| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
20 Sep 2004 09:50:56 AM |
| Object: |
No WMD? Then why are we in this mess? |
According to the Associated Press, "Drafts of a report from the top
U.S. inspector in Iraq conclude there were no weapons stockpiles, but
say there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had
dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to
people familiar with the findings."
This was all part of a 1,500-page report released last week by the
head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer.
Yes, it's yet more proof that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat after all
- whoops!
However, while Iraq wasn't an imminent threat then, it's sure as hell
an imminent threat now.
From a recent National Intelligence Estimate stating that the
best-case scenario at this point is an Iraq whose "political, economic
and security stability would remain tenuous" (worst-case scenario:
all-out civil war), to the apparently new tactic of blowing up
journalists while they're reporting live on air, the situation in Iraq
is far from rosy.
Even Republicans like Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman *****
Lugar (R-Ind) are criticizing Bush's policy in Iraq:
"Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration
prior to the war and people outside the administration what I call the
'dancing in the street crowd' that we just simply will be greeted with
open arms," he said.
"The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is
apparent."
But hey, Our Great Leader is in charge so... don't worry about it!
From Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: No WMD? Then why are we in this mess? |
20 Sep 2004 10:34:54 AM |
|
|
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ahrtk0duoqq8bcicn29hp38ppe9657kfrs@4ax.com...
According to the Associated Press, "Drafts of a report from the top
U.S. inspector in Iraq conclude there were no weapons stockpiles, but
say there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had
dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to
people familiar with the findings."
This was all part of a 1,500-page report released last week by the
head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer.
Yes, it's yet more proof that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat after all
- whoops!
However, while Iraq wasn't an imminent threat then, it's sure as hell
an imminent threat now.
From a recent National Intelligence Estimate stating that the
best-case scenario at this point is an Iraq whose "political, economic
and security stability would remain tenuous" (worst-case scenario:
all-out civil war), to the apparently new tactic of blowing up
journalists while they're reporting live on air, the situation in Iraq
is far from rosy.
Even Republicans like Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman *****
Lugar (R-Ind) are criticizing Bush's policy in Iraq:
"Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration
prior to the war and people outside the administration what I call the
'dancing in the street crowd' that we just simply will be greeted with
open arms," he said.
"The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is
apparent."
But hey, Our Great Leader is in charge so... don't worry about it!
From Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Harry
I did not know how we could have and "Exit Strategy" from Iraq. So, I asked
that question of the lord most high. I woke up with the story of "Brer
Rabbit and the Tar Baby". See:
http://home.nycap.rr.com/cyclone/disney/sots/tarbaby.htm for "Brer Rabbit
and the Tar Baby" story. Brer Rabbit's [Bush's}problem was that he was too
"uppity", which means arrogant. The words in the story were: "One day
Brer Fox thought of how Brer Rabbit had been cutting up his capers and
bouncing around until he'd come to believe that he was the boss of the whole
gang. Brer Fox thought of a way to lay some bait for that uppity Brer
Rabbit." The bait was a tar baby that Brer Fox [Osama] had laid out for
Brer Rabbit [Bush]. You see, Osama was trapped at Bora Bora, and he needed
our troops to be pulled elsewhere to a Tar Baby [Iraq]. In the story of
Brer Rabbit, the more he hit the Tar Baby, the more he was stuck to the Tar
Baby. The Tar Baby was a great metaphor for an Oil State. Brer Rabbit's
exit strategy was to ask Brer Fox to do anything to him but to throw him in
the Briar Patch. At first, I did not know what that meant.
So, then I woke up with that saying of "When you are up to your ***** in
alligators, it's hard to rememberthat the original plan was to drain the
swamp." By the way, you can find that Rumsfield used that quote. See:
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:GDn2DdMAwF8J:migreens.org/amberwaves/2001fall/fallnews.pdf+*****+in+alligators&hl=en
So, I wrote the following:
For those that like puzzles.
Do you remember the saying about how we get caught up in fighting alligators
when the original plan was to drain the swamp.
How do you drain the swamp, when you are just killing alligators, and you
are hated more for that, and the swamp IS the alligators, how do you drain
the swamp? What would you do?
Why is it a alligator swamp?
We are considered a tool of Israel and Israel is considered their enemy.
They lost their war to us.
Bush Sr. left the Suni and Kurds hanging when he encouraged them to topple
Saddam.
