This from Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz:  “Just counting the zeroes on the $3 trillion price tag of the Iraq War is enough to induce hyperventilation.  But what does $3 trillion really mean?  It’s difficult even to comprehend a number that big.  Well, try filling your shopping cart with what the cost of the Iraq War could buy: healthcare for every American?  A new home for every subprime borrower now facing foreclosure?  An Ivy League University?  Hou haven’t even gotten started.”

So we were wrong to go into Afghanistan after 9/11? 

And find me a single economist that blames the current recession on the war(s).

G. - I’m guessing you didn’t have a problem supplying aid (i.e. cash, fuel oil, etc...) to North Korea to secure its cooperation in not proceeding with a nuclear weapons program which could threaten us - as Clinton did.  Am I right?  But you DO have a problem with us using the same technique in Iraq?

And have you worked out the scenario for what happens when we suddenly withdraw our troops from Iraq?  I’m curious to hear it…

I wonder if Ike, or Patton.. any of generals from WWII, would have called “paying off” the Nazi’s so they wouldn’t raise arms against us a victory?

No only are we fighting a new kind of war, but we’re fighting with a new kind of Army, one that needs a vacation from reality in the middle of Combat, so it can go home to testify to it’s success.

As usual, it’s the soldiers who spill the blood and the politicians who spin the lies.

But, I count the truth in every one of those bruised and twisted bodies of our son’s and daughters who will never have the luxury, of trying to decide, are we winning or not?

All were going to succeed in doing in Iraq is creating a new Buddy for Iran to play with.

We need to bring our soldiers home now, and take care of this country first, before projecting our delusions onto the rest of the world.

I concur with Outraged, Fadel, yours was an excellent post.  The only “winning” strategy would have been not to invade to begin with.  But I would extend that to to Orwellian “war on terror,” which, like the war in Iraq, was and is an exercise in futility, and intended as such.  Assuming that 9/11 was not an inside job (and I really think there is insufficient evidence to make a definitive statement on that issue one way or the other), the logical response would have been to treat 9/11 as a crime, an especially heinous crime, but a crime nonetheless.  The logical and efficient response would have been to turn to the the international community (the UN & World Court) seeking to apply the rule of law by bringing the perpetrators before the bar of justice.

As noted by Gen. Wm. Odom, “Terrorism is not an enemy.  It cannot be defeated.  It’s about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we’re going to win that war.  We are not going to win a war on terrorism.  And it does whip up fear.  Acts of terror have never brought down liberal democracies.  Acts of parliament have closed a few.”

But the Bush regime did not declare a “war on terror” because they actually believed that could “win” such a war.  As observed by Naomi Klein in “The Shock Doctrine” while the war on terror may be an “unwinnable proposition” militarily, “from an economic perspective” the war on terror is “an unbeatable one; not a flash-in-the-pan war that could be won but a new and permanent fixture in the global economic architecture.” The covert message is that the “war on terror” was “the business prospectus that the Bush administration put before corporate America after September 11.”

As revealed by Jack Shaheen in “Reel Bad Arabs,” a study of some 1,000 motion pictures, 9/11 occurred within the context of an American culture already imbued with anti-Arab, anti-Muslim racism, where Arabs and Muslims have become generic villains; one-dimensional killers, bloodthirsty and often fanatically religious or terrorists, and when they not terrorizing Americans they are buying us up.  Shaheen points to a rant by the character Howard Beale from the 1970s movie, “Network,” in which Beale not only expresses rage against the system in general but especially against a perceived financial takeover by Arabs.  “Listen to me, God damn it!” Beale shouts.  “The Arabs are simply buying us!  There’s only one thing that can stop them!  You!”

“This kind of anger, the anger born of fear, all of it in response to a perceived conspiracy and threat by a specific group of people, well,” Shaheen observes, “we’ve seen and heard this before.  If we look at the anti-Semitic propaganda of the Nazis, at its core is an identical type of economic threat.”

