Bush plans fucking enormous bloodbath in Iraq

[Kid_Eternity]

Do you actually remember Vietnam? I lived through that time, and there are many huge differences.

Such as?

 

[muser]

Well the Democrats take over congress tomorrow, and although they've said they aren't rushing to impeach, my advisor on US politics says that they plan to spend the next two years subpoenaing all the filth that the Bush administration have been up to in dark corners, by way of exposing it to public scrutiny over the two years between now and the next Presidential election. Particularly the corruption and war profiteering and so on. So Bush probably has to move quickly if he wants to kill lots more foreign people, before he's so bogged down in explaining awful mediapathic shit that he's not able to do anything.

Do you suppose that the Bush adminstration would have enough fall guys in the wings. Rove, rumsfield and cheney are all in line, before the mouth watering morsel thats Bush, is subpoenaed. In rum's case his only defense is that America no longer pays attention to international law, and therefore legalised torture was well within his remit.
The democrats won't nail any of the principle players in government on 'big' allegations, since the embarrassment reflects on all legislative branches of government and the system itself.
I suspect they will catch alot of them with their hand in the till, a la randy cunningham and they'll likily settle for that.

 

[slaar]

Anatole Kaletsky seems to think it could be much worse than that:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1061-2530313,00.html

What now seems to be in preparation at the White House, with the usual unquestioning support from Downing Street, is a Middle Eastern equivalent of the Second World War. The trigger for this all-embracing war would be the formation of a previously unthinkable alliance between America, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Britain, to confront Iran and the rise of the power of Shia Islam.

The logical outcome of this “pinning back” process would be an air strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities, combined with a renewed Israeli military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, aggressive action by American and British soldiers to crush Iraq’s Shia militias, while Saudi-backed Sunni terrorists undermined the increasingly precarious pro-Iranian Government in Baghdad.

Fuck. That.

 

[likesfish]

the british "surge" was actually a specific operation to knock down the serious crime units police station and rescue 150 odd prisoners who were more than likley about to be shot and dumped.
a massive show of force makes sense when doing something like that deters the majority of gunmen so keeps your men alive and as there not returning fire keeps coallaterial damage down.
if you actually have a specific misson that a extra load of troops could achieve
then it makes sense. unfortunatly the sunni insurgency seems to be at the same level of reality as the ira were in 1973 (secret talks with the british goverment they thought the brits were getting ready to surrender) demanding a sunni dominated goverment isn't ever going to happen

 

[rekil]

Such as?

Hats.

 

[grogwilton]

the times article above was the only 'rational' explanation to this troop increase.

and it ruly highlights what a complete strategical cockup this was. either they side with the shia militias, pull out of iraq, and basically hand strategic control of it over to Iran, something they never wanted to do,

or they side with the sunni insurgents who have been fighting them for the past 3 years, and attack the shia militias. which is tough because what little iraqi army police there is is made up of shia militias not to mention the iraqi interior ministry and pretty much the whole government.

also, an attack on the shia militias would unleash a guerilla war against the occupiers that would make the sunni insurgency look tame, given their greater numbers. and this is without even reckoning in the trainging and expertise they could get from Hezbollah, and funding they could get from Iran.

 

[mears]

Do you suppose that the Bush adminstration would have enough fall guys in the wings. Rove, rumsfield and cheney are all in line, before the mouth watering morsel thats Bush, is subpoenaed. In rum's case his only defense is that America no longer pays attention to international law, and therefore legalised torture was well within his remit.
The democrats won't nail any of the principle players in government on 'big' allegations, since the embarrassment reflects on all legislative branches of government and the system itself.
I suspect they will catch alot of them with their hand in the till, a la randy cunningham and they'll likily settle for that.

More Brits obsessed with the US, all America all the time.

What are you getting at? Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld and Cheney broke the law? What laws are those, specifics mind you.

Its almost quaint talking to foreigners about my country. Hope I can assist in your understanding as well.

 

[Loki]

and it ruly highlights what a complete strategical cockup this was. either they side with the shia militias, pull out of iraq, and basically hand strategic control of it over to Iran, something they never wanted to do,

Yeah agree, Iran is sitting there over the border, happy to gain extra territory from inhabitants desperate for some peace, and Iran is a country at peace, a more peaceful place than Iraq for sure.

The White House seems terrified of this outcome though, hence this latest desperate effort!?

 

[poster342002]

So, the invasion hasn't produced the desired outcome, so they're going to invade it again - "properly", this time? You couldn't make this stuff up.

 

[kyser_soze]

More Brits obsessed with the US, all America all the time.

What are you getting at? Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld and Cheney broke the law? What laws are those, specifics mind you.

Its almost quaint talking to foreigners about my country. Hope I can assist in your understanding as well.

You can't adequately explain the separation of powers, mears, so we won't be consulting you about aspects of US policy that you frequently choose to stick your head in the sand about.

On the subject of the thread, and 'one big push'...

Kitchener

Bush

 

[sleaterkinney]

More Brits obsessed with the US, all America all the time.

Well if you stopped screwing up the world we wouldn't be.

