Page 1 of 1

Author:  CrimsonEagle [ Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:27 pm ]

Tuesday, September 05, 2006
There seems to be one or two people at Webdiary who are completely unable to understand what the Iraq war has been all about. The one commentator there that has any sense of what it really is all about is Roslyn Ross.
Ross argues:

“The US has acted in ways in Iraq which are either utterly and completely incompetent or designed to create as much chaos as possible and tip the country into civil war or a semblance of civil war.
The litany of 'errors' or maybe not errors committed by the US in the handling of its invasion and occupation are legion. Either they are thoroughly incompetent, and that is certainly possible, or the 'plan' was to make Iraq so unstable that an occupying presence could be justified in the long term.” Ross goes on to assert: “…an army plan to divide Iraq – remember the line divide and conquer – was seen as the best way to control the region.”[1]

Ross is correct in her assumption; the name of the game is indeed divide and rule. Shortly after the war got under way John Howard inadvertently let the cat out of the bag when he said that there “…may well be a case for a federation, with the Kurdish elements, the Sunni and the Shia.”[2] Fortunately, for Howard anyway, nobody paid much attention. Nonetheless, it’s certainly looking as though that may well be the only alternative. It certainly would be the one that would best suit the coalition because it would then allow the US to remain in Iraq at the behest of any one of the three groupings that would form such a federation – the Kurds, the Shia’s and the Sunni’s.

The US has no intention of leaving Iraq and certainly not at any time soon. Ross is right. The Americans have built up an infrastructure within Iraq that is designed specifically for the long term. The US government has no interest in what the world thinks of its role in Iraq. The methods used to gain its foothold of hegemony is fait accompli and the US has set up a very sophisticated propaganda machine that is able – at least so far – to have just been able to keep on top of the worlds negative public opinion over the current state of affairs in Iraq.

Hamish Alcorn has demonstrated yet again his childish naiveté and knowledge of Middle East affairs when he states thus: “….a f**k up it is in Iraq, from the beginning, and yeah, there's been lies and cover-ups all along too, mostly from the hip otherwise they wouldn't have been so clumsy and obvious. Let's keep exposing these as we spot them. But a grand conspiracy to f**k up on purpose? I really don't think so. For me it was clear that it was merely a f**k up when they did not find WMDs, despite everything riding on it politically.”[3] The statement is, of course, an absurdity. How can one ‘f**k up' not finding WMDs if one knew they didn’t exist in the first place and stating that they did was merely lie to create a casus belli to invade Iraq? There now exists plenty of evidence to suggest that the entire war was based exclusively on deliberately constructed lies designed to gain the support of US public opinion. There is even now a massive 36% of the American people who now suspect “…that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.”[4]

The real aims of US Middle East foreign policy have nowhere near been met. The three main aims are to project US hegemony to the region, to secure, at least, influence over the natural resources of the region and to secure the interests and long term goals of Israel – and each and all of these aims are mutually contingent upon the other.

The entire project of bringing Israeli/US dominance into the Middle East has been planned by an alliance of Jewish-American neoconservatives who have Israeli interests as a priority in their policy plans, and non-Jewish American neoconservative pragmatists who have as their priorities the energy and economic interests that can be derived from a successful alliance of US-Israeli foreign policy in the Middle East. Part of that policy is to maintain a major foothold in Iraq for the long term by whatever means is most convenient given any set of international/regional/domestic prevailing agential conditions at any given time. For the Israelis and their pro right-wing Zionist neoconservative allies both in the US and around the world, the aim is to create a Greater Israel that is inclusive of an at least pacified West Bank, but preferably with a non-existent Palestinian population, and a similarly Palestinian-less Gaza Strip. A pacified and powerless Syria would allow Israel to maintain control of the Golan Heights and may even allow the Israelis to yet again think about including south Lebanon up to the Litani River as part of a Greater Israel particularly if Hizbollah were neutralised.

Much of this, of course, very much depends on a subdued and ineffectual Iraq and a toothless or even benign Iran.

For any one to believe that the US has simply blundered ahead with plans for the Middle East that have not been thought out is a really big mistake.

