| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kurt Nicklas" |
| Date: |
11 Sep 2007 05:29:22 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
On Sep 11, 6:12 pm, "El Kabong" <medii45...@mypacks.net> wrote:
Is Petraeus Lying?
No.
.
|
|
| User: "Benj" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
12 Sep 2007 01:30:48 PM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
On Sep 11, 6:12 pm, "El Kabong" <medii45...@mypacks.net> wrote:
Is Petraeus Lying?
No.
Is it politics? Then it must be lies! I just don't get people who
think that 'murika can stick it's big nose into the middle east
(personally rather than by Israeli proxy) and not be dragged into the
mess that has been there for eons. Cripes. Even people of the SAME
religion and political views blow each other up with regularity, and
we think after all those thousands of years of hatred we are going to
waltz in there and show them "how"? <snort>
But hey, all the liberals with snake oil solutions to the world's
problems (how many liberals do you think ACTUALLY have a windmill or
solar cell on their house? Those "answers" are for other people not
for them!) haven't really noticed that 'murika is still sort of an
industrial nation. The whole place runs on energy. Go out side an
count a few cars some noon. Oil is really the only present practical
source of such energy. And (DUH!) Iraq just "happens" to be the
world's second largest oil reserve. So I ask all of you. How much is
YOUR life worth? How much is your country worth? How much effort
should we exert now when it's relatively "easy" to save it later? How
"wonderful" is the Dem idea of "bringing all the troops home to mom"
and turning all that oil over to Iran and Russia? What kind of future
for THIS COUNTRY will that act insure? Dems of course give a damn if
we all starve to death. The way they look at it, is that any lie that
gets you elected is valid. The price to be paid later for what they
lie about now...Well that is the problem of the NEXT guy to be elected!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
13 Sep 2007 11:11:02 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:30:48 -0700, Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:
But hey, all the liberals with snake oil solutions to the world's
problems
It was NEOCONS, not liberals, who got us into the Iraqi mess.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
14 Sep 2007 04:59:49 PM |
|
|
On Sep 13, 12:11 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:30:48 -0700, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
But hey, all the liberals with snake oil solutions to the world's
problems
It was NEOCONS, not liberals, who got us into the Iraqi mess.
Not Really!!!
The ashes belong in Carter's and Clinton's stockings
with a little help from Chirac, Generals Wesley Clark,
and Colon Bowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
14 Sep 2007 08:56:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:59:49 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 13, 12:11 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:30:48 -0700, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
But hey, all the liberals with snake oil solutions to the world's
problems
It was NEOCONS, not liberals, who got us into the Iraqi mess.
Not Really!!!
The ashes belong in Carter's and Clinton's stockings
with a little help from Chirac, Generals Wesley Clark,
and Colon Bowell
Not really - We weren't committed to invade Iraq until Bush invaded.
Bush is a neocon, not a liberal.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
11 Sep 2007 11:16:22 PM |
|
|
On Sep 11, 5:29 pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Sep 11, 6:12 pm, "El Kabong" <medii45...@mypacks.net> wrote:
Is Petraeus Lying?
No.
Sure, Iraq is almost ready for your investment. All the deaths and
amputations are
about over and we can soon forget about the 200,000 people who died
over
there cause, we won, yippie. Yes sir re, as long as you are not
unfortunate enough to be
born anywhere but the US of A, the best solution is a military
solution.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
12 Sep 2007 02:23:55 PM |
|
|
On Sep 11, 9:16 pm, Larry <ls...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
On Sep 11, 5:29 pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Sep 11, 6:12 pm, "El Kabong" <medii45...@mypacks.net> wrote:
Is Petraeus Lying?
No.
Sure, Iraq is almost ready for your investment. All the deaths and
amputations are
about over and we can soon forget about the 200,000 people who died
over
there cause, we won, yippie. Yes sir re, as long as you are not
unfortunate enough to be
born anywhere but the US of A, the best solution is a military
solution.
Emotional. Twaddle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
13 Sep 2007 08:12:06 AM |
|
|
On Sep 12, 2:23 pm, wrote:
On Sep 11, 9:16 pm, Larry <ls...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
On Sep 11, 5:29 pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Sep 11, 6:12 pm, "El Kabong" <medii45...@mypacks.net> wrote:
Is Petraeus Lying?
