Disseminator wrote:

"Empire" is one of those lefty phrases that
I don't use much but we did get into the
"empire" business during the Spanish American
War

Right, which explains Puerto Rico,
Guam, and the Philippines.

and the title would still fit if we ever
managed to keep Iraqi oil flowing for a profit.

No, it wouldn't. We ended what little imperialism
we practiced (which went back to our expansion in North America and
prevention of secession of much of it) after World War II.

Lefties like the phrase because it implies an
anti-American mindset on the part of warhawks.

It does no such thing. The misuse of "imperialism" makes lefties
look anti-American.

I prefer the phrase: "Operation Safer Mideast"
since it implies that we are making the Mideast
safer for Israel.(unless someone thinks that we
really care about anyone else in the Mideast.)

The Bush people may -- the Arabs and Iran have the oil.

The USA has every right at this time to attack both Iran and Syria
because of interference in Iraq and transit of terrorists and weapons
into Iraq to be used against our forces.

Strictly NeoCon-like arrogance based on US
firepower.

False. There is no arrogance. There is recognition of the obvious
facts, that these nations are attacking our forces (as well as Iran's
using Hizbullah to wage illegitimate war against Israeli civilians,
aided by Syria, incidentally).

Most of Iraq's Arab neighbors are going to
have citizens that contribute to the insurgency
and al Qaida now that we have set up for
business there. Where to begin?

Begin with the worst locations. Fallujah shouldn't still exist.

Then do the job right by sealing Iraq's borders, which should have
been done from the start.

Then clean up the rest of Iraq, piece by piece.

Why would Iran make unpredictable insurgency
trouble when they stand to inherit the political
domination of Iraq's Shia enclaves?

That's terrorist trouble, not "insurgency" (or "freedom fighter")
trouble.

Iran wants the USA to hurt, that's why -- and Iran wants to be sure
what comes to power in Iraq is friendly to it (Iran).

The USA currently has its hands full in Iraq alone, and is unlikely to
attack either Iran or Syria unless these nations behave worse than
they are behaving now.

I imagine they will play their cards better
than ol' Sotdam did.

So far that's what they're doing.

You're pretty wise for a Republican.
Why ain't you in the State Dept?

I'm not a Republican.

Not going to do any attacks without
a couple more Army divisions on hand.

I'd want to see air defenses and missile defenses in place, too.

The mood I'm beginning to get (other than
a piece in the Lebanon press) is that the
raid on Iran's reactors will be on the
back burner now....for awhile.

Actually it makes sense. One of the guys I run into once a while
here in town (who loathes Bush -- this is Blue Nation territory --
"He's no smarter than your shoes!") described it this way. Israel's
smartest strategy is to wait, wait, wait -- let Iran go ahead and do
as much work, spend as much money, as possible, before attacking and
destroying the facilities in question very late before an attack would
imperil the innocent (such as if a reactor went hot -- Israel was not
going to expose Baghdadis to Osirak radiation 20+ years ago). The
idea is to have as much effort and money expended and lost as possible
when the attack did happen.



Dave Simpson

disseminator <disseminator@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:<clk84102trj@news1.newsguy.com>...

david_l_simpson@yahoo.com (Dave Simpson) wrote in
news:23e7f86e.0410250840.73fe3d13@posting.google.com:

Diss: There is no empire. I suggest you consult higher-quality
sources.

Counterpunch is more intellectually honest
than most of the mainstream left and that
is why they will always be in my list of
favorite news and views sources.

"Empire" is one of those lefty phrases that
I don't use much but we did get into the
"empire" business during the Spanish American
War and the title would still fit if we ever
managed to keep Iraqi oil flowing for a profit.
Lefties like the phrase because it implies an
anti-American mindset on the part of warhawks.

I prefer the phrase: "Operation Safer Mideast"
since it implies that we are making the Mideast
safer for Israel.(unless someone thinks that we
really care about anyone else in the Mideast.)
That clearly implies an anti-American mindset
on the part of warhawks.

The USA has every right at this time to attack both Iran and Syria
because of interference in Iraq and transit of terrorists and
weapons into Iraq to be used against our forces.

Strictly NeoCon-like arrogance based on US
firepower. The jest of the Counterpunch
piece focuses on occupying Iraq in order
to bait it's Israeli hating neighbors into
a fight or intimidate them into shutting
down Hezbollah and being nice.

Most of Iraq's Arab neighbors are going to
have citizens that contribute to the insurgency
and al Qaida now that we have set up for
business there. Where to begin?

Instead of isolating and marginalizing al
Qaida: Dummy WarHawks have gone and made
them more popular than they ever could have
hoped for following their humiliation in
Afghanistan.

Elements within it's Persian neighbor may
support al Sadr (I think Iran has cooled
that relationship for now) but the Iranian
Mullahs will be concentrating on winning
an election which they will do eventually.

