean I'm supposed to be completely liberal aren't I?

Carus deus, quis have ego commissio?
Jet

Nancy 14..."Myself I'm all over the map" No... Realy???

Deano 15: I tend to lean more towards the this is bullshit-somebody DO something already... kinda like how I feel about our current congress.

Like I said... When are we going to wake up and play by our rules instead of theirs?

Carus deus, quis have ego commissio?
Jet

Ruvy, I'm not sure where you're going with that, but I will say this, if it were up to me, I'd have waited till all those stupid Palistinians got into a square ranting and raving in glee and dropped a few bombs on the son's of bitches, and REPEATEDLY can't figure out why Isreal hasn't done it.

Surely I can't be the only one this has occurred to?

After all what have you got to lose my friend, friends in the region????????

Who knows nothing else has worked?

Carus deus, quis have ego commissio?
Jet

Christopher Rose 17... and don't forget Vietnam! I mean I've really had enough and to paraphrase myself, BOMB THE SHIT OUT OF THEM TILL THEY SCREAM "All right... All right!!!! We get the point!"

I mean after all isn't that what they did/doing to us?

Carus deus, quis have ego commissio?
Jet

...and no...NO I'm not running for political office.

I won't dance, don't ask me...

Peter J wrote...

Hey Jet,
I never could figure why we didn't bomb every camp in the desert immediately after 9/11. Even if we didn't get Bin Ladin we would sure as hell have put a dent in numbers.


Like Bush's father before him with Saddam. We had the opportunity handed to us on a silver platter, every right to, we had every excuse to, we had the world looking at us saying "We'll understand if you do... so DO IT ALREADY!!!" but did Bush?

no...

... there I feel better now

Amen Dave Nalle, Amen!!!! This generation loves remote controled toy cars, mount cameras, hell paint them bright orange and rig them so that if anyone picks them up or shoots them they go off so everyone knows to leave them alone when they see them, that way we don't have unexploded "landmines" left laying around for innocents do die from after we leave.

We could have a cool reality show and broadcast it al jezeera style around the world. they could even be controled from AWAKs planes.

We could also use our remote predator aircraft to "kamakaze" their asses.

I mean it, I'm not being sarcastic here. You get tired of having your hands tied because the world expects you to "set an example" and because if it, these assholes are free to use low-tech stuff on us like IEDs and get away with it because we can't stoop to their level.

Maybe if we did stoop to their level, they'd realize what fucking heartless bastards we are.

Like OSU fans at a Buckeye's game.
WE'RE NUMBER ONE!

I think you're overdue one of your little shots, Jet, cos you're babbling nonsense.

Boiled down why are we collectively blowing billions on cool toys we're not using?


You get an advantage over an enemy by having something they don't.

Japan had Kamakaze pilots and an overzealous worship of their emporer god.


Bin Laden has suicide bombers and an over zealous worship of their diest saviour.


We've got bombers that can't be knocked out of the sky and precision bombs and that's one hell of an advantage that we're not using!

what am I missing here?

Christopher Rose...sensorship!!! are you telling me I can't voice my own...Oh.. wrong string...my bad.

I like the idea of remote control Hummers. Or better, abandon something that looks really enticing, that's loaded with goodies, & blow 'em up when they approach to stip it bare. Nice touch, that, Dave.

Actually, Ruvy, I've heard on the radio that Nasrallah is throwing a "victory party" this week at the Hezbollah bunker. If you guys have any moxie whatsoever, that's when you'll launch a last barrage of bunker busters. Sort of taking part in making it a nice surprise party, hey?

Now Nancy... you're fighting fire with fire!

Chris,

Jet is not basbbling nonsense at all. When you see a bunch of overjoyed Arabs celebrating because some asshole has killed 16 people in Beesheva with a suicide belt - and your government refuses to kill the bastards off with missiles, machine guns and bombs because they are afraid of what America might say, you get to feel exactly how Jet feels.

It's called justice denied, Chris. There is no reason not to murder off several hundred or several thousand Arabs when they celebrate killing Jews - just to teach the bastards that weeping mothers are not somethng to celebrate.

There is a saying in the Talmud that I see proven every single day here; "He who is merciful to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful."

Nancy, I think you have a great idea. But the little prick in the prime minister's office hasn't got the balls or the brains to do it. His balls got locked up in Condi's little balls' safe - and his brains are somewhere up his ass trying to figure out how to steal more money while looking like a hero.

OOohhh...I didn't realize he'd held office in America. Where was he a congressman from?

Thanks Ruvy 39, what I'm getting at is that those celebrants aren't actors and those RPGs aren't props.

If they're stupid enough to parade on TV live where they are and what they're doing, we should take advantage of it and blow the son-of-a-bitches clean off the map.

After all we're helping them get the umpteen virgins aren't we?

An you can' possibly tell me Chris that they wouldn't do the same to us given half the chance.

Ruvy, we're going to have to have a talk about thos fantasies of yours... this has been a recorded announcement..........