No.
Sure, Iraq is almost ready for your investment. All the deaths and
amputations are
about over and we can soon forget about the 200,000 people who died
over
there cause, we won, yippie. Yes sir re, as long as you are not
unfortunate enough to be
born anywhere but the US of A, the best solution is a military
solution.
Emotional. Twaddle.
Tell that to all the people who mourned during the 9-11
commemorations.
Larry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Felix D." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
13 Sep 2007 09:28:10 PM |
|
|
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1189689126.095027.295080@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 2:23 pm, wrote:
On Sep 11, 9:16 pm, Larry <ls...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
On Sep 11, 5:29 pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Sep 11, 6:12 pm, "El Kabong" <medii45...@mypacks.net> wrote:
Is Petraeus Lying?
No.
Sure, Iraq is almost ready for your investment. All the deaths and
amputations are
about over and we can soon forget about the 200,000 people who died
over
there cause, we won, yippie. Yes sir re, as long as you are not
unfortunate enough to be
born anywhere but the US of A, the best solution is a military
solution.
Emotional. Twaddle.
Tell that to all the people who mourned during the 9-11
commemorations.
Okay: "Larry" is peddling emotional twaddle that denigrates the sacrifices
your loved ones made.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
14 Sep 2007 12:57:50 PM |
|
|
On Sep 13, 9:28 pm, "Felix D." <#1Chek...@OGPU.org> wrote:
<ls...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1189689126.095027.295080@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 2:23 pm, wrote:
On Sep 11, 9:16 pm, Larry <ls...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote:
On Sep 11, 5:29 pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Sep 11, 6:12 pm, "El Kabong" <medii45...@mypacks.net> wrote:
Is Petraeus Lying?
No.
Sure, Iraq is almost ready for your investment. All the deaths and
amputations are
about over and we can soon forget about the 200,000 people who died
over
there cause, we won, yippie. Yes sir re, as long as you are not
unfortunate enough to be
born anywhere but the US of A, the best solution is a military
solution.
Emotional. Twaddle.
Tell that to all the people who mourned during the 9-11
commemorations.
Okay: "Larry" is peddling emotional twaddle that denigrates the sacrifices
your loved ones made.
So you call mourning the deaths of 200,000 people emotional twaddle,
then
mourning the 3,000 that died in 9-11 must be crying over spilled milk.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Felix D." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
14 Sep 2007 08:35:58 PM |
|
|
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1189792670.984182.278990@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
So you call mourning the deaths of 200,000 people emotional twaddle,
then
mourning the 3,000 that died in 9-11 must be crying over spilled milk.
What is this 200,000 figure? Is this something your nutty professor fobbed
off on you?
(And, for your education, it wasn't milk the muzzies spilled on 9/11: it
was blood that still cries out for vengeance.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Felix D." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
13 Sep 2007 09:29:11 PM |
|
|
<lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1189689126.095027.295080@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Jesus H Christ: without looking, I responded to an edu-maggot.
Sorry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
14 Sep 2007 09:16:08 PM |
|
|
On Sep 13, 9:29 pm, "Felix D." <#1Chek...@OGPU.org> wrote:
<ls...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:1189689126.095027.295080@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
Jesus H Christ: without looking, I responded to an edu-maggot.
Immature insult.
In the future if you have nothing of substance to say I will not
bother to reply.
Larry
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
13 Sep 2007 11:12:25 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:12:06 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 12, 2:23 pm, wrote:
Emotional. Twaddle.
Tell that to all the people who mourned during the 9-11
commemorations.
I'm sure they all wanted a country that had nothing to do with the
deaths invaded as retribution. The ones as insane, anyway.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
14 Sep 2007 12:55:14 PM |
|
|
On Sep 13, 11:12 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:12:06 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 12, 2:23 pm, wrote:
Emotional. Twaddle.
Tell that to all the people who mourned during the 9-11
commemorations.
I'm sure they all wanted a country that had nothing to do with the
deaths invaded as retribution. The ones as insane, anyway.
