#77597 by atheo on 6/13 at 7:08 am
(42 comments total)
Druid is most correct, not only is Bush not dumb, he does a wily job of acting dumb! We are the fools for falling for it. Furthermore, Bush is not the problem

******** no and yes = he is/was/is a party-animal/moron/useful fool — a Bonesman like his dad, connected well enough to play the POTUS role — though unlike Pappy, not initiated to the inner-most circle, the nexus — puppeteers since the 9/11 coup — the shadow government of Iran-Contra legacy — Ollie North and associates took the fall (barely) for that (North wasn’t even close to the nexus) — the network was never touched; essentially the same network that has waged war on the 3rd world since Dullas decreed it and made damn sure that anyone who tried to stop it was dealt with (e.g. JFK, MLK, RFK). Any who wish to cite lack of corroborating evidence in the main stream media, must remember this: “The Central Intelligence Agency owns anyone of any significance in the major media.” — Former CIA Director William Colby

Druid is most correct, not only is Bush not dumb, he does a wily job of acting dumb! We are the fools for falling for it. Furthermore, Bush is not the problem, we need to grow up and face our situation. We are being dominated by a racist, corrupt, and thoroughly despicable crime gang called the Republicrats and their financial enablers and media promoters.

@ enemy of the state

I think wev’e already reached “occupation heavy” as shown by our (and Israel’s) use of aerial bombardment as a form of collective punishment. This exceeds the more selective collective punishment meted out by Nazis Stalinists and Romans.

#77218 by Enemy of State on 6/11 at 10:14 pm
(12 comments total)

Get you cameras rolling, its going to be quite a spectacular train wreck!

********* It’s already a spectacular train wreck - it started 09/11/01 and it will not end soon - it’s the Global War Of Terror - the Clash of Civilizations - the Slow Motion Collapse of the Petro-Arms-Drugs Dollar - The End Of The Empire - another Dark Age descends!  -  http://www.thefall01.info/

Once the occupied have had it with the occupier, the latter has only two choices. Occupation heavy, as the Romans or the Nazis practiced, wherein the population understands that if they give any guff, every living thing in the city will be put to the sword. Or you leave.

  So which do we want to do? Do we want to be the new barbarians? Or do we admit the helplessness of the situation (of our own making), and leave?  This Korea thing is an attempt to compromise between these two choices. Ever try to set a train switch halfway between settings? That’s what we are talking about here. Of course the wreck won’t come until after the election. So both parties have an opportunity to seem reasonable by supporting the half-occupation half-withdrawl plan.

  Get you cameras rolling, its going to be quite a spectacular train wreck!

•  #76356 by S. Leonard Scheff on 6/08 at 11:42 am
(2 comments total) 
  •  Incidentally, at the Harris/Hedges debate, several people asked why the Muslim religion has become a problem now.  I think the foregoing may answer that question as well.

********* Muslim religion…a problem? How about Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” taken on as ideological doctrine by the hegemonic architects of the Global War Of Terror from the PNAC gang of Straussian neocon madmen, driven by Nietzschien craving for endless war? No problem there?

Your article reminds me of an article I read in the mid 1950’s by Pitirim Sorokin, a Harvard Sociology Professor.  In it he noted that we in the midst of one of the “Great Transitional Periods of History”. Some of the previous ones I can rembember were the fall of Rome, the Rise and then Fall of Feudalism.  The present one is the Fall of Colonialism.  He said it had begun with WWI and at that time he could not know when it would end.  We now know the end began with the dissolution of the Soviet Union leaving only Tibet dominated by a foriegn totalitarian power.

The significance of this is that Sorokin observed that these transitional periods are the most dangerous in history with the beginning (in this case WWI) being more dangerous and the end (where we are now) being the most dangerous.  In these times the old hegemonies are gone and the nature of soveriegnty has changed.  Small players who were held in check suddenly become dangerous.  In the Balkans it was almost like in l914 there were people about to stab other people and they were put on freeze frame until the Berlin wall came down and then they resumed.  Add to that the existance of nuculear weapons so that even a country like North Korea can become a player on the world stage, we can see that Sorokin was right about the danger of the end of the transition. 

Sorokin’s advice is that the one thing you can’t do is to go backward which is what we have tried to do in Iraq.  Thus we find ourselves trying to do something that can’t be done and that takes forever. 