Then Saddam killed many Kurds and Suni with WMD's that we sold them.
They are naturally three countries that the west stuck together.
The US, throught the UN, killed almost a half million kids and seniors with
their sanctions.
They have a tradition of family revenge and very many families lost someone.
Bush Jr's team were ignorant enough to be conned into thinking we would be
greeted by flowers.
Their hothead radicals on all sides outnumber their moderates. Remind you
of anything?
How could we drain this kind of swamp?
Getting rid of any arrogance would be a start.
Finding real humility would be a start.
Admitting you made major mistakes would be a start.
Asking for the world's forgiveness would be a start.
Everyone , even including those that tell the Lord what to do, could ask the
lord most high what they could do. That would be a start.
PS.
The head of UN said we attacked Iraq illegally on BBC!
The head of UN said elections will not work unless swamp is pacified!
Ask your US corporation media why you do not see this sort of thing here
much.
Very Respectfully,
Michael
I later realized that Afganistan was also different because we helped them
get rid of the occupation troops from Russia. Unfortunately, we armed and
trainned Osama. And, in Iraq, we wanted them to fight our "enemy" Iran, so
we armed Saddam. Iraq is not likely to be happy about this either. And the
UN is not an answer, because they were part of the sanctions that may have
killed 400,000 of their kids. And remember, Iraq citizens are armed like
the NRA on steroids.
I also wrote the following on another subject:
We can trust President Bush to often do the opposite of what he says,
because that is what he has done that frequently. Then he often says the
opposite that he is resolute and does not make mistakes. The strange thing
is that it is easier to see these opposites, the more I forgive him. Then I
have compassion for our inability to do better than we are doing, like him
and me. You can pray for his enlightenment and recovery. You can also pray
for my enlightenment and recovery, since I do not know what else to do to
help.
Some of your prayers, must have helped, because an "Exit Strategy" came to
me while we were driving to a wedding.
The Briar Patch is an "all Muslim Iraq rescue force". We could be replaced
by an all Muslim Iraq rescue force in the lower two thirds of Iraq. We
could move to the upper third with the Kurds. We could leave via the NATO
country of Turkey. To avoid civil war when we all leave, Iraq could choose
to have a federal system made up of 3 states. Of course, we would need more
flexible leadership than the strict stiff necked bosses we have. Of course
we would have to give up all those dreams of profitable business in Iraq.
Of course we could all pray that whoever our leadership is, they will be
flexible enough to listen the lord most high and not listen to the lord most
low.
You see, the answer to my question was that the Briar Patch for the Muslims,
is other Muslims, that were born and bred in the same culture.
Does that mean that I received the only option? Of course not. There may be
more, when there is one. But, we need to admit our leaders made a mistake
and apologize when we supported them in their mistakes, before before our
solutions flower. Our leaders need to do the same.
The original plan to drain the swamp was to capture Osama and take out the
world wide Al Quaida training camps. General Tommy Franks had a list of
countries with those camps for after Afganistan and Iraq was not on that
list.
--
Very Respectfully,
Michael
http://www.RecoveryByDiscovery.com
When you are ready to recover
be prepared to discover more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: No WMD? Then why are we in this mess? |
20 Sep 2004 01:57:11 PM |
|
|
Michael wrote:
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ahrtk0duoqq8bcicn29hp38ppe9657kfrs@4ax.com...
Brer Rabbit's
exit strategy was to ask Brer Fox to do anything to him but to throw him in
the Briar Patch. At first, I did not know what that meant.
Well because you didn't read the rest of the story. Brer Rabbit was born
in a briar patch. He got Brer Fox to do just what he wanted him to. In
this case Bush has done that to Bin Laden. He has reduced him to a
talking head and cut off his monetary support. The US wants him to keep
talking and not be able to do anything. Bin Laden is not dead because if
he died he would become a matyr. Plain and simple.
Bush Sr. left the Suni and Kurds hanging when he encouraged them to topple
Saddam.
No the Sunis were in power it was the Shiites the US wanted to topple
Sadam. The Sunis were not persecuted by Sadam the Shiites and Kurds were.
Then Saddam killed many Kurds and Suni with WMD's that we sold them.