Nancy it's one of those gerrymandered Republican districts that looks like someone one vomited on a map with pieces here and pieces there and one little acre down on the state line south of here and another that runs along route 14 and then heads up the border half a mile and then breaks up over by the hill and takes up again 20 miles south and only has houses on the north side of the street till it gets to...

A string of suicide bombings across Afghanistan killed 19 people - including four Canadian soldiers - on Monday and wounded scores of others a day after NATO announced a victory over insurgents in a southern Taliban stronghold.

A bomber on a motorbike blew himself up in the normally quiet western Herat province, killing 11 and wounding 18, including the province's deputy police chief, said Sayed Hussein Anwari, Herat's governor.

Four Canadian soldiers were killed when their foot patrol was attacked by a suicide bomber on a bicycle in Kafir Band, a village in southern Kandahar province's Panjwayi district, said Karen Johnstone, a spokeswoman for the Canadian military in Ottawa.

The attack, which was claimed by the Taliban, happened in the same area where NATO forces said a day earlier they had ended a two-week Canadian-led operation against insurgents that they described as successful mission that had killed at least 510 militants

The bomb targeting the Canadian soldiers destroyed equipment and shredded the uniforms of the troops. Pools of blood soaked into the dusty road, near the remains of the bomber and a gold-colored military patch from a soldier's uniform.

"Some 50 to 60 soldiers were patrolling on the main street when a man on a bicycle stopped and blew himself up near the forces," said 50-year-old farmer Fazel Mohammed, who lives about 20 yards from the site.

Maj. Luke Knittig, a NATO spokesman, said the blast killed four NATO soldiers and "wounded a number of others, including civilians." NATO said in a later statement that 25 Afghan civilians had been wounded, including children.

An Afghan official said the bomber targeted Canadian troops as they were handing out candy to children and killed and wounded dozens of people. The official spoke on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to speak to the media.

But Mohammed and another villager disputed the account, saying few children were in the village at the time of the blast.

Qari Yousaf Ahmadi, who claims to be a spokesman for Taliban affairs in southern Afghanistan, said the bomber was an Afghan from Kandahar named Mullah Qudrat Ullah.

Ahmadi, whose exact ties to the militants are not known, told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location that militants would continue attacking U.S., NATO and other coalition forces.

Most of Afghanistan's recent surge in violence has taken place in volatile southern provinces, where some 8,000 NATO forces took military control from the U.S.-led coalition on Aug. 1. NATO commanders say they need another 2,500 troops plus greater air support to crush the Taliban threat more quickly.

In Kabul, a suicide car bomber killed four Afghan police and wounded another in the eastern suburb of Poli-e-Charki, said Ali Shah Paktiawal, the criminal director of Kabul police. At least 10 civilians were wounded in the blast in a market, said a witness, Baktiar Ahmad.

Police also clashed with suspected insurgents in neighboring Helmand province Sunday, killing 13 suspected Taliban and wounding four, said Ghulam Nabil Malakheil, the provincial police chief.

Police recovered the dead militants' bodies, including that of Mullah Mohammed Akhunzada, a known Taliban commander, Malakheil said. The insurgents took the wounded with them.

The officers also recovered 12 AK-47 assault rifles, three heavy machine-guns and six rocket-propelled grenades, he said.

Separately, two police were killed and their vehicle destroyed when they were attacked by a roadside bomb early Sunday in the same district, said Ghulam Muhiddin, the Helmand governor's spokesman. He blamed the Taliban.

The violence comes a day after a top NATO general declared an end to Operation Medusa in Panjwayi and neighboring Zhari districts.

Lt. Gen. David Richards, head of the 20,000 NATO-led force in Afghanistan, described the operation as a "significant success." Richards said the insurgents had been forced to abandon their positions and reconstruction and development efforts would soon begin in the volatile former Taliban heartland.



Associated Press writer Fisnik Abrashi in Kabul contributed to this report.

If I had been in charge of ops, I would have found out where the families of these guys were, rounded them up, and offed them all, and then let it be widely known that anybody else who wanted to pull this shit, their families were going to be just as dead. They might not hesitate for themselves to die, but if it means dad, the brothers & the kids were going, too (I discount the women, because they don't seem to matter to middle easterners) they might think twice. If not, then what have I lost? Not much.

Okay fair enough Nancy, when I'm elected you'll be in charge of ops.

You know, even Kipling recognized the inherent edge of aggressiveness women can have over men in his poem "the female of the species is more deadly than the male". Women once they're pushed to fight don't generally give quarter of any kind, in my experience.

My goodness, this has now turned into an ethically-challenged and blood-thirsty little thread....

Indiscrimate slaughter and revenge killing is not an effective way to combat an insurgency. It generally tends to have the opposite effect - growing the insurgency and the populace's support of the insurgency....in case you were not aware of it, that is one of the objectives of the insurgency - to force repressive crackdowns that will increase the alienation of the government from the population until such time as the opposition is so numerous and widespread the government is defeated.