Incidentally, at the Harris/Hedges debate, several people asked why the Muslim religion has become a problem now.  I think the foregoing may answer that question as well.

Permanent US Bases in Iraq are supported by the Democratic Party Leadership!

ASK THEM YOURSELF!  I have asked and received the answer from the Democratic Party Leaders that Permanent US Bases in Iraq are needed for the training and support of the Iraqi military. If the Democratic Party Leaders will not say they are against Permanent US Bases in Iraq, then they are for them!

There are at least four “super-bases” in Iraq, none of which have anything to do with “withdrawal” from that country. Quite the contrary, these bases have been constructed as little American islands of eternal order in an anarchic sea. Whatever top administration officials and Democratic Party leaders say - and they always deny that the US seeks “permanent” bases in Iraq - facts on the ground speak with another voice entirely. These bases practically scream “permanency”. One of the enduring mysteries of this war is that reporting on US bases in Iraq has been almost non-existent these past years

The Permanent US bases fit snugly with other Pentagon plans. For instance, Iraq’s 400,000-man military has been replaced by a 100,000-man, lightly armed military without armor or an air force. (In an otherwise heavily armed region, this ensured that any Iraqi government would be almost totally reliant on the US military and that the US Air Force would, by default, be the Iraqi Air Force for years to come.)

As long as KBR keeps building them, making their facilities ever more enduring and ever more valuable, there can be no genuine “withdrawal” from Iraq, nor even an intention of doing so. The administration does not discuss them (other than to deny their permanency from time to time). No presidential speeches deal with them. No plans for them are debated in Congress. The opposition Democrats generally ignore them and the press won’t even put the words “base”, “permanent” and “Iraq” in the same paragraph. It may be hard to do, given the skimpy coverage, but keep your eyes directed at our “super-bases”. Until the administration blinks on them, there will be no withdrawal from Iraq.
_________________

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.    Mark Twain

Lawrence O’Donnell slams the “Save Libby” neo-con criminals. Outstanding!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/06/lawrence-odonnell-on-countdown-im-waiting-for-every-one-of-these-letter-writers/

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition

Yo Blog Dog, I’ve been telling the DemocRats that they are scrotless for not impeaching Bush.  They just want to whine about it.  They should stop talking and act like they have a pair.  Liberals are gutless wonders.

That’s right, #76199 by Humble Servant, the sort of liberal, who leaves the room when a fight breaks out, is the sort for which we have no need. So when do we throw the neocon madmen in the doc on charges of treason? The evidence is beyond the requisite threshold. The 911 criminals must be taken down! Are you with us, Humble Servant, or are you just pissing into the wind?

How will we justify staying in Iraq for a long period of time?  Look for a naval “incident” involving Iran and US.  Remember the Maine.  Remember the Lusitania.  Remember the Maddox.  The Gulf of Tonkin Incident didn’t even happen and it was sufficient justification.  Why is our top military commander in Iraq an admiral?  I thought Iraq was desert.

We ain’t building fourteen permanent military bases for nothing.  We ain’t building an embassy larger than Vatican City for nothing.  The Pentagon wrote that it is part of the “Lily pad” strategy.  Col. Karen Kwiatkowski talked about this.  We ain’t spending $2.3 Trillion on this war and then just pull out and leave all that oil to the people of Iraq.

Liberals are sooooo easy to play.  What a bunch of maroons. 

Humble Servant goes fishing.  He baits the hook with “Come on, you liberals really need to get this straight.  You know that us non-liberals are not as smart as you, so is Iraq Vietnam or Korea??  Pretty soon you will be comparing it to the Clone War or the Galatic Civil War.
Seriously, what war has liberals ever support where Russia was not our ally? “

Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnggg, splash.  Bait is bobbing around in the water.  Time to open a beer and relax.  Soon the liberals are swimming around, trying to figure out the bait. 

And I get a hit. 

Here are the arguments against the war:  No UN resoluation, no clear exit strategy, its a war for oil, no clear National Security interest, they never attacked us.  Only thing, these were the arguments against Slick Willy taking us into Kosovo?  Yet the DemocRats were for that war.

Ever wonder why the arguments never change, only which side is arguing for the war and which is arguing against it.  For Kosovo, the DemocRats were arguing for a way that made no sense.  Does this sound like 1984?