I bet your right.
I was trying to point out that when 2752 Americans die (9-11), that
they
say "everything changed". 9-11 was no doubt one of the saddest days
in the history of the United States.
That being said, The invasion of Iraq has resulted in probably 100
times as many deaths, and the right wingers call it emotional twaddle
when you express how horrible that was.
Even now, if somehow the Iraqi government were to pull it all together
and create a peaceful democracy flowing with oil money, the neo-cons
would call it success, and use it to demonstrate why we should invade
other countries. I however will not forget the thousands the invasion
killed.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
14 Sep 2007 03:55:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:55:14 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:12 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:12:06 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 12, 2:23 pm, wrote:
Emotional. Twaddle.
Tell that to all the people who mourned during the 9-11
commemorations.
I'm sure they all wanted a country that had nothing to do with the
deaths invaded as retribution. The ones as insane, anyway.
I bet your right.
I was trying to point out that when 2752 Americans die (9-11), that
they
say "everything changed". 9-11 was no doubt one of the saddest days
in the history of the United States.
That being said, The invasion of Iraq has resulted in probably 100
times as many deaths, and the right wingers call it emotional twaddle
when you express how horrible that was.
1.2 million is a little more than 100 times 3700.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
14 Sep 2007 09:28:43 PM |
|
|
On Sep 14, 3:55 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:55:14 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:12 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:12:06 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 12, 2:23 pm, wrote:
Emotional. Twaddle.
Tell that to all the people who mourned during the 9-11
commemorations.
I'm sure they all wanted a country that had nothing to do with the
deaths invaded as retribution. The ones as insane, anyway.
I bet your right.
I was trying to point out that when 2752 Americans die (9-11), that
they
say "everything changed". 9-11 was no doubt one of the saddest days
in the history of the United States.
That being said, The invasion of Iraq has resulted in probably 100
times as many deaths, and the right wingers call it emotional twaddle
when you express how horrible that was.
1.2 million is a little more than 100 times 3700.
The lancet's 2006 study:
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
states that there have been "654 965 (392 979-942 636) excess Iraqi
deaths"
so maybe I should have written 200 times. However over a year has
passed since
then, do you know of more recent figures?
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
15 Sep 2007 12:28:26 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:28:43 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:55 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:55:14 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:12 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:12:06 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 12, 2:23 pm, wrote:
Emotional. Twaddle.
Tell that to all the people who mourned during the 9-11
commemorations.
I'm sure they all wanted a country that had nothing to do with the
deaths invaded as retribution. The ones as insane, anyway.
I bet your right.
I was trying to point out that when 2752 Americans die (9-11), that
they
say "everything changed". 9-11 was no doubt one of the saddest days
in the history of the United States.
That being said, The invasion of Iraq has resulted in probably 100
times as many deaths, and the right wingers call it emotional twaddle
when you express how horrible that was.
1.2 million is a little more than 100 times 3700.
The lancet's 2006 study:
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
states that there have been "654 965 (392 979-942 636) excess Iraqi
deaths"
"Excess" deaths isn't "all deaths due to the US invasion".
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
15 Sep 2007 03:43:26 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:28:26 -0400, in alt.atheism
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
<qg5oe3h7vh8pcibkrle5enordu0817a00l@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:28:43 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:55 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:55:14 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:12 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:12:06 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 12, 2:23 pm, wrote:
Emotional. Twaddle.
Tell that to all the people who mourned during the 9-11
commemorations.
I'm sure they all wanted a country that had nothing to do with the
deaths invaded as retribution. The ones as insane, anyway.
I bet your right.
I was trying to point out that when 2752 Americans die (9-11), that
they
say "everything changed". 9-11 was no doubt one of the saddest days
in the history of the United States.
That being said, The invasion of Iraq has resulted in probably 100
times as many deaths, and the right wingers call it emotional twaddle
when you express how horrible that was.
1.2 million is a little more than 100 times 3700.
The lancet's 2006 study:
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
states that there have been "654 965 (392 979-942 636) excess Iraqi
deaths"
"Excess" deaths isn't "all deaths due to the US invasion".