We can fantasize, can't we?

Holy shit, Jet!! Did you change your meds???

Seriously, as you know, I've long advocated we should fight the war to win, not the way we have been fighting it; but I think Deano has a point in #49: bombing the shit out of them, however satisfying it would feel (and it would, to me at least), would strengthen, not weaken the insurgents.

That said, I like the Radio Shack toy Hummer idea a lot...

Deano writes...Indiscrimate slaughter and revenge killing is not an effective way to combat an insurgency.

Then what the fuck is??????????????????

Al Qaeda only understands what they preach. It's my opinion that it's the only way to finally defeat the sons of bitches.

The U.S. has definately lost its balls for bombing and putting the fear of their as well as our God into people.

You've got a better solution?

I'd like to hear it, because I haven't so far.

We've got to play the game by their rules not ours.

If all they understand is dead innocents, than that's what we've got to use in return. See how they like it!

They won't be laughing and cheering and waving their rifles at us if we give back what they've been dishing out.

They took out our World Trade Center-I say we should take out the beaustiful little building in the middle of Mecca.

an eye for an eye is all they'll ever understand

damn it

No Clavos, I'm just showing a side that not many have seen before, I haven't changed my meds.

I feel what I wrote in this article every time I see the bastards waving their RPGs and pistols in the air and cheering triumphantly at the death of innocent people.

I feel it when I see Bush make a speech with his retarded ...I ....uh I'm ...I know what you're saying ...uh but ...The good lord has blessed these... uh... u-nited states... uh

Think of me the next time you watch him do it and feel my frustration.

We're in Afghanistan and Iraq to put money in defence contractor's pockets.

I had to see my workman's comp doctor this morning and the place was packed with displaced workers from Michigan and Indiana in Ohio looking for work, they were there to take preliminary drug tests for jobs they probably won't get because too few were available.

Their conversation was of uprooted families and fear of not being able to support themselves. I felt rage at the help we could've given them if not for the billions we've uselessly poured into Iraq.

Recent reports show crime going up.
The housing market sagging
and thousands of people losing jobs.

Meanwhile Bush stands there smuggly smirking and stammering through another speech...

I agree with Deano.

Jet,
Your article makes no sense really. I understand you are trying to make a point, but everyone knows that the reason we had to use the Atomic Bomb in Japan is more of a humane reason because at the rate we were dropping Jellied Gasoline on the rice tatch rooftops we were incinerating thousands a day in Japan. Still they would not give up. But I suppose it's better to kill innocent civilians than the actually leaders themselves right? Just like we are doing today in Iraq. We got Sadaam and yet we are still there. Why? To ensure that Iraq and Iran become one. After all aren't they both predominately Shiites? Doesn't King Bush or Queen Cheney know any history before they start a sequence they can't stop?
And the whole world wondered if America has the balls to drop an atomic bomb......the only nation ever to do so......I think it's pretty much a matter of public record on the lengths America will go to make sure everyone knows how big their stick is and that they will use it.
So, just like the liberals in this country are used to be examples of America's unwillingness to take to the fight, those same American's would think that all Arabs/Muslims/Persians are spineless cowards that srap on the suicide belts and try and kill Jews and Christians everywhere.

Et tu Jet?

Bushit Martin. The world knows the lengths we USED to be willing to go.

You and I learned from different history books. We couldn't defeat the totally committed Japanese unless we killed every last one that was loyal to their emporer/god.

Describing the Hiroshim and Nagosaki as "humanitarian" acts is completely useless and rediculous.

You have your opinion
I have mine.

God, I side with the people wanting military action and I get kicked from both sides!

... time to go back to being a knee-jerk lilly livered pansy liberal I guess.

You are wrong Jet.
Martin is right.

Dearest President Truman, in all due respect this is an opinion piece, there is no wrong or right... only shades of gray.

That word on the top of the article say opinion, not news...

Kiss Margaret for me...


Tantum meus sententia
Jet

Every one has one
but some are bigger than others...

I had a blue one once Martin, but I kept it in the fridge too long and it turned yellow. I could never grow another one quite as big though

alas

Seriously Martin, your opinion is as welcome here as mine my friend...

Sometimes I wonder where George Bush was getting his advice when he decided to invade Iraq.

Makes you wonder what kind of bullsh.t some of the advisers in the State Department and the Pentagon must have spun to land their $300,000 a year jobs.

Surely they realised that Iraq is the birthplace of Shia Islam - that's right, Iran's brand of Islam - and that these two countries share this belief among the bulk of their populations and often combine for religious ceremonies!

Sunni Muslims only make up about 25 per cent of Iraq's population, and after Britain arbitrarily drew lines on a map to create modern Iraq from the Turkish provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra after WWI, they left the Sunni - who had been part of the ruling clique under the Ottomans - in charge. That's how it was, through a succession of coups and counter-coups, until three years ago.