[1] Roslyn Ross, ‘Ridiculous It May Be But Right It May Also Be’, Webdiary, 5 September 2006. Available online: Accessed 5 September 2006.
[2] ‘Aussie system could suit Iraqis: PM’, ABC Lateline, 14 April 2003. Available online: Accessed 5 September 2006.
[3] Hamish Alcorn, ‘I’m With Jenny On This’, Webdiary, 5 September 2006. Available online: Accessed 5 September 2006.
[4] Thomas Hargrove, ‘Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy’,, 1 August 2006. Available online: Accessed 5 September 2006.

Author:  CrimsonEagle [ Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

I do doubt if these people in charge are in fact incompetent.

Think about it. It is possible that their plan is succeeding just the way they want it.

Things we know.

1. Of course we know they lied.

2. From a tactical point of view, you can not win against an insurgency. There is NO way in hell that we can win an occupation of another country. None, not a chance. The longer we stay, the more people we kill, and the more destruction we bring upon these people will only continue to strengthen the resistance to an occupation. The US occupation in both Iraq and Afghanistan will only succeed in creating more hatred. This continued occupation will continue to bleed America slowly until it is forced to withdraw due to the wounds it has received with the currency of lives and economic collapse.

Do any of you think that no matter what the US does, at some point these people who are native to these countries that we are now occupying, will ever give up their fight to remove the occupiers?

Would you? I would hope not. Now what could ever make our leaders of this fiasco think that those we are occupying would just give up?

The native Americans fought to near extinction against the occupation of the white man.

The North Koreans and the Vietnamese lost millions (combined) in opposition to the occupation of America. No matter what people think of the politics of the time, there is no way we could have won either of these wars. They would have fought us to the last man.

Afghanistan fought the Russians to defeat against their occupation.

As of right now, we have a two front war going on, that we cannot win. Try to tell me that this is not by design. We will just sit there and bleed to death from a thousand small cuts. A little at a time they will kill us.

Then to make matters worse, we are threatening other countries to boot?

No one is that incompetent. They want the destruction of this country. There is no other conclusion that we can come to.

Yes, Bush may be an incompetent president, but we all know that he is just a front man. The real power is not incompetent. The real power is accomplishing exactly what it wants.

Author:  dori [ Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:08 am ]
Post subject: 

Why have we been using DU in Iraq if we didn't want to kill as many people as possible? The ones we don't kill outright will die in the years to come. DU lasts, for practical purposes, forever.

Whe did NO get drowned? How many died? Where are the people who managed to survive? The neocons malevolence isn't restricted to people in foreign countries.

These people are mass murderers. Anyone they do not consider worth living, they dispose of. Who is next? We are all in their sights...

No, these people are not incompetent, they are doing exactaly what they want to do!

Author:  Republicae [ Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:48 am ]
Post subject: 

Yes, Bush may be an incompetent president, but we all know that he is just a front man. The real power is not incompetent. The real power is accomplishing exactly what it wants.

Exactly Crimson...right on the money!

Author:  Republicae [ Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:01 am ]
Post subject: 

CrimsonEagle wrote:
1. Of course we know they lied.

2. From a tactical point of view, you can not win against an insurgency. There is NO way in hell that we can win an occupation of another country. None, not a chance.

You know one of the interesting things about the wars we have been involved with since WWII, is that they are all in small, backwater countries. Iraq and Afghanistan do hold more strategic potential due to the oil and location, but still when they were planning these wars back in 98, 99, and 2000, did they ever think of what it was actually going to entail? Doesn't look like it.

Author:  Just One More Thing.... [ Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:40 am ]
Post subject: 

People in this thread seem to be agreeing that the neocons are not stupid and that a de-stabilized, conflict laden, full of angry citizens Iraq is the ideal situation. In other words, the situation is not fixable because they do not want it to be fixable.

A bit of personal history for you. I originally thought this War was being fought for Israel. That was my first impression even before the War began. It just did not make sense to me to finger Iraq in the media and portray the country as some big evil weapons of mass destruction factory. I just did not buy it. And, I thought the only reason for all the hype was for Israel. Nothing else made sense to me. Iraq was a threat to them and it occurred to me that that was the reason for the invasion. You do recall the Axis of Evil Speech, for example, where Iraq is fingered right away by the Bush Administration.