Through deliberate conflation, “they” attacked us on 9/11, the Bush regime played into the dehumanized stereotype to conflate Iraq with 9/11.  The impact of that Orwellian campaign of disinformation was reflected in a 2006 poll of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.  Much was made of the number 76, representing the percentage who wanted the occupation to end within a year, but overlooked was the number 82, representing the number who, at that late date, believed they were fighting in response to the 9/11 attack.  This is why the Bush regime goes out of its way to continuously refer to al Qaeda in Iraq.

Bush Inc was never “elected.” Both the 2000 & 2004 elections were stolen.

As long as OUR GOVERNMENT sets AMERICAN TROOPS to OCCUPY-YES...OCCUPY-a FOREIGN COUNTRY-There will be Foreign Soldiers that FIGHT TO REMOVE THE OCCUPIERS-This speaks to BULLSHI*S’s ALTERNATE UNIVERSE[where- he believes]EVERYONE wants to live UNDER HIS LAWS....
Not only is he UNEDUCATED AND STUPID-HE IS ALSO DELUSIONAL....

Fadel and Outraged..

Just to add to that. That generation of Iraqis so determined to NOT be occupied by the US is the same generation(s) that grew up under those debilitating sanctions, and it’s NOT like they don’t know who’s been responsible for that.

And yes, I remember this proverb from an excellent course on the Theory and Practices of Non-Violence. A truly GREAT power will AVOID fighting a war or an enemy under these unequal circumstances, JUST because they know that they are the mightier, and it shows far more strength NOT to fight against the weaker, when you KNOW that you can win. (given there is even a ‘win’ or a real enemy involved). Of course we know there is not in Iraq.

It’s madness, and that is the only explanation. That’s why there’s SUCH a cruel irony (and annoys me to no end) anytime I hear anyone on these forums claim that the US is in Iraq (or anywhere else) to ‘establish democracy.’ What total BS! If the US thugs were so interested in establishing democracy or doing a regime change in the most repressive nation state in the Middle East, they would have gotten to the Saudis decades ago.

Instead, THEY ARE JOINED AT THE HIP!!

Speaking of which, Patrick Henry just came up with the most awesome find as a result of the stuff you posted on the Clintons/Bushes/Wal-Mart/Dave Pine/on and on.

Yep. It gave me goosebumps to read it, because all sorts of other information collected over the passed several years, (and before then) just started coming together in my mind. All of these CONNECTIONS! It’s enough to have me looking over my shoulder.

It connects the Bushes/Clintons/Saudis/Egyptians/more…to this Safari Club. I’d never heard of it. (or I don’t remember). Anyway, this is really something.

OK…here’s the link. I don’t know about you all but this is just blowing my mind, and I already KNEW some of this stuff.

PARTNERS IN CRIME: The Clintons, the Bushes, and BCCI
Posted by leveymg in September 11
Mon Feb 11th 2008, 02:39 PM

Part 1: How the Presidency Became a Threat to National Security

You may have heard that it takes a Clinton to punish a Bush for crimes of state. Not likely. The simple, undeniable fact is that Bill Clinton was presented the opportunity to prosecute former Bush Administration officials when he took office in 1993, but he refused to fully pursue his predecessors in the Oval Office who had been responsible for the illegal Iran-Contra operation, the S&L;rip-off, and the BCCI scandals.

Instead, Clinton’s presidency was tainted by its own intelligence and campaign finance scandals – massive espionage and influence buying operations—featuring much of the same supporting cast of foreign intelligence agencies, corrupt U.S. middlemen, and international bankers who had been at the center of the Reagan-Bush scandals.

No Clinton era official or those of two earlier Administrations were ever fully prosecuted and jailed for their role in crimes involving the CIA and BCCI, or for related crimes that have afflicted the Bush 41 and Clinton presidencies. Investigations have been repeatedly sidetracked, ignored, or when prosecutions actually occurred, top officials have been pardoned. These crimes, along with new and more lethal variations on them, carried over into the Bush 43 Administration.