The invasion of 2003 removed the Sunni influence, bringing old hatreds back to the table snd creating the potential for a power vacuum that Blind Freddy could have spotted from a mile off.

Why didn't the highly-paid geniuses in Washington and London - which had its own dirty war there between 1920 and 1932 and should have known better - take any of this into consideration????

STM wonders, "Sometimes I wonder where George Bush was getting his advice when he decided to invade Iraq."

It's rather simple. The problem, at least the way it was made out to the press, were the Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia. But getting rid of them would have been pissing on daddy's shoes, not to mention his own. So Gog Bush did the next logical thing. He first blew up Iraq into a crisis it wasn't (well, there were those WMD's that Saddam Hussein was developng to kill us Jews, but killing Jews or saving them never concerned the Bush family). Then he started a war. Just looking at a Christian calendar, like Michael Moore did, and that's all you'll get out of the lot.

But when you look at the dates on the Rabbinic calendar of us Jews, you get another clue, one that doesn't peek out at you at first.

George Bush senior ended his 100 hour campaign in Iraq right before the Jewish holiday of Purim, 5751. His son, Goggie (the kid's nickname in the Skull & Bones Society at Yale), started it the day after Purim, twelve years later in 5763.

Purim is a holiday signalling the saving of Jewish lives in exile. The original holiday takes place in Persia, in the city of Shushan (Susa), where a descendant of Amalek's descendant, Agag, plots to kill off all the Jews in the empire. His plot is foiled by the Jewish empress of the empire, Hadassah, known to history as Esther. The issue as it relates here is that Purim is a holiday, and the nature of the holiday (redemption of Jewish lives) is a signal to Jews who pay careful attention - and a big part of being Jewish is paying careful attention to such things. The two Gulf wars are really ONE war, and the attack on Assyria by ships from afar is part of prophecy - the prophecy of Bilaam.

So while it may seem that the Bushes were getting their advice from overpaid martinets with rods stuck up their derrieres, it was a different Source, that dictated this war...

And the next target is the country on the "other bank." Go check your map and see the land of flying carpets. But as Bilaam said, "I see it, but not now."

Why is it that on half these discussions the left-leaners are all concerned about the Geneva convention and the US sticking by it and Bush not changing it, and here in #46 and #47 we've got Jet and Nancy jumping up and down in enthusiasm for gross violations of its most basic rules?

Dave

Dave,

Smart people learn from their own mistakes. Wise people learn from the mistakes of others. Maybe Nasrallah's rocket therapy has taught them something?

Ruvy: I know Dave is lurking and mistakenly thinks I'm a lefty so I have to be careful (Hello Dave!), but I still think it's about oil.

The Brits did exactly the same thing ... and it was about oil. The Kurds wanted to split from the rest of Iraq after the discovery of the northern oilfields and the British bombed them senseless in the '20s and '30s, testing out a whole range of new weapons in the process, including a jellied petrol weapon that was the precursor to napalm.

Not much has changed, has it. Someone's just passed the baton ... but let's be realistic about all this. Regime change is good. Having lived in Iraq as a boy in the 1960s and having to fret over my British father escaping from Baghdad on day seven of the Six-Day war in 1967 and then again on the eve of the Baathists taking power, I didn't favour the leaving of Saddam Hussein in power so it's achieved one useful aim.

However, and it's a big however, the power vacuum created in 2003 which opened up opportunities for Iranian (Shia) meddling should have been obvious to everyone. Which begs the question: did the US administration really care about the potential long-term problems? Planning for the invasion of Iraq began two weeks after George W.Bush first took office, in cahoots with the British, so it had nothing to do with 9/11 either. And where WERE those pesky and elusive bloody WMDs??

If it's not about oil, the only proof positive for this view will be the full privatisation of Iraq's oil industry ... and it won't happen.

Black gold, gents, is the key to it all.

The plain fact is that Saddam never had much in the way of WMDs or the PRACTICAL means to threaten either the US or Israel. Although he was obviously a bloody tyrant, people conveniently forget how incompetent and deliberately uninformed his military was, and how spokespeople like Baghdad Bob laughably insisted upon the military might of the Iraqi Army even as US tanks rolled into the city. But for some reason people who want to pretend that there was any intelligent planning behind this stupid war must huff and puff to make it appear that Saddam was anything more than a local despot with delusions of adequacy.

Although deposing Saddam rid Iraq of a bloody dictator, it also created a power vaccuum, which ironically has been filled by religious fundamentalists (Saddam was the typical secular tyrant who was feared and hated by Osama and his ilk). However, even though unreliable exiles like Chalabi and his bunch swore up and down that the U.S. would be welcome as liberators, the other plain fact is that no one (except the Kurds) wanted the U.S. to interfere with their political system.

So now we have people flirting with the idea that the U.S. should use nukes to impose our will on Iraq and Iran and make them do what we want. But what if they still stubbornly refuse? What if they "surrender," but then resort to sabotage and destroy the oil infrastructure of Iraq and Iran (what would they have to lose after undergoing a nuclear attack?). Are you going to send troops into the radiation-glowing remains of Iranian or Iraqi cities or just let the survivors pick up the pieces as best they can?