The US never sold Iraq chemical weapons there is exactly zero proof of
this. The idea started as an internet joke. Someone sent a quip around
that said the Bush had proof of WMD. Hell we have the reciepts. There is
no proof this ever happened. It is a stupid idea why would the US supply
arms to a Soviet satelite? The Soviets supplied Iraq all their arms. If
anyone gave secrets to produce chemical weapons to Iraq it was the USSR.
The US and UK stopped shipments of arms to Iraq prior to the first Gulf
War. Saddam wanted parts to a cannon that could shell Tel Aviv. The UK
stopped it. Why would Iraq buy US chemical weapons when they had
operational factories making their own chemical weapons? This is
ignorant conspiracy theory.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: No WMD? Then why are we in this mess? |
20 Sep 2004 04:05:25 PM |
|
|
As long as the US sides with Israel in its unnecessary occupation of
the Palestinians, the US is going to be attacked by Arab nationalists.
That means the US has to take away the sanctuaries and source of
money that these groups hostile to the US need in order to mount
successful attacks. An Iraq ruled by SH and his sons was tailor made
as a place for the enemies of the US to operate from. As we have
learned from the difficulty in fighting there, it is very hard to know
what is happening in that country ( even if SH wanted to keep al Queda
out he would not be able to ). Couple that with the large amount of
oil money that the Arab fighters could tap into as a payoff for not
contesting who is the nominal ruler of the country and the US had a
serious problem.
Of course, if the US would stop sending $billions each year to Israel
for use in occupying arabs then there would be little reason for the
Arab nationalists to attack the US. It that case it would not be very
important to the US what happened in Iraq.
-Steve
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<ahrtk0duoqq8bcicn29hp38ppe9657kfrs@4ax.com>...
According to the Associated Press, "Drafts of a report from the top
U.S. inspector in Iraq conclude there were no weapons stockpiles, but
say there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had
dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to
people familiar with the findings."
This was all part of a 1,500-page report released last week by the
head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer.
Yes, it's yet more proof that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat after all
- whoops!
However, while Iraq wasn't an imminent threat then, it's sure as hell
an imminent threat now.
From a recent National Intelligence Estimate stating that the
best-case scenario at this point is an Iraq whose "political, economic
and security stability would remain tenuous" (worst-case scenario:
all-out civil war), to the apparently new tactic of blowing up
journalists while they're reporting live on air, the situation in Iraq
is far from rosy.
Even Republicans like Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman *****
Lugar (R-Ind) are criticizing Bush's policy in Iraq:
"Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration
prior to the war and people outside the administration what I call the
'dancing in the street crowd' that we just simply will be greeted with
open arms," he said.
"The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is
apparent."
But hey, Our Great Leader is in charge so... don't worry about it!
From Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Harry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Miles Long" |
|
| Title: Re: No WMD? Then why are we in this mess? |
20 Sep 2004 07:10:13 PM |
|
|
Steve Richter wrote:
As long as the US sides with Israel in its unnecessary occupation of
the Palestinians, the US is going to be attacked by Arab nationalists.
That means the US has to take away the sanctuaries and source of
money that these groups hostile to the US need in order to mount
successful attacks. An Iraq ruled by SH and his sons was tailor made
as a place for the enemies of the US to operate from. As we have
learned from the difficulty in fighting there, it is very hard to know
what is happening in that country ( even if SH wanted to keep al Queda
out he would not be able to ). Couple that with the large amount of
oil money that the Arab fighters could tap into as a payoff for not
contesting who is the nominal ruler of the country and the US had a
serious problem.
OK, Steve. Discount the above and you have it half right. SH wouldn't
have anything to do with any of the major groups who hold the US in
such deadly esteem. That was a non sequitur. However the thought below
has merit, given that the US pays nearly the entire non-military budget
for Israel on a yearly basis (and we do this with China holding all the
paper on our record-breaking debt-how cool is that? <grin>).
Miles "Half Empty vs Half Full" Long
Of course, if the US would stop sending $billions each year to Israel
for use in occupying arabs then there would be little reason for the
Arab nationalists to attack the US. It that case it would not be very
important to the US what happened in Iraq.
-Steve
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<ahrtk0duoqq8bcicn29hp38ppe9657kfrs@4ax.com>...
According to the Associated Press, "Drafts of a report from the top
U.S. inspector in Iraq conclude there were no weapons stockpiles, but
say there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had
dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to
people familiar with the findings."