Here are two quotes:

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”

“We’re sending 250,000 of our young men and women to die so that somebody in Washington can prove they’re tough. It’s not us. We’re not the ones that are going to die, they are.”

One was made by Sean Hannity and the other by Phil Donahue.  Not only am I playing you, the DemocRatic party is playing you.

This is why I say liberals are hypocrites.  You first decide if the war is just, then you frame the arguements to support your position.  When I take the arguments about Kosovo or any war you were for, and apply it to Iraq, you should be for it.  Yet you are not.  If I apply the arguments why you are against Iraq, you should have been against Kosovo. Thus the hypocrisy.

As always,
Your Humble Servant doing his humble duty serving you.  No need to thank me, the warm and loving reception that I receive when I showed up is thanks enough.

The differences between the U.S. military presence in Korea and in Iraq are obviously legion, and Mr. Scheer and others have aptly pointed many of them out.  I have yet to see what I consider to be the most important difference, though.  In Korea we came in as the conquerors of the Japanese and, therefore, as the liberators of the Koreans.  The wellspring of gratitude for that will take a long time to dry up.  In Iraq, on the other hand, we came in as the close confederates of their bitter enemies, the Israelis.  So close is our identification with them in the minds of most Iraqis (and our politicians as well, apparently) that it is reported that the the pejorative that the insurgents use for American soldiers is “the Jews.”

@ Dan
I don’t understand how “passing the oil law” will diminish the will of the resistance. Please explain. How does this law improve the security situation?

A few times per year, the Bush administration consistently comes up with a new rationale for continuous war in Iraq as events or revelations trump the old one. “Remember Korea” may become the next Fox News mantra for a couple of months.

How about a guessing game? When will the Korea justification be debunked? What will the new rationale for pursuing the Iraq war be then?

Now, let’s not be cynical. In light of recent legislative progress in Iraq on the long-term leases of the oil industry, the U.S. military may soon scale down its presence to a manageable level. Whenever this law is enacted, the U.S. military requirements may be degraded to keeping wells and pipelines operational, maintaining a few government offices functional, and ensuring that foreign forces do not make routine and deep incursions in Iraq.

Forget about parliament, infrastructure, government functions not related to oil and war, warring factions, refugees, etc. The U.S. military may even be able to subcontract its job there to private firms such as Blackwater, who have a proven track record of discreet and deadly action against anybody who closely messes with the narrow interests that they defend.

Hear, hear…We may be closer to a downsizing of the Iraq war than we think…if only the Iraqi government would pass the oil law…

Love,

RE: “...staying in Iraq for an indefinite time period in defiance of the wishes of most Americans that they want our troops removed from that civil war without delay it leads me to wonder what these neocons really have in mind.”

*******  endless Global War Of Terror - total chaos - a global population so terrorized they willingly accept any sort of “peacekeeping”  the hegemons offer — these are not sane men - disciples of Leo Strauss, in turn a disciple of Carl Schmitt, in turn a disciple of Frederick Nietzsche…make no mistake, they are driven by Nietzschien craving for endless war. Any new “new Perl Harbor” will do..

When Bush and his gang talk about our staying in Iraq for an indefinite time period in defiance of the wishes of most Americans that they want our troops removed from that civil war without delay it leads me to wonder what these neocons really have in mind. Does this administration have plans to remain in power for an indefinite period of time? If so, how? By the help of another “new Pearl Harbor”?

True, wev’e gone away from the subject. I’m not trying to argue about Kucinich, but I find the idea that one can be anti-war and also support billions in annual aid to Israel far fetched. I found that Kucinich had opposed INCREASED aid to Israel last summer. Paul, of course would cut it off altogether. At this point, I see hipocrasy in choosing one occupation to oppose and another to finance. On the one hand these guys are getting another view accross in the debates, on the other, are they distracting us from creating an alternative? The proof will come after the nominations, will they support a third party candidate?

#76100 by atheo on 6/07 at 11:54 am

Look if you want to believe that Dennis Kucinich is a war monger by association, so be it.

I simply used him as a comparison to others. I responded to your issue with whether or not Dennis had made a clear stand on the Israel/Lebanon war - unlike 99.9% of the congress (all sides of the aisle and both houses). To that you respond with a quote from someone who wishes he’d done more by renouncing the Democratic party (or whatever).