It is very easy to reduce political and military strategy to whacking the enemy with the biggest stick. Sunni and Shiite factions in Iraq are fighting for power, oblivious to Bush's impotent attempts at nation-building. What makes anyone think that Iran would bow to U.S. demands if attacked? At the end of World War II, Japan was isolated and had no supporters anywhere in the Asian world. They had promised relief from European imperialists only to become even worse tyrants themselves. But I doubt that Muslims worldwide would easily accept a unilateral nuclear attack on Iran by the U.S.

STM 61:
Makes you wonder what kind of bullsh.t some of the advisers in the State Department and the Pentagon must have spun to land their $300,000 a year jobs
Probably the same strict requirements that got Brown his job at FEMA?

Thanks for the contribution from your research department my friend... you're hired.

Jet

Alec said: "I doubt that Muslims worldwide would easily accept a unilateral nuclear attack on Iran by the U.S."

I think you might be right on that one, old boy

Wow Ruvy thanks, sort of a Hebrew "Da Vinci code!"

Blessings
Jet

Dave 63-Possibly because my mind is a little more flexible than you seem to think it is.

I won't put you in the radical right
if
You don't put me in the readical left

Jet

Wiping out Mecca ... well, THAT would certainly get the muzzies going, wouldn't it? A big enough blast, we could take out Medina, too. And while we're at it, perhaps give the Wahhabis in Riyadh a little something to think about, since they're at the root of all this, per Ruvy & a few others in the know?

Yer right, Jet, absolutely, & I support you all the way: time to stop apologizing & start kicking ass. A pity it's not just in our dreams we're going to do this, as Bush is firmly in the pay of Riyadh & it will be a cold day in hell before he does anything that will jeapordize his wallet or his puppet masters.

STM-65 Thanks-Here's a reading assignment for you from one of my other articles showing that it is very definately oil... Click Here

Alec, thanks for contributing. I'm not advocating a nuclear strike, I'm bemoaning Bush's behavior that's convinced the world that we don't have the balls to use it if necessary.

That "Big stick" used to get us a lot of leverage simply because we had the bomb and we weren't afraid to use it.

I do however advocate conventional bombing the hell out of the area until they cry "uncle" (Sam).

As for them killing the oil fields.

Look how fast we fixed the dozens that were sabotaged in Kuwait.

Tantum meus sententia
Jet

STM 68-It's sure's Hell get their attention more than anything Bush/Rice has done.

Tantum meus sententia
Jet

Thanks Nancy 71-What else is there in the region that is equal to the world traid center?

Of course we could always help a deconstruction crew take out the Dome on the temple mount and reconstruct the temple using the bricks, but that would bring more down on Israel than they're already dealing with.

There isn't anything except the hotels for all the pilgrims during hajj. Like I said, it's a pisshole. The whole region is. And just for additional fun, I think we should schedule it for either during the hajj when the crowds are greatest, for maximum eradication, or perhaps during ramadan for maximum offense.

As for the oil fields, if BushCo hadn't been complicit in allowing the big oil companies to sit on all the alternative fuel tech they've bought up & control over the years, we'd have been independent of the arabs already. The technology already exists for cars that get 300 miles to the gallon, or that use solar power, and many other sources. Look at Brazil. If THEY can be independent of gasoline with their vehicles, is there a reason - except for Bush & Cheney - that WE can't? No, of course not. The problem is that Bush's buddies own the patents on all this stuff; they've been buying it up as it comes along, and then deep-sixing anything that threatens their hegemony, again, with the full complicity of BushCo.

We don't need the arabs or their oil; but if we stop buying their oil they're in deep shit because they have NOTHING else in the middle east except sand, camels, and terrorist half-wits.

STM - please explain your concept of the 'full privatization of Iraq's oil industry' in more detail

thanks

What else is there in the region that is equal to the world traid center?

Jet & Nancy,

You seriously think destroying a city of 1.3-million people, the spiritual centre for Islam in the world, focus of worship for millions, is equivalent payback for the destruction of the twin towers?

Jet, you are seriously starting to make George Bush Jr. and all his advisors look like bastions of common sense....

Aside from ensuring WWIII would absolutely happen (with no one and I mean no one on the US side) and millions of dead people, I fail to see what you could ever hope to accomplish with this type of idiocy.

Deano maybe if you'd start commenting on the article instead of the comments? And while we're at it, I like Nancy, but I'm not married to her and we don't think alike.

Troll, go to the link in comment 72, it explains it pretty clearly

Troll: It's complicated, but here's the basics ... Iraq's oil industry is nationalised, so that state control keeps a tight rein on supplies, sales, jobs contracts, tenders etc. At the moment, it's still run under the auspices of the US.