No, it's all deaths that were incurred in excess of the historical
norms. Having a destroyed infrastruction increases the number of people
who die because healthcare is failing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
15 Sep 2007 08:13:37 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:43:26 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:28:26 -0400, in alt.atheism
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
<qg5oe3h7vh8pcibkrle5enordu0817a00l@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:28:43 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:55 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:55:14 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:12 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:12:06 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 12, 2:23 pm, wrote:
Emotional. Twaddle.
Tell that to all the people who mourned during the 9-11
commemorations.
I'm sure they all wanted a country that had nothing to do with the
deaths invaded as retribution. The ones as insane, anyway.
I bet your right.
I was trying to point out that when 2752 Americans die (9-11), that
they
say "everything changed". 9-11 was no doubt one of the saddest days
in the history of the United States.
That being said, The invasion of Iraq has resulted in probably 100
times as many deaths, and the right wingers call it emotional twaddle
when you express how horrible that was.
1.2 million is a little more than 100 times 3700.
The lancet's 2006 study:
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
states that there have been "654 965 (392 979-942 636) excess Iraqi
deaths"
"Excess" deaths isn't "all deaths due to the US invasion".
No, it's all deaths that were incurred in excess of the historical
norms. Having a destroyed infrastruction increases the number of people
who die because healthcare is failing.
Of course those shot in the FRONT of the head don't count any more, do
they? Or those who actually ARE killed due to crime - that wouldn't
be happening if we hadn't destroyed the infrastructure? Or all sorts
of other deaths that aren't officially due to our invasion that really
are?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
12 Sep 2007 05:06:18 AM |
|
|
On Sep 11, 6:29 pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Sep 11, 6:12 pm, "El Kabong" <medii45...@mypacks.net> wrote:
Is Petraeus Lying?
No.
Yes, dorkwad, he is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr D. Mr D@Mr Dcom.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
12 Sep 2007 08:06:13 AM |
|
|
<kyldltn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1189591578.255917.7440@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 11, 6:29 pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Sep 11, 6:12 pm, "El Kabong" <medii45...@mypacks.net> wrote:
Is Petraeus Lying?
No.
Yes, dorkwad, he is.
MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media
September 12, 2007
MEDIA ALERT: LOADED WORDS: 'Surge', 'Reconstruction' And 'Withdrawal'
News media this week are devoting huge swathes of coverage to the report by
General David Petraeus, the top US military commander in Iraq, on the impact
of the so-called 'surge' of US troops. The surge boosted the number of US
troops in Iraq earlier this year by 30,000 to 168,000.
BBC world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds writes that Petraeus's report
"is expected to hold out just enough hope to enable the Bush administration
to see off efforts by Democrats in Congress to set a timetable for a
withdrawal." (BBC news online, 'Petraeus buys time for Iraq strategy,'
September 10, 2007;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6985878.stm)
But very little is being reported about the role of the surge in the violent
suppression of the Iraqi resistance and in the deaths of innocent civilians.
About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by
the surge. (BBC news online, 'US surge has failed - Iraqi poll,' September
10, 2007; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6983841.stm)
This has exacerbated the suffering of a nation where more than 2.2 million
people out of a population of 27 million have fled their country, most to
Syria and Jordan. Another 1.9 million Iraqis are refugees within their own
country.
According to the Iraqi Red Crescent, the total number of internally
displaced people has jumped from 499,000 to 1.1 million since the start of
the surge. The UN-run International Organisation for Migration (IOM) also
recently reported that refugees from the fighting in Baghdad had increased
by a factor of 20 over the same period. (James Glanz and Stephen Farrell,
'More Iraqis Said to Flee Since Troop Rise,' New York Times, August 24,
2007)
In reporting these figures, the Independent commented:
"These damning statistics reveal that despite much-trumpeted security
improvements in certain areas, the level of murderous violence has not
declined." (Leonard Doyle, 'US surge sees 600,000 more Iraqis abandon home,'
The Independent, 25 August 2007)
The presumption behind this comment is that only insurgent groups are
responsible for "murderous violence" in Iraq. One might respond that the
level of murderous violence has not declined for the simple reason that
American murderous violence has increased!