Personally, I’d like to see these guys - Paul and Kucinich out of the two war/money parties and join forces with a 3rd or 4th party. But somehow I don’t think that has anything to do with Iraq or Korea.

Can You be a Real Anti-War Politician in a Pro-War Party? (Dennis Kucinich’s Strange Mission)

Here’s what Kevin Zeese wrote:

“Some are particularly upset about his [Dennis’] endorsement of John Kerry [following Kerry’s nomination by the Democratic convention in 2004] despite views that are very different from Kucinich’s on key issues like the war, Patriot Act and corporate globalization. Many past supporters are uncomfortable giving a megaphone to someone who, if he is unsuccessful [in winning the Democratic nomination], will cheer on candidates like Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama who are not even advocating a complete withdrawal from Iraq and remain quietly supportive of military action against Iran”

================================================

I find that there is something that Dennis has said that could be taken as meaning that he will endorse the party nominee in 2008, regardless of who that is. Here’s what Dennis said:

“A word about running inside the party—When you run in party primary elections, you commit yourself to supporting the nominee. Imagine how you would feel, when I win the Democratic nomination, if other Democratic candidates would not agree to support me because of my position on the war. The other candidates are also bound to support the Democratic candidate.”

===================================================

The same question should be posed to Ron Paul of course.

US Military permanent presence in the Middle East was planned decades ago and the strategy is broader than most can imagine.

In the 70s (Vietnam Era) the NATO stay-behind networks were called into service to deliver Gladio and the Strategy of Tension, through phony pseudo-gangs like Beider Manhoff and the Red Brigade, to discredit moderate socialists taking legitimate seats in European Parliaments and to further bolster the myth of Monolithic Communism. Now pseudo-gangs like Al Queda and Islamic Jihad have been created to inflate the myth of Islamofascism to be countered by the Global War Of Terror.

This is all an open secret in the corridors of power, just as is the 911 coup. The only way to stop these madmen is to collapse the 911 Myth, as the Lessons of 911 are cited at every turn, to justify every new curtailing of civil liberties and every new phase of the occupation — not an easy undertaking, as the MSM is a wholly owned asset and the citizenry is too brainwashed to believe it, even though they have it from the source:

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

#76071 by atheo on 6/07 at 10:40 am

Kucinich has been among the most consistent pro-peace advocates in American politics today. He was very vocal about Israel’s destruction of Lebonan throughout the war last summer. In fact TruthDig covered his vocal concerns with this agression. He had numerous youtube interviews while over in Lebanon. These were posted on a variety of progressive blogs as well as his own website.

I’m not sure how you could so flagrantly have missed all that. Here’s the piece on TruthDig from back then, I’m sure you can google the others:

#76071 by atheo on 6/07 at 10:40 am
http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20060912_kucinichs_on_lebanon/

@ Kevin

“It will not be like Korea, it will be like the West Bank! “

That’s for sure.

By the way Max, what is Kucinich’s position on military aid to Israel? I thought that last summer he was silent on the Israeli aggression in Lebanon. Is he really a peace candidate?

#76039 by atheo on 6/07 at 8:54 am

Not to quibble, but all references I’ve seen to the War Party makes no distinction between Dems and Repubs, but speaks to the hawish confluence of any and all who see force as a means to American ends (however the latter is defined). So I use the term in that regard.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would clearly not be included in this party, while any number of Dems and Repubs (and no doubt independents) embrace the War Platform.

In any case, that was my point.

@ Max

While the term “war party” has traditionally referred to the Democrats, at this time it applies equally to both elements of the Republicratic regime.

#75901 by Humble Servant on 6/06 at 6:32 pm
“Come on, you liberals really need to get this straight.  You know that us non-liberals are not as smart as you, so is Iraq Vietnam or Korea??  Pretty soon you will be comparing it to the Clone War or the Galatic Civil War.

Seriously, what war has liberals ever support where Russia was not our ally?”

Oh how simplistic. Liberals my a@@! This is about the war party and the use of force for purposes that serve an elite with a propaganda machine to swayed various factions (neoliberals who believe the world needs our help to become civilized, their cousins, the neocons, and the ultra right who through fear, need to “get them before they get us”). At bottom there’s oodles of money to be made, an economy to grow and grow and grow.