The worry is that if it were to be fully privatised (some foreign companies are already involved in infrastructure works out of neccesity) and sold off, the apple cart might be upset by some foreign companies being kept out of the buying process, which had happened previously in the former Soviet Union.

Big Oil (read multinational oil) was actually involved in the planning process for the war (not unreasonably, probably, since it is Iraq's greatest national asset and represents the world's second-largest single set of oil reserves), and in fact influenced both the course of the fighting - the seizure of the oil-rich al-Faw peninsula early in the campaign by the British is one example - and the subsequent security measures set up post-2003.

There is so much uncertainty in the west about the future of oil or the lack thereof and its potential to lead to the collapse of major economies, no-one was prepared to leave such reserves in the hands of a madman, or pan-Arab nationalists or an unstable country that might at some stage have become ripe for the picking by Muslim militants, particulary given the age-old divide between the Sunni muslims and the pro-Iranian Shia (it all gets damn complicated, doesn't it).

Whenever anyone gives you another reason for the invasion - like regime change, which WAS a good thing (and most Iraqis are grateful), or those hard to place WMDs - don't believe them.

It begins and ends with one thing: oil, and its power as a very big bargaining chip. However, the US was forced to have included in the Iraqi constitution the facility for the privatisation of the country's oil (after all, it is theirs).

It is unlikely to happen, however, any time soon.

There is some history to this, which people need to know when pondering the issue of Iraq: the British divided up a section of the old Ottoman Empire post WWI and turned it into modern Iraq at the stroke of a pen, bringing together a diverse group of people of diverse religious backgrounds who had few cultural ties.

This is part of the problem of today's Iraq. It has been described in the past as the bastard child of British colonialism. That's about as good a description as you'll get. Kuwait also figures heavily in this, as it was always part of Iraq and was an artificial creation of the British. The reason?: it's chock-a-block full of oil

In the north, where huge oil reserves had been discovered, the British engaged in a dirty war that spread across the country between 1920 and 1932 (similar to that being waged by the US today) but was aimed initially at stopping the Kurdish nationalist movement in northern Iraq from taking hold of that oil.

The Brits subsequently installed a pro-British constitutional monarchy in Iraq that came to grief in 1958 in a coup led by Abdul Karim Qasim and a group of Army officers with pro-Soviet leanings.

He began the process of booting out the western oil companies in the 60s, hoping to finally rid Iraq of British and "other imperial" influence (read the US into that).

In 1968, when the Baathists (Saddam's party) took power, they completed the process. Iraqis still feel very strongly about keeping it and reaping some of the immense profit to be had.

You can do some research of your own, as you sound interested. Try the local library.

Two books: Stephen Hemsley's Oil in the Middle East, its discovery and development (1954) and Arab Nationalism, Oil, and the Political Economy of Dependency, by Abbas Alnasrawi. They at are at opposite ends of the spectrum and will give good, differing viewpoints.

Here endeth the brief history lesson, and I hope I've got all the facts right. It's also good to see and understand how this stuff shapes what is going on today.

Cheers

actually it doesn't Jet...I was asking STM to describe what the ideal state of privatization would 'look like' - (not to worry - I read your article on the oil situation when you posted it)

good stuff STM - thanks...what are some examples of countries whose oil industries are 'fully privatized' - ?

Troll: I've left a rather long-winded reply for you ... hope you've got five minutes to spare

The US, for one, has a fully privatised oil industry. America's big oil not only owns all of America's big oil, it also owns lots of other people's oil around the world. Others have partially privatised oil industries, which are getting fairly close to full privatisation anyway.

Shell, meanwhile, a Dutch company, is currently embroiled in a mini-rebellion in Nigeria that revolves solely around the company's collaboration with the military regime and the huge money at stake while wages and benefits are not being returned to the immediate local economy.

Here's another Iraq bit that I forgot about. Initially in Iraq in 2003, ultra conservative elements wanted the Iraqi oilfields sold off to private interests, potentially to derail OPEC and bring down the equilibrium price of oil by massive increases in production.

The clever people within the US administration won out on that, and foiled any moves in that direction.

There can be no doubt, however, that the US decision wasn't entirely altruistic, given that nationalists in Iraq were using a potential sell-off of Iraq's oil wealth (by people who don't own it!) to whip up another avenue of struggle for the insurgency.

what does 'nationalized' mean in post Saddam Iraq - ?

if Iraq's government were to shift its funding from oil revenue to 'taxes' on oil production would that meet the criterion of privatization - ?

Jet,

I have previously commented on your original post. Responding to additional comments is a valid comment and you have done so yourself throughout this thread... it's called a thread for a reason.

If you don't want people to respond to the comments posted in a thread and reserve themselves strictly to the original post then I suggest you say so at the start.

Lastly, if you don't want someone to call you out on idiotic statements then don't make them.

{Psst! Ruvy #62: Haman}

Nancy #37: I'm sure there's no dearth of moxie on Ruvy's part; unfortunately he's not the one holding the reins of the IDF.