Now, we are being asked to believe that Hillary Clinton is the best choice among Democratic candidates to clean house and punish the many and varied crimes of state committed by Bush-Cheney. Not bloody likely

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/347

Ok, it’s pretty long. (19 pages when I zapped it into a pdf. Lots of pictures though).

And yep, the CIA is all over the place..everywhere. As usual. Wasn’t Bush I head of that agency when Regan was in there? I get them confused, because they all run together. Same cast of characters at different points in time.

Excellent post Fadel.

Iraq had recently fought wars with Kuwait and Iran but had also endured 13 years of UN sanctions before the US invaded.  Hardly a formidable foe and never a serious threat to America.  Your right, “Victory over a weaker adversary is defeat.” Even IF such a “victory” existed.

The word “victory” is a big sounding word, which, in fact, has a relative meaning depending the cultural perspective from which it’s viewed. An Arabic proverb puts it this way: “Victory over a weaker adversary is defeat.” This is a situation when “victory” is equal to “defeat;” showing the relativity of these two terms.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. superpower, picked up on two very weak countries, ravaged by many years of sanctions, conflict and wars. And despite all that, they cannot honestly claim victory or even a hope for it.

In both the Afghanistan and Iraq theaters, the U.S. lost its moral compass, the most valued asset any nation could claim. Therefore to talk about victory is only the delusion of the arrogant.

The clear message that keeps coming from the war-mongers is this:

“Rest easy! If you lose your house, you could always wrap yourself with the American flag, make a copy of the constitution as your mattress and pillow, and have sweet dreams about our glorious democracy!”

“If you lose your job due to the war-oriented bad economy, don’t worry! The government will give you employment in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and possibly, in the near future, the market will expand for a good paying job in Iran as well!”

I can understand how the military industrial complex, Halliburton, Blackwater and others are truly winners in this imperial conquest.  I can also understand that the oil cartel has reaped fabulous profits from the disruption of the flow of oil, quadrupling the price at the pump, and I can even understand how, if the oil industry succeeds in wresting a sweetheart deal from the Iraqis to begin pumping the oil on the cheap, they will truly be “winners.” But can anyone tell me just what the big prize the average working stiff, whose sons and daughters who are spilling their blood onto the oil-laden sands of Iraq is going to get if we “win?”

We should NEVER HAVE GONE THERE.We should HAVE LEFT THEIR COUNTRY AND RELIGION ALONE.We should GET OUT NOW.......We have WON NOTHING...WE HAVE ALLOWED
OUR POLITICAL “leaders” TO MURDER A WHOLE LOT OF
OUR OWN CITIZENS......Let alone the number of murdered Iraqui’s.....

*It’s true that a lot of people have died in this war.
But the death of the belief that we are a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people is the biggest casualty of all.*(found in a newspaper, author unknown).

The Iraqi people are in a perpetual state of shock (and awe, words of the idiot in command?). The numbness of disbelief of what their daily lives and struggles to survive have become, thanks to the disconnect of depraved rulers, cannot begin to be imagined by those of us who are not actually there. The very limited exposure we are allowed to see, that has been glamorized and spun by this administration resembles nothing of what is the truth. Nothing can be done to un-do this trespass done to the victims-Iraqi as well as American and others who were fooled into a false war by lies of this administration. George Bush and company have brought shame unto a once great nation and it’s people with these acts of greed(oil)and stupidity. Will we ever recover or will this keep snowballing downhill until there is nothing left to salvage?

what Cyrena said....

notice that neither Betrayus, Crockos**t, nor Conason can or will define what “winning” comprises. What we “won” was control of the oil, and we cannot continue to do that if we ever leave Iraq, hence we cannot leave Iraq.

Hard to take that the USA covets, lies, steals, and murders, isn’t it?

“...More than five years after the invasion, most Iraqis still have no reliable electricity, medical care, employment or even clean water...”