So, this happy horse sh@t about liberals is just that. War is what it is organized murder done for whatever the reasons the powerbrokers think will sell - be it religion or ideology or whatever.

Verne Arnold,

To serve ones country can be a positive and good thing.  Contingent that the country uses it’s military for defense only,  protection of its allies or it’s borders only, Possible exception: (for example China was being raped by Japan before WWII and we and most of the rest of the world stood by and did nothing ), 

In a perfect county,  people would be very aware of what their elected representatives in power were doing and up to. So, instead of the masses being apathetic and watching American Idol they would discard apathy and demand Fox News tell the real news.  Ann Colter would be a sick comic for those that find her entertaining.  Congress rubber stamping Bushes war, would never have been so easy.  With a draft the Congress, mass media and even Corporate interests would have their own kids in the military.  Special elite’s like Bush and Chaney would have served as equals and so would their kids.

Before I come to my senses,  let me live in a fantasy world, were everyone has integrity, a world were accountability is normal instead of the exception.  Marten Luther King’s dream becomes reality.  In my world Vietnam would be a place we never heard of,  Iraq would be a pipe dream only in a few sick greedy minds.  Pre visionary, Scrooges would never have been able to come to power.

Sorry Verne, it was nice while it lasted. Shucked my cynicism for a bit!

Empire and oil. Oil and Empire.  Protection of American interests. Iraq is now both our gas station and our land based aircraft carrier. A great article on this current condition, and why America won’t leave Iraq anytime soon, is Operation Iraq Forever. Well written and insightful, I highly recommend it.

http://www.valenzuelasveritas.blogspot.com/2007/05/operation-iraq-forever.html

Of course, there is nothing new here.  Remember our little Pentagon whistle blower, a few months back?  Her words rang true then and still do today.  Our whole purpose going into Iraq was this: to establish four very large military bases and stay there right in the middle of Oiltown so we could watch over our future life blood.  No shock, no surprise.  Bush, Rumsfeld, Armitage, Wolowitz, Rice, Cheney, Rove, et al., these bastards planned it all out behind closed doors, and have now played it out.

50 years eh?

Be afraid, be very afraid…I love that saying!  It’s so to the point!

#75763 by Leefeller on 6/06 at 9:11 am

Yes, I forgot about that…okay lets start the draft…just kidding. 

I fear you are correct…but there must be a “point break”, where…nah…I’m depressed!

This is an excellent piece from Mr. Scheer, so thanks. Lots of good posts here, and also grateful to Mudwallow for pointing out the obvious, that isn’t pointed out ANYWHERE, which is the fact that this very permanent occupation of Iraq was planned so very long ago. And we cannot rationalize any possible logic for the continued destruction of Iraq and unless we accept that there IS this pre-planned agenda by Cheney et. al, to literally control the energy resources of the world.

So, it was permanent from the start, as described by the PNAC with all of the neo-cons signatures on it. They tried to get Clinton to do it back in ‘97, but he wasn’t into it. Saddam wasn’t a threat to ANYBODY, so there was no reason to just fire on them.

So, now that we know all of the reasons why we DIDN’T go, it only makes sense to try and understand what the REAL reasons were, because that’s the only way to understand why we’re still there, and sending more firepower. (and I hate to keep repeating myself about the huge buildup in the Gulf, but NINE US warships there all at the same time is no small matter). And, they are all “packin’”.

The only conclusion I can come to is that it turned out to be less of a cakewalk than the war mongers thought. They totally disregarded any possible resistance from the people themselves, and at the beginning, they didn’t get that much. Once the Iraqis figured out that we were there to stay, (and obviously they figured it out long before we did)all hell broke loose, the only way it was EVER gonna do anything but escalate, was for us to leave. That’s the ONLY way it will be resolved.

Politically, the Iraqis are far more “unified” then anyone will admit. That’s obviously not to say that they don’t have some quarrels. But, they are unified in their collective knowledge that the U.S. is there to steal their oil, and so it’s really, really stupid to expect that they would not continue to fight back for as long as they can. And, Cheney’s not backing down either. It’s not a “new plan” for him, it’s his life’s ambition, along with the rest of his Cabal. They’ve made trillions already, but for some people, it’s just never enough.