In similar vein, the BBC's James Robbins described the surge as "a strategy
designed to overwhelm the violence" (BBC 1 News, August 15, 2007). Again,
American killing is not "violence"; it is an attempt to stop "violence".
And yet according to Dana Graber Ladek, Iraq displacement specialist for the
Iraq office of IOM, military operations by surge troops and Iraqi government
forces are a factor in the rise in refugees:
"If a surge means that soldiers are on the streets patrolling to make sure
there is no violence, that is one thing. If a surge means military
operations where there are attacks and bombings, then obviously that is
going to create displacement." (Glanz and Farrell, op. cit.)
Increasing insecurity is leading to the failure of the monthly food
rationing system on which five million Iraqis depend. Up to eight million
people require immediate emergency aid, with nearly half this number living
in "absolute poverty". (IRIN, 'Food rationing system failing as Ramadan
approaches', September 9, 2007;
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=74196)
In October 2006, a study in the Lancet journal estimated that 655,000 Iraqis
had died as a result of the invasion.
These facts rarely make headlines. Instead, corporate news coverage is
focused on wrangles in Washington over the Petraeus report, and on whether
the Bush administration will be able to maintain its military strategy until
Spring 2008 - when the extended 15-month US troop postings end. It is
claimed that Bush is desperate to stave off Democrat demands for "rapid
withdrawal" of US forces.
The stated aims of the surge have been sold by US-UK government and military
sources, and by faithful corporate news media, as 'stability' and
'reconstruction' allowing an Iraqi 'democracy' to take root. Take, for
example, the Independent's political editor, Andrew Grice, who quoted
Major-General Tim Cross, the most senior British officer involved in
post-war planning in Iraq. Cross, said Grice, had "raised concerns over the
numbers of troops on the ground available to maintain security and aid
reconstruction in Iraq." (Grice, The Independent, September 3, 2007)
Likewise, BBC business reporter Robert Plummer wrote:
"The US troop surge in Iraq has been accompanied by a similar surge in the
amount of US funds devoted to Iraqi reconstruction."
adding:
"Now the US wants Iraq to pass an oil law as a means of promoting
reconciliation among different religious and ethnic groups." (Robert
Plummer, 'Little progress on halting Iraq's decay,' BBC news online,
September 6, 2007; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6977728.stm)
(After we challenged Plummer, he changed the wording to: "Now the US wants
Iraq to pass an oil law, as what it says is a means of promoting
reconciliation among different religious and ethnic groups.")
The rhetoric was echoed by another BBC report which claimed:
"The surge was designed to allow space for political reconciliation." (BBC
news online, 'US surge "failure" says Iraq poll,' September 10, 2007;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6983841.stm)
As ever, the BBC is presenting US pronouncements as fact.
Burning Astronomical Sums
The Financial Times reports that the war in Iraq and "efforts to rebuild the
country" have cost British taxpayers around £6.6 billion to date. (Alex
Barker, 'Total cost of conflict in Iraq hits Pounds 6.6bn,' Financial Times,
August 27, 2007). This is a third more than funds set aside by Gordon Brown
when he was chancellor of the exchequer. The FT noted that the figure is
likely an underestimate because hidden costs, such as salaries, are
excluded.
In addition, truly astronomical sums of US public money are being consumed
by the war; journalist Ed Harriman reports a "burn rate" of $10 billion
every month. A fraction of that - a still considerable figure - has gone to
Iraqi 'reconstruction'.
But according to the most recent quarterly report to Congress of the US
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (Sigir), almost all the
American money set aside to rebuild Iraq - more than $21 billion
appropriated by Congress four years ago - has already been spent. So, too,
has $20 billion of Iraqi money handed over by Paul Bremer, Bush's proconsul
in Baghdad in the first year of the occupation. Harriman reports:
"Much of the money was used to pay for American goods and services and never
reached Iraq. Much of the rest disappeared and has never been properly
accounted for." (Ed Harriman, 'Burn Rate,' London Review of Books, Vol 29,
No 17, September 6, 2007; http://lrb.co.uk/v29/n17/harr04_.html)
Last year, Congress approved $2.2 billion for "Iraqi relief and
reconstruction". Much of this money is for so-called Provincial
Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Ten of these "civilian-military" teams are
"embedded within brigade combat teams", with a "primary mission of
supporting counterinsurgency operations". As Sigir explains, "though
referred to under the umbrella term, +reconstruction+, the PRT mission
includes 'counterinsurgency and stability operations'."
