It's a mess no matter how you look at it...

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:55:39 -0700, blazinglaser
<blazinglaser.nospamplease@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:28:56 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html

This is an interesting article from Bob Novak. He begins by admitting
that our occupation of Iraq is not working, and outlining the several
alternative courses of action, none of them very appetising. Then he
suggests that decision-makers in the Bush admin. have already decided
to pull out early next year, allowing Iraq to slide into civil war,
most likely resulting in a Shi'ite quasi-theocracy a la Iran. The
Bushies will be satisfied with having rid Iraq of Saddam and will give
up their dream of establishing a model western-style democracy in
Iraq.

It's a mess no matter how you look at it...

I just don't think this is very likely. Maybe it's simplistic and
naive to suppose the whole war is only about oil, but I think anyone
would agree that we wouldn't have invaded in the first place if Iraq
didn't have oil. I don't think the Bushies are ready to let that oil
slip through their fingers. They wouldn't put it that way of course,
they would say an unstable Iraq or a Shi'ite Iraq would 'endanger
America's energy security'. Which is a spin. Establishing American
hegemony over the Middle East was the one overriding goal they brought
to the office in the first place. Letting go of Iraq would be an act
of sheer desperation, a last-resort, like an animal chewing off its
own paw to escape a trap.

Letting go of Iraq would really mean that Iraq would no longer deal
with US companies to develop and market it's oil resources but rather
the French and Germans and Japanese. I just don't think our
oil-powered admin. would stand for that. Also, ironically, it would
mean a rich, powerful Middle East country that hated our guts and
would sponsor terrorists, work with Al Quaeda and develop WMD--as
Saddam -didn't- do.

-----

Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec

The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1033 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting

Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless

. . . Then he
suggests that decision-makers in the Bush admin. have already decided
to pull out early next year, allowing Iraq to slide into civil war,
most likely resulting in a Shi'ite quasi-theocracy a la Iran. The
Bushies will be satisfied with having rid Iraq of Saddam and will give
up their dream of establishing a model western-style democracy in
Iraq.

I just don't think this is very likely.

bg12345@apexmail.com (Bob Dog) wrote:
Au contraire. It's exactly what is going to happen. Iraq
isn't (and never was) "winnable". Bugging out and leaving
it to the locals is the only solution. Just look at Iran:
once violence is no longer tolerable to the locals and they
insist on democracy, it will happen. Democracy is never
imposed from the outside, it is built from within.

If that means years of civil war and thousands dead, you
can thank Shrub for that, not Saddam. It's inevitable. He
should have been controlled (and he was controllable), not
removed.

Maybe it's simplistic and
naive to suppose the whole war is only about oil, but I think anyone
would agree that we wouldn't have invaded in the first place if Iraq
didn't have oil. I don't think the Bushies are ready to let that oil
slip through their fingers.

Whom are you kidding? (Being semisarcastic.)
It was solely about oil. Sudan, where US forces were needed
to prevent genocide, was left to rot. If the US government
were truly out spread democracy and defend human rights, it
would go where the best interests of other countries are at
issue, not "American interests".

Shrub's support of dicatorships (Khazakstan, Uzbekistan,
Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.) and attempts to destroy
a democracy (Venezuela) have been about oil, the US dollar
rather than Euros as OPEC's currency, and naught else.

They wouldn't put it that way of course,
they would say an unstable Iraq or a Shi'ite Iraq would 'endanger
America's energy security'. Which is a spin. Establishing American
hegemony over the Middle East was the one overriding goal they brought
to the office in the first place. Letting go of Iraq would be an act
of sheer desperation, a last-resort, like an animal chewing off its
own paw to escape a trap.

What an apt description. Iraq is no longer about winning,
but about cutting losses.

If you really want to talk about spin, listen for the phrase
"strategic retreat" instead of running away. (The US is the
nation that invented the term "pre-dawn vertical insertion"
to avoid calling it a "first strike" in Grenada.) After all,
the US would never admit that their colours *do* run, like
they did from Vietnam and Beirut.

Letting go of Iraq would really mean that Iraq would no longer deal
with US companies to develop and market it's oil resources but rather
the French and Germans and Japanese. I just don't think our
oil-powered admin. would stand for that. Also, ironically, it would
mean a rich, powerful Middle East country that hated our guts and
would sponsor terrorists, work with Al Quaeda and develop WMD--as
Saddam -didn't- do.

And as "American allied" Saudi Arabia and Pakistan do.

If you really want to talk about spin, listen for the phrase
"strategic retreat" instead of running away. (The US is the
nation that invented the term "pre-dawn vertical insertion"
to avoid calling it a "first strike" in Grenada.) After all,
the US would never admit that their colours *do* run, like
they did from Vietnam and Beirut.

I mean, if Alexander can conquer the known world in a few years,
and a small nation like Germany can almost conquer Europe
and Russia too, why can't a superior force like the US defeat
bad Islamic regimes far less militarily capable?