After earlier post today, I watched a good documentary on Vietnam (In The Year of the Pig from Netflix).  Senator Wayne Morse D-OR corrected me saying the election reuniting Vietnam was agreed to be July 1956, but was not allowed because US intelligence said Ho Chi Minh would win AT LEAST 80% of the vote.

I say: what would have happened if we had “won” the war in Vietnam?  Do you think China would not mind a 550,000 US army sitting smack on their border?  How many millions of troops would China have sent to fight us?  Would it have gone nuclear?  Would we really have “won”.  Same model can be applied to Iraq today.  Iraqis don’t want us there.  Majority of Iraqis approve of attacks on our troops.  Iranians don’t want us there.  Syria doesn’t want us there.  Turks don’t want Kurds there.  We’re surrounded.

@ humble servant

I thought JFK and LBJ were liberals, didn’t they go to war. How about Truman, yes he went to war also and Russia wasn’t an ally of that liberal either. Come to think of it, wars of choice are a very liberal action, Bosnia, Kosovo, Dominican Republic,Somalia. Correct me if I’m wrong, was Russia an ally?

Both McArthur and Eisenhower warned against getting involved in wars against ‘guerillas” or where there was the potential for civil war as was the case in Vietnam and is the case in Iraq. Our expensive and well trained military is not equipped to fight these kinds of wars. We did better in Afghanistan where we had our own specially trained CIA fighters who could out Taliban the Taliban. We did the right thing in getting out of Vietnam and God help us if we don’t do the same thing in Iraq. To say that they will “follow us home” is utter nonsense. Besides when is the last time the Bush administration has been right on anything? Hopefully this time around the voters will not be swayed by the Republican campaign of fear.  We need to regroup in 2008 and focus on getting Osama and re-equipping our military based on the sad lessons we learned in Iraq. We also need to quit running around the world acting like the big bully. All it does is make us more enemies. Fortunately our friends in Europe and elsewhere will be more likely to work with us once Bush is gone. They like America but they don’t like him.

Humble_Servant, I’m not a liberal, but I can tell you that this war is a mistake. Vietnam? Mistake. And it’s not just a moral mistake.

Think back to the American fight for independence from Great Britain. We won because we didn’t stand in lines; we hid and sniped from a distance. We didn’t bother with making our army pretty and shiny, nor did we force ourselves into people’s homes. Great Britain lost not only because we didn’t play by their rules of the ‘war game’, but also because they forced themselves into our homes and leeched off of us, thus angering everybody in the country.

Look at Vietnam. We barged in there, and complained when they used the environment to their advantage.

Look at Iraq. We stumbled in under false pretenses, and complained when they used guerrilla tactics. Imagine that.

Maybe if we’d realize that history repeats itself…we wouldn’t have this horrible mess laying before us right now.

Furthermore, I’m certain that no one wants to say that WWII was unjustified…unless they are anti-semitic. Then they are just horrible, racist people that need to think and shut up.

Come on, you liberals really need to get this straight.  You know that us non-liberals are not as smart as you, so is Iraq Vietnam or Korea??  Pretty soon you will be comparing it to the Clone War or the Galatic Civil War.

Seriously, what war has liberals ever support where Russia was not our ally?

This is an immoral war.  There’s no evil greater, nothing can vindicate the death and ruin it has caused.  No top-secret files can justify destruction of a society, or the spectacle of foreigners destroying a country by the most up-to-date, horrible methods as they brag about “bringing freedom and democracy.”

Further discussion seems pointless; practical politics are what they are, but this war shames America.  We shouldn’t want to “win” it.  Americans should stop Bush’s conscienceless bloodbath.  Whatever happened to “Hell no, we won’t go?”

That the Bush administration never intended to leave Iraq was always clear.  They were not spending all that money building fortresses all over the place in order to abandon them.

That the Bush administration never intended to leave Iraq was always clear.  They were not spending all that money building fortresses all over the place in order to abandon them.

While the rhetoric was always that if we left Vietnam the dominoes would fall—-The Pentagon Papers always said this was not true at the same time it was being said. 

The Pentagon Papers also said we must prevent the free and fair elections we had agreed to (1955?), because Ho Chi Minh would easily win 75-80% of the vote.

The other day Bush said there was never a chance of the Vietnamese “following us home” if we left.  But I do remember all conservatives saying this back then. 