Why would Iran make unpredictable insurgency
trouble when they stand to inherit the political
domination of Iraq's Shia enclaves?

The USA currently has its hands full in Iraq alone, and is unlikely
to attack either Iran or Syria unless these nations behave worse
than they are behaving now.

I imagine they will play their cards better
than ol' Sotdam did.

To attack Iran is to attack a much larger nation (not only area but
also in population) than Iraq, a nation that has been arming itself
for years with Russian, Chinese, and other help (not limited to
WMDs and missiles but also involving conventional armament and air
defense). Any attack on Iran risks retaliation in Iraq or
elsewhere, and an invasion (ground attack) would likely unify most
Iranians against the USA, including the many younger Iranians who
don't like the mullahs.

You're pretty wise for a Republican.
Why ain't you in the State Dept?

Syria is not risking too much against the USA, and we have never
wanted to be seen as Israel's bigger stick in the region.

Attacks against targets in Iran or Syria would probably be limited
to terrorist training camps or arms depots. These sites could
suffer a number of Unfortunate Accidents and then it would the
Iranians or Syrians having to risk much more if they wanted to
retaliate after being caught red-handed and stopped.


Dave Simpson

Not going to do any attacks without
a couple more Army divisions on hand.

The mood I'm beginning to get (other than
a piece in the Lebanon press) is that the
raid on Iran's reactors will be on the
back burner now....for awhile.

Yeha, so Iran wants to develop WMD's to use as a detterence against
future American imperialism. So what? The US is too "Selective" in who
it allows to have a defence force. Obvisouly they never mess with
countries that have an actual military force.. hence China or North
Korea..

plus all the guerrila warfare that would begin chewing up
occupation forces and demoralizing the occupation force at the same
time.

Sorry, the US doesen't have authority over other sovereign nations.

I just documented their methods for history. (We're not all sheep!)

The closest parallel to the Bushies is Germany around 1939 or so,
after they attacked Poland. Germany had superior war fighting tactics
(blitzkrieg) and machinery (an airforce, etc). They also had God's
Will on their side; the idea/concept of an Arian Nation.

We, now, in America, are utterly convinced that we have God on our
side too - that 'our way' is right - that ALL nations of the world
should have a democracy - just like us - and, that it's just a matter
of us sweeping in with our armies to 'spark and light the torch of
freedom' that will spread across the Arab/Muslum world and free them,
just like a forest fire clears and cleans out old trees and replaces
them with new ones.

And, we're now looking past Poland, to the rest of Western Europe - as
teritory to be conquered by the Fatherland. Oops, I got the tenses and
time periods mixed up. Sorry. I should have said, we're now looking at
Syria and Iran. Iran of course, is developing nuclear weapons, so they
are of course, an imminent threat.

PagCal <pagcal@runbox.com> wrote in
news:10n73bsl99e90bc@corp.supernews.com:

You forgot/left out a few steps:

1. Overstate/lie about any intel produced by US agencies.

2. 'Cherry pick' what you 'want to hear' from US intelligence
agencies. There's always differing views, so just listen to the ones
that meet your 'agenda'.

3. Setup you own intelligence agency/group and stock it with 'people
like you' that will reflect your views.

4. When you can't lie about something, just make something up. For
example, when Powell presented to the UN, he showed a satalite photo
of some truck at a buiding and said it was suspicious.

5. Present continually shifting 'demands' to the target country.
If they are slow at 'allowing inspections' or 'on site interviews',
say they are evasive and have something to hide.

6. Get rid of anybody in the US government that disagrees with you.
Get the message out, that, if you want a job, better get 'on-board'
with the administrations agenda.

7. Guarantee compliance from the American public by governing
with fear. Put out vague press releases about 'boogy men', oops,
sorry, Al Qaeda, planning some vague attack sometime in the future.
Come up with a color coded 'alert' system that does nothing to help
local police prepare, but does raise the underlying fear of the
populus. Plan a vast innoculation of the populus for the coming
Small-Pox attack. Tell people to 'be prepared' and go out and
buy plastic wrap and duct tape so they can 'protect' themselves
against the coming gas/bio attack.

8. Have Karl Rove and others study how Hilter managed the general
populus in 1934 and beyond. Implement same.

9. Blame the UN for everything.


10. Come up with a simplified 'theory about the world' that sees
everything in either black or white. With Bush, it's either
'you're with us or against us', then anything/anyone/any country
that doesn't fit your worldview is an enemy. Label them as such with
phraises as 'Axis of Evil'. This will only engender non-cooperation
in the future, thus 'confirming' your origional hypothesis.

11. Berate/ignore any experts or scientists on the subject as Girl'ly
Men or Eastern Bubble Headed Liberals, and generally ignore them.