This was all part of a 1,500-page report released last week by the
head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer.
Yes, it's yet more proof that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat after all
- whoops!
However, while Iraq wasn't an imminent threat then, it's sure as hell
an imminent threat now.
From a recent National Intelligence Estimate stating that the
best-case scenario at this point is an Iraq whose "political, economic
and security stability would remain tenuous" (worst-case scenario:
all-out civil war), to the apparently new tactic of blowing up
journalists while they're reporting live on air, the situation in Iraq
is far from rosy.
Even Republicans like Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman *****
Lugar (R-Ind) are criticizing Bush's policy in Iraq:
"Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration
prior to the war and people outside the administration what I call the
'dancing in the street crowd' that we just simply will be greeted with
open arms," he said.
"The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is
apparent."
But hey, Our Great Leader is in charge so... don't worry about it!
From Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Harry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: No WMD? Then why are we in this mess? |
21 Sep 2004 10:02:45 AM |
|
|
Miles Long <Miles@home.net> wrote in message news:<a8ade$414f7222$4069ee8e$3249@msgid.meganewsservers.com>...
Steve Richter wrote:
As long as the US sides with Israel in its unnecessary occupation of
the Palestinians, the US is going to be attacked by Arab nationalists.
That means the US has to take away the sanctuaries and source of
money that these groups hostile to the US need in order to mount
successful attacks. An Iraq ruled by SH and his sons was tailor made
as a place for the enemies of the US to operate from. As we have
learned from the difficulty in fighting there, it is very hard to know
what is happening in that country ( even if SH wanted to keep al Queda
out he would not be able to ). Couple that with the large amount of
oil money that the Arab fighters could tap into as a payoff for not
contesting who is the nominal ruler of the country and the US had a
serious problem.
OK, Steve. Discount the above and you have it half right. SH wouldn't
have anything to do with any of the major groups who hold the US in
such deadly esteem. That was a non sequitur.
the Iraqi oil fields bring in $120 million per day ( 3 million barrels
* $40 per barrel ). With that amount of money at stake, it does not
matter who SH wants to associate with. The money would attract al
Queda, the Europeans and many others that will force SH to give them a
piece of the action. In such a setting, with a dictator making deals
with powerful interests to maintain power, the US is going to be at
risk.
However the thought below
has merit, given that the US pays nearly the entire non-military budget
for Israel on a yearly basis
dont know why you qualify it as "non-military". Are you an Israeli
agent trying to spin this in the best light for Israel? Israel won
the SDW w/o much American aid ( the IAF flew French built jets ). The
fact that its foes were the Arab states plus the USSR shows that
Israel does not need American aid to win its military battles. It is
only since the start of the occupation that Israel has needed such
massive American aid. Which pretty much makes the case that the US is
paying for the occupation. No wonder the US was attacked on 9/11.
(and we do this with China holding all the
paper on our record-breaking debt-how cool is that? <grin>).
Miles "Half Empty vs Half Full" Long
Of course, if the US would stop sending $billions each year to Israel
for use in occupying arabs then there would be little reason for the
Arab nationalists to attack the US. It that case it would not be very
important to the US what happened in Iraq.
-Steve
Harry Hope <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<ahrtk0duoqq8bcicn29hp38ppe9657kfrs@4ax.com>...
According to the Associated Press, "Drafts of a report from the top
U.S. inspector in Iraq conclude there were no weapons stockpiles, but
say there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had
dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to
people familiar with the findings."
This was all part of a 1,500-page report released last week by the
head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer.
Yes, it's yet more proof that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat after all
- whoops!
However, while Iraq wasn't an imminent threat then, it's sure as hell
an imminent threat now.
From a recent National Intelligence Estimate stating that the
best-case scenario at this point is an Iraq whose "political, economic
and security stability would remain tenuous" (worst-case scenario:
all-out civil war), to the apparently new tactic of blowing up
journalists while they're reporting live on air, the situation in Iraq
is far from rosy.
Even Republicans like Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman *****
Lugar (R-Ind) are criticizing Bush's policy in Iraq:
"Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration
prior to the war and people outside the administration what I call the
'dancing in the street crowd' that we just simply will be greeted with
open arms," he said.
"The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is
apparent."
But hey, Our Great Leader is in charge so... don't worry about it!
From Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Harry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