It is seldom said, but the USA has about 750 bases in about 130 foreign countries.  I think this is imperialism that will destroy the country. I remember in a 2000 debate v. Gore, Bush said Clinton had overextended our military and we should bring many home!

C’mon where does the photo come from? Oh yeah, a western MSM propaganda outfit. Why does truthdig use it?

#75757 @ Hank Van den Berg,

The only way that US oil firms will be able to profit in Iraq is after a full withdrawal of forces. I am constantly perplexed by the notion that the investment situation there could normalize under occupation. What is the source of this faith in Iraqi aquiessence to aggression?
We need a complete withdrawal so that Iraq can reconstitute it’s oil industry and begin to export it’s oil, until then, the world will pay high prices on artificially scarce oil.

The difference between our presence in South Korea and Iraq is so stark I don’t understand how anybody could compare the two.

South Korea is a nation that asked us to stay to protect them from the North Koreans. There we are not under attack each day. As a matter of fact I can’t recall the last American casualty caused by a belligerant from either side of the 38th parallel.

In South Korea the military gets what it wants. A place to go for higher promotion, and a continuious excuse for more funding. The State Department gets a strategic location to do business in the East. The South Koreans get a steady supply of American dollars to help maintain their economy.

While Iraq is a wonderful excuse for military expenditures and certain portions of our economy are benefitting, namely big oil and Haliburton (Cheney/bu$h) Are we willing to sustain a 1000-1500 annual death rate of our troops?
Iraq has no such line of separation. People from all walks of life there are potential “beligerants”. If we stay for another five years we will be both broken financially and militarily.

The problem with bu$h saying he read a book once is that he probalby only read the first three chapters before his ADD kicked in.

As Scheer and many, many others have pointed out, the parellels between the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the Vietnam War are very significant.

In addition, these “new” statements coming from the Bush-Cheney administration indicating that they foresee a “long-term” more or less permanent military presence and permanent military bases is consistent with theories that this was the plan all along.

Related to these factors are the articles referenced below, which might be of interest:

“‘Nam War, ‘Raq War: Similarities, Differences”

http://www.populistamerica.com/nam_war_raq_war

-  -  -

“‘Mistakes’ or ‘plans’ in Iraq, War on Terror?”

http://www.populistamerica.com/mistakes_or_plans_in_iraq_war_on_terror

Dear king George,

You should know that your dynasty has only 2 more years to go. Don’t act as you’re king for life !

Without question the draft should be brought back. It’s the only way to prevent the kind of jingoist foreign policy advocated by the likes of George W. Bush and his supporters. Why are there no Americans protesting the presence of American troops STILL in Korea?? With the Cold War over you’d think Americans would begin to seriously question why millions of dollars a year in taxpayer money goes to fund American troops stationed in the “demilitarized zone.” What exactly is the United States protecting in South Korea?? Dig a little deeper and you won’t like what you find. It’s a sham and those Americans stupid enough not to question their own political leadership only hurt this democracy of ours.

“Good-bye America ...you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.” —Cindy Sheehan

And thank you, Cindy, for speaking truth to power!