A good and sweet New Year to all.

Please redirect all research question in the future to STM... this has been a recorded announcement

Troll 82... sorry my bad

Do you realize the WMD I'd have If I actually wrote a truly right-wing article? Massive numbers of heart attacks would reported across the world for no apparent reason!!!

"It... it's.....it's the big one 'Lizabeth!!! I'm comin' for ya honey!!!!"

Jet - America had a "Big Stick" long before we had nuclear weapons. And although I am neither conventionally left nor right, I worry about this newly developing attitude that the U.S. must threaten the entire world with nuclear destruction if we don't always get our way. Previously nuclear deterrence was only matched against equally armed opponents such as the former Soviet Union or Communist China, and was rarely mentioned as a potential countermeasure against other nations.

The posters who keep talking about "bombing the hell out of an area until they cry uncle" write as though international relations were a prize fight. I still keep waiting for someone to explain exactly what happens after you get your "uncle moment" of unconditional surrender and how you intend to enforce it. Occupation? The installation of a puppet regime?

Your example of the repair of the Kuwait oil fields is spectacularly incomplete. We rescued Kuwait's government and ran Iraq out of the country. This is not the same thing as dealing with an unfriendly, defeated and occupied Iran or Iraq.

And how would you deal with this worst case scenario: a fanatical, suicidal Iranian insurgency does not attack the U.S. with nukes, but detonates them in their own oil fields. Radioactive oil would not be of any use to anyone, and the most fanatical branches of Islam have no particular interest in free markets or economic progress (the Taliban were entirely willing to see their country stagnate economically as long as it was religiously pure).

The critical failure of Bush's "Big Stick" approach is that it falsely assumes that being the lone remaining superpower means that you can totally ignore other countries' sense of their own national interest and destiny. The neocons who helped guide Bush into this mess have nothing to offer other than "do it more and harder."

"The neocons who helped guide Bush into this mess have nothing to offer other than "do it more and harder."

....essentially they are hitting themselves with their own stick then? Reminds me of a three stooges episode. Or was that a third awakening?

Alec, There's only one value to having a nuclear arsonal-having everyone thinking you have the balls to use it.

Right now no one in the world believes that the U.S. would actually use an atom bomb, therefore our arsonal is useless.

Nearly everyone in the world believes that Iran would use one if they had one, that makes them powerful.

I'm not now or will I advocate we nuke Iran or Iraq BUT, we would do better pulling our troops out and using our advanced laser guided bombs on suspected terrorist hot spots until they cry "uncle".

It worked in Germany, it'll work in Iraq, better than what we're doing now. It worked in Iraq until that fucking stupid "Mission Accomplished!!!" sign went up.

Tantum meus sententia
Jet

Martin #93... Both

I always loved the bizarre US terminology of the cold-war era (when as a small child, I was taught at my school near London how to hide under the desk in case there was an attack by the Soviet Union!).

My favourite was MAD ... Mutually Assured Destruction. Mad indeed. I spent some time in the Soviet Union in the early '80s, and they were absolutely convinced that if pushed, the US and its nuclear-armed allies would not hesitate to use their nuclear weapons.

I tried to explain to them that no-one in the West really wanted to have to do anything of the kind, and that the prevailing view was that they (the Russians) would be the only ones foolish enough to launch a first strike.

They, of course, believed the US would deliver the first strike. In fact, they were convinced of it. While that kind of nuclear Mexican stand-off continued, paradoxically, it kept the world safe.

But the balance of power has well and truly shifted, and the worrying thing is, what we used to see as power may no longer be so.

It might well be that people like Osama bin Laden, or the insurgents in Iraq (or Vietnam before them, or the IRA in Northern Ireland), or frightening bluff merchants like Iran, are the ones holding all the cards.

Our strength has become our weakness. It leaves us impotent because the big-stick approach doesn't work unless the other guy also has a big stick. You can't kill ants with a dirty-great stick. You need to get rid of their nests.

My solution to all this: raise more very highly trained special like Delta Force and the SAS, which have combined in many joint operations already, and have them secretly use mobile hit, hurt and run tactics around the globe so that we are playing by the same rules as the bad guys.

Let the guys in the black hats go about their daily lives, worrying whether they might be next. There are no civilised rules any more.

Time to use an iron first in a velvet glove.

But nukes? Nah, we really to have a planet.

Oh my yes, STM, by all means, pip pip ra-ther and all that rot. I'd use an Iron Fist before I used an iron first though, unless your speaking of an iron rather than a driver, than I'd use an iron first.

After all those damned divots can be a bitch!

If the Leader of the Great Satan wishes to take the great nation of Iran on in some sport in order to settle our differences, can I suggest tenpin bowling? Or perhaps Twister?

Mahmood

Mahmood damn it that hurt. Before my leg was nearly destroyed I bowled a 217 average...

Mahmood said: "If the Leader of the Great Satan wishes to take the great nation of Iran on in some sport in order to settle our differences, can I suggest tenpin bowling? Or perhaps Twister?"