12. Egg our enemies on with 'Come and Get us' type rhetoric. When
they do what we ask, point out that they are terrorists or worse yet,
Islamists Fundamentalists.

13. Secrify everything and deny that you got any warnings of
upcoming attacks. Don't cooperate with any commisions investigating
your behavior.

14. Try to engender compliance from Academia by withholding grants or
threatening to withdraw grants.

But of course. They've been trying for this for years and
finally got their Politically Correct grant status restrictions
passed with the servile compliance of both parties upon the post
9-11 panic. Now the kids will learn to hate the Muslims courtesy
of your governmentally controlled educational system....The most
vile and overlooked piece of anti-American activity since 9-11.

---

The trouble is, the above isn't fancifull, but was actually
done by Bush and his cronies during his administration.

I think you have it down Orwellian pat.
You should consider working for Bush's
War Cabinet....or perhaps a position with
Douglas Feith's propaganda office in the
Pentagon.
Good Work!

disseminator wrote:

The Basic Strategy for Syria and Iran
How to Effect Regime Change and Expand the Empire
By GARY LEUPP

from CounterPunch October 16 / 17, 2004

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp10162004.html

"Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam
Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state [department's]
sponsor of terror [list] The effort that we've mounted with respect
to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the
most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass
destruction."

Vice President Richard Cheney explaining why the U.S. invaded Iraq,
in his "debate" with John Edwards

Premises:

* The U.S. position in the global economy has declined vis-à-vis
Europe, Japan, and China since 1945.

http://www.revolutionintheair.com/strategy/Waller1.pdf

* To maintain the global dominance it has achieved since the
collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. must establish
geopolitical control over Central Asia and the Middle East.

* The American people will support military action if persuaded it
enhances their security.

* Public opinion must be created to support ongoing war and imperial
expansion.

Procedure:

1. Select regime to be overthrown.

2. Vilify the regime in public statements, and arrange for critical
reporting in the press.

3. Emphasize that the nation is on the State Department's list of
"terror sponsoring" states. Stress the authoritative nature of
that list; make it impossible for any public figure to speak well
of any regime on it.

4. Emphasize that the nation has some type of ties with groups on
the State Department's list of "foreign terrorist organizations."
Stress the definitive nature of that list too.

5. Conflate whatever terrorist groups the regime assists in any way
with al-Qaeda and the 9-11 attacks. Refer generically to "the
terrorists," implying that they all work together.

6. Conflate threats to Israel, posed by Hamas, Islamic Jihad,
al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, Hizbollah, etc., with threats to the
U.S. Homeland.

7. Emphasize the targeted regime's possession of weapons of mass
destruction (chemical, biological, bacteriological) and if it has
a nuclear energy program, depict it as a nuclear weapons program
threatening the American people.

8. Reiterate the preemption doctrine that the possibility of threats
justifies unilateral U.S. action.

9. Obtain Congressional authorization for action against the regime.

10. Obtain, if possible, a UN resolution that might justify military
action, or be represented as a justification for regime change.

11. Depict UN resistance to regime change plans as reflecting the
body's irrelevance, corruption and obsolescence.

12. Depict longstanding allies' opposition to U.S. imperial
expansion as selfish and anti-American.

13. Cultivate new allies willing to assist in regime change.

14. Invade and occupy.


Post-Occupation Strategy

1. Relying on troops unfamiliar with local culture, overextended and
taking heavy casualties, do not expect short-term local support
or stability.

2. Insure that even in a climate of chaos, U.S. corporations profit
handsomely and maintain strong support for the effort.

3. Depict resistance as terrorism, reflecting hatred for freedom and
democracy, and take measures to insure that the press represents
the situation accordingly.

4. Emphasize to the American people the long-term nature of the War
on Terrorism, its utter necessity following the 9-11 attacks, and
the need for patience and sacrifice. Make skilful use of
deception, and exploit fear.

5. Blame neighboring states for assisting resistance through failure
to police borders, or by proactive means.

6. Mobilize appropriate U.S. religious communities to support the
occupation, employing specifically religious, scriptural
arguments.

7. While avoiding attacks on the Islamic religion, exploit popular
hostility and fear of Islam, and emphasize the need to reform
Muslim societies so that they will not be breeding grounds for
terrorists.

8. Depict occupation as "freedom and democracy." Deflect criticism
by arguing that critics demean Muslims by suggesting that they
are incapable of achieving democracy.

9. Always strive for a balance between obtaining imperial
objectives, and undercutting popular support for those objectives
through unacceptable U.S. casualty levels.

10. If popular support dangerously erodes, target dissident
opinion-makers as "supporters of the terrorists," taking
appropriate legal action while taking care to avoid provoking a
social explosion.

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct
Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants,
Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male
Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and
Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women,
1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless
chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial
Crusades.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp10162004.html