“Somehow, the Bush administration’s assertion that U.S. troops may remain in Iraq for decades to come went relatively unnoticed by Democratic hopefuls during the June 4th debate”
Well yes, but so what? The “assertion” that the US plans to stay in Iraq for a long… long time and in fact planned a long stay from the very beginning, also goes unnoticed or unmentioned by all the Republican hopefuls, almost all the Congress, almost all of the Senate, almost all the newspapers and magazines, radio shows and television stations. It’s really an amazing information blackhole and somewhat odd to focus on the Democratic hopefuls. Mike Gravel, the guy most of the above would like to shut up, has spoken most clearly on this subject. Dennis Kucinich also tells the truth. On the Republican side, Ron Paul is very clear and unafraid to point out these obvious facts.
From the very beginning of the Iraqi debacle, US taxpayer money was dumped into the building of numerous permanent (referred to by the military as “enduring”) military bases on Iraqi soil.
Chicago Tribune March 23, 2004
14 `enduring bases’ set in Iraq
Long-term military presence planned
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm
This article was written almost 4 years ago and is very open about the US intentions to stay in Iraq for a long time. So what’s the big surprise? These enduring military bases are only one example of US intentions to stay in Iraq. But the presence of these bases has been so uniformly ignored by the media and by both political parties, it’s hard to believe they even exist. Why is that? Because the American public is not that stupid. The public can put two and two together. Or at least 75% can. But while the information blanket in America can keep the construction of these military bases from the American public, the Iraqi people aren’t fooled for a nanosecond. Much of the rest of the world is probably better informed on this then is the average US citizen. Like the Emperor with no clothes, the US fools no one. The only “real” reason there has ever been for charging into the Iraqi “liberation” is oil. Not to protect the US from WMD’s as George and Condoleezza would have had us believe. Not so little girls could go to school as Richard Perle would assert. Not for freedom or justice or liberty and certainly not for democracy or human rights. For OIL.
The greatest nation and the most powerful military in the history of the world and it is acting like a cheap thief, a criminal and a bungling incompetent criminal at that. The Iraqi debacle is simply the biggest bungled burglary in the history of the planet. Nearly every single Democrat and Republican elected official has this bungled burglary as their legacy, no matter how they try to rewritehistory and squirm out of it.
Mike Gravel is the only person I’ve heard clearly and directly point to oil as the only real reason for being in Iraq. Mr. Gravel was able to make this point nationally, only because he was allowed to speak at the presidential debates. Wonder how long before he gets shut up? Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would also not shirk from this obvious fact. Politicoes and press want to get rid of those two as soon as possible also. But I’d fall off my chair if I ever heard Barak Obama speak these plain truths in public. Maybe Robert is just trying to point out something positive, but trying to pat Barak Obama on the back is wasted arm motion.

#75702 by Verne Arnold
It is interesting that Bush is clueless about history, because he was supposed to be a history major in college.  In a past post, I stated that Bush took out of context, and believed his Professors to have said “History must repeat itself” !

People are not storming the streets because of the absence of the draft.  I believe if troops over in Iraq were drafted,  this war would have ended long ago, many more people, except for the Bush family, would be screaming bloody murder. 
Complacent many will let the few fight the war without a peep. 

It bothers me too!

The sad fact is that the US will not leave Iraq until it is FORCED to do so. 

That is when the cost in blood and treasure becomes more than the populace can bear.

So far the only Americans who have sacrificed in the war are those members of the military who have served there. Taxes for the rich have been cut and the war has been financed on the cheap by China and Japan. War profiteering has ballooned and asset markets are bubbling almost everywhere.

As US casualties continue to mount, bull markets turn into bear markets, and US living standards start to decline, opposition to the war and the huge sums now being spent on the military is bound to escalate.

Korea, Vietnam, or whatever else it can be referred to, the result is the same.  The US government has been using force and warfare as a tool of foreign policy for decades - only to fail repeatedly.

The politicians promise us peace, they promise us security, and they promise us anything - so long as they get the power to wage more wars….but in the end, we’re spending trillions, we’re far less safe, and millions and millions have died.

The time to end this madness is now.

Some interesting reading:

“Can America Bring Peace to the World?”
http://www.populistamerica.com/can_america_bring_peace_to_the_world

The president is clueless about history, all history.  Most of us can see that.  It’s so obvious it hurts.

Clearly, the American people have spoken…the question is, when will they demand the government bend to their will?  We do not have the luxury of time in this; the proverbial clock is always ticking.  Time will never stop…but we act too slowly.

Once again…why aren’t we going to the streets…we have the right…or do we?  Can we still mass and demonstrate?  How do we know we still have the right to do this?  Not to be trite, but; use it or lose it!!!

Do not…please do not mistake the comfort of the blogs and internet for the street.  It is not the same. 

The street takes commitment and getting off your bum.  I fear if we lose that active commitment we will lose far more than we know…we may have already and don’t know it.

This administration will be scared to death if we march.  They may try the mass arrests of Nixon; then all hell will break loose.  Then we will have some change: Why?  Because the people will have spoken with their bodies and souls…they will have put their very asses on the line…directly, not through some elected wimp!!!

Sadly, I think the results in Iraq will more closely resemble Cambodia w/ Iran eventually intervening just as Vietnam did—forming Kampuchea.  But don’t tell BushCO.  They just might revise that piece of history to their liking…

I remember hearing that Bush was reading a biography of Truman last summer.  I’m just dying to know which bits were marked w/ a highlighter by Card, Bartlett and Rove.  Red, yellow and green.