Thus, considerable sums of money for 'reconstruction' are actually being
used to attack and kill Iraqis.
About $700 million of the $2.2 billion fund has been devoted to something
called the Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP). A report by the
Congressional Research Service explains that the money is "available to
pacify the local population where PRTs reside". The 'US Army and Marine
Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual', co-authored by General Petraeus
himself, describes this as "Money as a Weapons System". Few people know
exactly where the money goes; Congress has not asked for detailed accounts,
and Sigir found that "there is no mechanism in place to specifically measure
the outputs and outcomes of CERP-funded projects." Harriman notes that these
US funds are "functionally very similar to the slush funds used to buy local
support during the Vietnam War." (Ibid.)
As ever, media observers would be hard pressed to find any of this discussed
in mainstream news reports.
'Reconstruction' = Preparation For Permanent Occupation
The rhetoric of 'reconstruction' bears further investigation. Consider that
a new BBC poll of 23,000 people across 22 countries reveals that most (67%)
believe US troops should withdraw within one year. (BBC news online, 'Most
people "want Iraq pull-out",' September 7, 2007;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6981553.stm) Half of those
polled (49%) "believed the US would have bases in Iraq permanently".
But, quite apart from public belief, there is substantial +evidence+ that
the US plans a permanent presence in Iraq. 'The Bases Are Loaded', a
powerful documentary made by Alternate Focus (www.alternatefocus.org), an
independent US-based film company, sums up the reality:
"Will the US ever leave Iraq? Official policy promises an eventual
departure, while warning of the dire consequences of a 'premature'
withdrawal. But while Washington equivocates, facts on the ground tell
another story. Independent journalist Dahr Jamail, and author Chalmers
Johnson, are discovering that military bases in Iraq are being consolidated
from over a hundred to a handful of 'megabases' with lavish amenities. Much
of what is taking place is obscured by denials and quibbles over the
definition of 'permanent.'" ('The Bases Are Loaded,'
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18295.htm)
The documentary begins with President Bush's address to the Iraqi people on
the eve of the invasion in March 2003:
"The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal
regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique
threat to the world. Coalition forces will help maintain law and order, so
that Iraqis can live in security. We will respect your great religious
traditions, whose principles of equality and compassion are essential to
Iraq's future. We will help you build a peaceful and representative
government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military
forces will leave." (Bush, address to the Iraqi people, March 2003;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-2.html)
Journalist James Goldsborough responds:
"I don't think the Bush government has any intention of leaving Iraq. They
want permanent US bases there." ('The Bases Are Loaded,' op. cit.)
Dahr Jamail, who has bravely reported as an unembedded journalist from Iraq,
fills out the picture:
"There were over a hundred bases and forward operating bases in Iraq at one
point but they're slowly consolidating them over time and so now the
number's under 55 - I think it's 53 or 54. But they're consolidating them
down to, it looks now like a minimum number of 6 of these megabases, and a
maximum of probably 12." ('The Bases Are Loaded,' op. cit.)
Indeed, confirmation comes from Major Joseph Breasseale, a senior spokesman
for the coalition forces' headquarters in Iraq, who told The Independent on
Sunday last year:
"The current plan is to reduce the coalition footprint into six
consolidation bases." (Andrew Buncombe, 'US and UK establish "enduring
bases" in Iraq,' Independent on Sunday, April 2, 2006)
Chalmers Johnson, author of the 'Blowback' trilogy on American Imperialism,
points out that the vast amounts of money being spent on these megabases
"are just simply unbelievable. These supplementary appropriations every year
[are] in the $75-$100 billion range, at least half of it is going for
base-building in Iraq, and is almost totally unsupervised by anybody." ('The
Bases Are Loaded,' op. cit.)
One of the biggest sites under construction is the US embassy in Baghdad.