In other words, the invasion was a total failure except for our control of the oil, which is of course why we went there and why we stay there, but I have long since figured out that we will only hear that from Greg Palast, and never from any so called journalist who depends upon US publishers for his living.

“What the hell does that mean anyway...?  Are things better?  Are they the same?  What...?  Have the Iraqi’s become jaded?  Are they now numb?  What...?

Good questions. My response is always..compared to what?

Compared to ‘last year’, or compared to before we destroyed their country and their lives? Compared to how old they were in 2003, and how old they are now? Compared to how many of their family members are still alive, versus how many of them are dead?

(I just read an article about another school for orphans in Iraq, and others who have lost at least one parent).

Obviously, I could go on, but we never get to the end of that sort of comparison. I’m less inclined to think that they are ‘jaded’ as much as they are simply in shock. Having been terrorized for 5 years, there may be no remembrance of any ‘normalcy’. How does one live for that long with little electricity/water, or access to basic routines like going to market for food or whatever? Schools are practically non-existent. Lives completely ‘on hold’ for what is indefinite.

I recently attempted to imagine what an Iraqi’s diary might read like, in comparison to that of Anne Frank. Actually, Dahr Jamail has managed to chronicle several, and I’ve been following his work for a few years now. He and a few other independent journalists have been able to provide the only real view from the view of these people living under the terror of occupation.

You’ve probably read some of Dahr’s work, but his website is dahrjamailiraq.com for his Mid East Dispatches. Nir Rosen is another. Both have books available as well now, and Nir now writes for The Nation.

“Iraq in Fragments” is a film production that I missed when it was shown in a selected viewing here. I don’t know how easy it would be to find now, but I’ve been advised that it too, is an excellent work, providing a glimpse of what life is like for them, as a result of this horror visited upon their nation. Not at all ‘political’ they tell me, but simply a story of the humanity and how they have continued on.

So, I don’t know if they’re jaded. I only know that just thinking of it (for me at least) is heartbreaking and so very, very, very sad.

I remember shortly after the invasion, (maybe just before the purple fingers thing) an Iraqi woman had come here to make a series of appearances before different groups of Americans. She was a physician and an academic, and she was here to speak to various women’s groups and other similar organizations, to basically PLEA for some awareness on the part of the American public, to make us aware of what was going on. This was over probably 4 or so years ago now, and her basic plea was…PLEASE LEAVE. Please convince your own politicians that we desperately need you to LEAVE us to put our lives and our country back together. She told of all the results of the occupation, and what effects it was having. The audience was in awe, and most of all these people could only say, (after these long presentations) “Oh my, well…WHAT CAN WE DO?” They didn’t get it. She had already made it clear. What we COULD DO, was to LEAVE. Eventually she became so frustrated, because it was obvious that it just ‘wasn’t registering’ with this well meaning, but still clueless audience. She had risked a great deal in making the trip at the time. When she left, I felt that little had been accomplished. We just ‘didn’t get it’. I’ve since lost touch with her, so I have no idea what’s happened in the time elapsed, other than that all that we knew WOULD happen to the population of Iraq…has.

Thanks...’liberators’.

Quote: “Yet, columnist David Brooks of The New York Times eagerly tells us that the Iraqi people are more optimistic than they were last year,”

Thank you Joe for bringing this deceiving propaganda to light.

One would have to wonder how bad last year was in order for this year to be “more optimistic”.  Obviously everyone who cares what this has done to the Iraqi people would be relieved to hear such a message.  But then that is the intent of liars and crooks, isn’t it?

Let’s put a “spin” on it and make it a palatable message, one which relieves the American peoples’ sorrow and satiates our pain for the citizens of Iraq.

Possibly Mr. Brooks should take up residence in one of the suburbs of Iraq’s cities before he starts CLAIMING “optimism”.

What the hell does that mean anyway...?  Are things better?  Are they the same?  What...?  Have the Iraqi’s become jaded?  Are they now numb?  What...?