But, I have done quite a bit of reading on the internet on sites like this and I began thinking that was more at stake here. Like oil and US hegemony, for example. I think all of these reasons for war come together in Iraq and just form part of US foreign policy; that policy being empire building through imperialism. That is the way I am reading the situation right now.

So, now here we have people thinking that being in a rut in Iraq is the best way to go. What is the rationale for that? To keep the US there longer and provide a false reason for the occupation. Is that all? Doesn't this imply a continued insurgency and a pouring in from neighbouring countries of more terrorists ( if you are a Bushy ) or more freedom fighters ( if you are the oppressed Arab population ). The US loses more and more men and more and more Iraqi citizens die from civil war and from fighting the occupiers.

The US continues its propaganda campaign against Iran while fighting this war as well as the one in Afghanistan. Is this the plan? To just be engaged in war and keep the Military Industrial Complex happy while ballooning the debt. Are things that straightforward?

Author:  dori [ Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:02 am ]
Post subject: 

Nothing is ever straightforward with neocons.

I do believe as long as neocons are in charge of this country, we will be at war. They LOVE war! They get rich on war. They care nothing about the citizens of the countries they invade, nor our own troops.

These are soulless automatons, acting according to their coded instructions. Their gods are power and money. People follow them out of ignorance more than malace.

There is no way to change them, all we can do is try to get through to their followers, and breathe some humanity into their souls.

Author:  Channel Zero [ Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

What was the war in Iraq for? Oil. That's what vp pick, Sarah Palin says.

Palin: Iraq is a war for oil.
In a recent BusinessWeek interview, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) admitted that she believes the Iraq war was fought because of oil:

We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.

As others are noting: Ms. Palin has not been vetted -- even Dana Perino knows to claim the war was to fight terrorism.

Author:  Purple Tang [ Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

We didn't get Iraq's oil. It was for $$$$$$$$$.

The Zionists who run this country also didn't like Iraq. Iran and Syria are now on the chopping block. Same pretenses.

"Do it in the name of terrorism, you can justify it in the end."

Author:  Just One More Thing.... [ Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:16 am ]
Post subject: 

Interesting comments re Palin. I just did a thing about her on my blog. Her being picked by John McCain ties in a bit with my personal interests as well.

I personally she is a great pick for McCain because of what she brings to the table for him. Now. let's get this out front of course, if I was an American I would never vote for a Republican. But, what I am saying here and on my blog is that she is quite a sharp pick for the older McCain. Palin is young and she supports the Chistian view of things like pro-life. This is a big deal for the Republicans as some of the leaders were concerned that McCain would pick a more liberal type. Well, Palin apparently has the credentials. She is a leader and is successful. Therefore, she appeals to those women who supported Hillary Clinton. She also comes from a resource rich state and is on side for more production out of Alaska. She is also a strong supporter of the NRA and her son is in Iraq. Why she allows this to happen though may prove to be a negative. I have not heard any real war talk out of her yet so that is a plus to those against war.

But, she seems to add some life to the party and she looks like a good pick. Only heard her speak a bit and I do not know how she performs in a debate and how good she is on her feet etc. Now. I know I am sounding like a promoter of Republicans, but I am not really. I just do not like the Democrats right now. They have become phoney and stage like. They are only saying things to get elected and the things they are saying I do not like. They are supporters of war and play the religion card and look foolish in doing so. So, if they are just Republican wannabes with a slight bit of humanity ( health care ) what is the difference?

As for Palin saying that the war was for oil, well that is perfectly fine. I do not know if Mr. John McCain is aware of this detail of her life. One would hope that he has done his homework regarding her background knowing how brutal these election campaigns can be. All I am saying is that I like their candidacy together and that they look like a better team than the Democrats who are really just putting on makeup and doing a show. I am not impressed with their performance one bit. They have not said that they are against war and they are belligerent towards Iran and Russia. So why vote for Democrat when you can vote for the real thing. Palin sounds like an honest little number. I hope she doesn't get into trouble though.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group