The massive $592-million compound, due to be completed this month, "may be
the most lasting monument to the U.S. occupation in the war-torn nation",
according to David Phinney, a researcher with CorpWatch. Much of the
construction work is being done by Asian migrants who work 12 hours a day,
often seven days a week, and earn as little as $500 a month performing tasks
considered unsuitable for US personnel.
Phinney reports:
"The 1,000 or more U.S. government officials calling the new compound home
will have access to a gym, swimming pool, barber and beauty shops, a food
court and a commissary. In addition to the main embassy buildings, there
will be a large-scale US Marine barracks, a school, locker rooms, a
warehouse, a vehicle maintenance garage, and six apartment buildings with a
total of 619 one-bedroom units. Water, electricity and sewage treatment
plants will all be independent from Baghdad's city utilities. The total site
will be two-thirds the area of the National Mall in Washington, DC."
(Phinney, 'Baghdad Embassy Bonanza. Kuwait Company's Secret Contract &
Low-Wage Labor,' CorpWatch, February 12, 2006;
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13258)
Jamail points out that the megabases, including the huge Balad air base, are
"very similar as far as amenities, and infrastructure of the base, and the
size, and the number of people there as you would see in, for example,
[permanent] American bases in Germany, American bases in Okinawa, American
bases in South Korea, American bases in other parts of the Middle East.
[...] these are the same types of bases that are being built in Iraq." ('The
Bases Are Loaded,' op. cit.)
An Associated Press (AP) news report explains the importance of the Balad
air base:
"In the counterinsurgency fight, Balad's central location enables strike
aircraft to reach targets in minutes. And in the broader context of
reinforcing the U.S. presence in the oil-rich Mideast, Iraq bases are
preferable to aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, said a longtime defense
analyst." ('Extended presence of U.S. in Iraq looms large. $1 billion for
construction of American military bases and no public plans,' AP press
release from Balad Air Base, March 21, 2006;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11072377/)
"Carriers don't have the punch," according to Gordon Adams of Washington's
George Washington University. "There's a huge advantage to land-based
infrastructure. At the level of strategy it makes total sense to have Iraq
bases."
As AP noted, one US congressional study cited another - less discussed - use
for Iraq bases: to install anti-ballistic 'defenses' against Iran. (Ibid.)
Needless to say, the intention is to strengthen the grip of the US on the
Middle East.
Chalmers Johnson emphasises that the number of US military bases in the
Middle East and around the world is huge and, indeed, unknown:
"In the past, empires used to be noted in terms of colonies. Today it's
military bases and the current number is 737. That's the Pentagon's number;
it's not accurate. There's any number of bases that they don't include in
the Base Structure Report every year. [...] the Report is an annual
inventory, and it is not classified. But they do not include any of the
espionage bases. They do not include any of the bases that are deeply
embarrassing to us or to the regime that allowed us to build a base there.
[...] for example, our headquarters in the Middle East today is in Qatar.
We don't list any of the bases in Qatar in the Base Structure Report." ('The
Bases Are Loaded,' op. cit.)
As researcher Jules Defour notes, this global network of military bases
enables US "control of humanity's economic, social and political
activities." Two major elements of this global domination are US control of
the world economy and its financial markets, and control of primary
resources and nonrenewable sources of energy. The latter control mechanism
constitutes "the cornerstone of US power through the activities of its
multinational corporations". (Defour, 'The worldwide network of US military
bases,' July 1, 2007;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564)
Iraq, in particular, is of crucial importance as it has the third largest
oil reserves on the planet. As Nadia Keilani, an Iraqi-American attorney,
says:
"When Saudi oil has long run out, when all Gulf nations are without any more
petroleum resources, Iraq would still sit on a sea of oil. The country that
controls Iraq is the country that will essentially get to dictate the world
economy for the next generation and possibly more." ('The Bases Are Loaded,'
op. cit.)
-------
M.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Syd M." |
|
| Title: Re: Is Petraeus Lying? |
12 Sep 2007 03:14:26 AM |
|
|
On Sep 11, 6:29 pm, Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Sep 11, 6:12 pm, "El Kabong" <medii45...@mypacks.net> wrote:
Is Petraeus Lying?
No.
Yes.
Through the teeth.
PDW
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