Why don't we all just go the pub. Oops, sorry ... that's right, you can't have a beer. Or any alcoholic drink.

A chat while we're out walking the dogs, then. Sorry, forgot, it's sinful to have a dog if it's just a pet.

OK then, an early-morning surf followed by bacon and eggs at the beach?

What? No pork? Bugger. Sorry? You can't go to the beach, it's early prayer time and it's sinful to look at women in various states of undress.

OK, then, how about we just have a talk? No point, you say? You're right, and we're wrong.

Cricket? Rugby? No? Don't know 'em?

Then I guess we'll just have to settle for blowing the sh.t out of each other ...

And Jet, come on old boy, don't stereotype me with all the pip-pip, ra-ther crap, seriously, no-one's spoken like that for 100 years, except in American movies.

And I'm not even bloody British, anyway. I just think they are a decent bunch (with a few exceptions) and have made a major contribution to fair play and good world order - as we understand it.

Tally-ho, then .... I'm off

I have the entire DVD collection of the Emma Peel episodes of the Avengers. Sorry old Chap, uh excuse me old chum.

Jet said: ""I have the entire DVD collection of the Emma Peel episodes of the Avengers. Sorry old Chap, uh excuse me old chum."

She did wondrous things for me as a schoolboy ... it must have been the leather bodysuit.

somehow I suspected that STM... I did indeed...

Jet: re your #97, I think we should keep fisting out of this...

;-)

*smirks*

Maybe Mahmood & Bush could fight it out by a biking competition, or cutting brush? I would suggest speaking English, except Mahmood obviously has an edge there over Junior, who still can't pronounce 'nuclear' or match the correct number of subject & verb.

You're welcome old man. By the way happy belated birthday Chris. I'm sending a velvet glove. Sorry, despite the rumours, I'm not into fisting.

...but of course that's only my opinion...
Jet

Nancy, Do you know who long it's been since I called someone a Bitch????? Thanks to you I'm going to have a picture of Bush in a pair of spandex bike pants stuck in my head for the next hour or so.

fortunately I have to be at my shrink's at noon.

bitch



;)


...but of course that's only my opinion
Jet

Chris, we'll have to go golfing sometime if I ever make it to europe again. Of course when I get home this afternoon, I'll have to find my iron first


...but of course that's only my opinion
Jet

Re 96 97 98 105 & 107...STM shouldn't you take the glove off the iron first before using it? although I guess it might help in a sand trap...

Dear readers

I am disappointed by these comments.

My blog is at www.blog-ahmadinejad.com and contains my thoughts on these matters.

Regards

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President of Iran

No, they already think we're weak, although they shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that kindness is weakness. Let them think we're really nice, trying to find other solutions ... and then, wham! they cop it fair up the clacker.

(That's just a bit of Aussie slang, Jet ... calm down old boy). But no nukes!!

On an unrelated note, I loved your piece containing Robbo's story. Well researched, too.

He has recently been involved in a coroner's court case here giving evidence in relation to a man named as a person of interest in the murder of a street kid Robbo had once looked after.

He remains a loved figure here. His coming out probably only added to the respect he'd already garnered as a footballer.

Oh my god the... the president of Iran left a message on my undeserving little article, I'm so proud I forgot what I did with my iron first!

...but that's only my opinion
© 2006 Jet in Columbus

STM... Did you know that Cleaning woman Clara Clifford caught Cleveland's cleptomaniac Claud Cooper copping clean copper clappers from the closet?

...President Bush in Washington, who said that if it is true that Iran has doubled its enrichment capacity, the United States must increase its efforts to work with the international community to persuade Iran to halt the program or face isolation.

"But whether they've doubled it or not, the idea of Iran having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable, and it's unacceptable to the United States and it's unacceptable to nations we're working with in the United Nations to send a common message," he said at the White House.


For the rest of this NEW YORK TIMES article click anywhere in the colored section

Dear god, does anyone remember what happened when Bush said North Korea was unacceptable?

Just revisited this...

The act of sensless killing without remourse is so engraved in the middle eastern mind, it may come down to bombing them out of existance and starting all over again in the region.

We can't possibly win in the middle east or even achieve a fragile peace, if we're the only ones fighting a civilized gentleman's war, being careful not to hurt any women and children along the way.

That's now how we won every other war. If they don't fear us, we might as well just pull out now, pull up our pants, and skulk out the back door.

...leaving a lot of money on the whore's dresser drawer of course.

Looms like a long time since anyone but Jet has commented on this one, so I won't either. Except to say that it caught my eye because the title of the article sounds like it should be a clue in the London Times crossword. Hmm... how many letters though?

The Japanese and Germans were no less fanatic during WWII. I can see no other way to bring peace to the region other than the credible threat of total inihilation, as we did the Germans and demonstrated that we would do to the Japanese.

If you have a better solution I'd like to here it.

5 letters