 

[Loki]

Seems to me the USA scared of Iraq splitting up. Personally I doubt many Iraqis care for a government installed by the USA. Don't think sending more troops in is going to solve it either though.

 

[WS Atkins]

Its almost quaint talking to foreigners about my country.

Iraq is your country? How do you feel about the yanks fucking it up?

 

[muser]

I think Bush should listen to Blair for a change, and try diplomacy. There have been tentative approaches towards iran from the british foreign office, why not engage in high level diplomacy (foreign office level). Margaret beckett is a credible foreign secretary (in the sense shes sympathic with anti war campaign) and that will be known in tehran.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Margaret beckett is a credible foreign secretary (in the sense shes sympathic with anti war campaign) and that will be known in tehran.

She is?

 

[slaar]

the times article above was the only 'rational' explanation to this troop increase.

and it ruly highlights what a complete strategical cockup this was. either they side with the shia militias, pull out of iraq, and basically hand strategic control of it over to Iran, something they never wanted to do,

or they side with the sunni insurgents who have been fighting them for the past 3 years, and attack the shia militias. which is tough because what little iraqi army police there is is made up of shia militias not to mention the iraqi interior ministry and pretty much the whole government.

also, an attack on the shia militias would unleash a guerilla war against the occupiers that would make the sunni insurgency look tame, given their greater numbers. and this is without even reckoning in the trainging and expertise they could get from Hezbollah, and funding they could get from Iran.

I guess the only saving grace is that this administration has shown itself to be irrational so many times that this could simply be another blind cock-up. I hope that to be true. And I hope more that it is stopped by Congress or internal Republican pressures on the President.

 

[gnoriac]

Margaret beckett is a credible foreign secretary (in the sense shes sympathic with anti war campaign) and that will be known in tehran.

The only Foreign Sec to claim to know nothing about the Middle East on taking office. Must've pissed themselves in Tehran.

 

[kyser_soze]

Anatole Kaletsky is a bit of a scary blue sky person tho - I've seen similar articles where he takes a few points, some ideas and extrapolates them into a doomsday scenario, so y'know, calm yerselfs a bit over the times article...

 

[grogwilton]

Anatole Kaletsky is a bit of a scary blue sky person tho - I've seen similar articles where he takes a few points, some ideas and extrapolates them into a doomsday scenario, so y'know, calm yerselfs a bit over the times article...

that may be true, but it still doesnt change the fact that what the americans need in Iraq, (a nationalist iraqi government friendly to the US without ties to Syria, Iran or the kurdish nationalist movement) is not going to materialise.

there is not a single pro american group in Iraq that has any sort of power or influence. they are either:

sunni islamists fighting the occupation
sunni nationalists fighting the occupation
sunni baathists fighting the occupation

shia islamists who oppose the occupation but are biding their time until the US pulls out and will then seize power
shia islamists loyal to Iran that are biding their time until the US pulls out and will seize power and start trading southern oil field oil with iran, china and venezuela, anyone but the US

kurds who support the US, but will never have the power to rule, and who the US will never give any great amount of power as it threatens their relations with turkey.

 

[kyser_soze]

At present I suspect the US is in something of a quandry about it's long term strategic positioning in the ME. It needs a degree of support in the region, at least from the elites, in order to keep guzzling oil; it ideally would like bases in the region that are large enough to dump loads of materiél in at short notice, thus giving them quick response ability to future conflicts.

Which leaves them in a rather difficult position. Of course, a political leader with imagination, flair and a penchant for creative thinking would see this as an exceptional opportunity to launch a campaign based on US energy independence based around massive investment in renewables, improvements in energy efficiency and the 101 small things that can be done to make the US less dependent on oil.

But that won't happen, at least at Federal Policy level, until someone who doesn't rely on money from oil and Detroit (altho even Detroit seems to be slowly waking up to the fact that lots of US drivers have gone out and bought the Prius and other dual-source vehicles).

 

[Barking_Mad]

More Brits obsessed with the US, all America all the time.

What are you getting at? Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld and Cheney broke the law? What laws are those, specifics mind you.

Its almost quaint talking to foreigners about my country. Hope I can assist in your understanding as well.

You forget that if the US decides to start attacking Shia militia that UK troops would be in the firing line down south.

But then again any sort of understanding of any situation for you is clearly impossible as you're incapable of any logical and rational thought.

 

[rekil]

You forget that if the US decides to start attacking Shia militia that UK troops would be in the firing line down south.

But then again any sort of understanding of any situation for you is clearly impossible as you're incapable of any logical and rational thought.

You reckon mears is actually aware that UK troops are in 'Raq?

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Maybe this is all a smokescreen for the next real military action?

Are Israelis gearing up to bomb Iran?

The Middle East is abuzz with ugly rumours. One of them is so dire - and comes from sources in so many capital cities - that it has to be taken seriously.

The suggestion is that the Israeli government has served notice on the White House that it must take pre-emptive action against Iran's sites of nuclear weapons development - or Israel will go it alone and do the job itself. Israel has apparently given Bush a deadline of six months.

The pressure on the Americans - if it is true - comes with the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman, one of the hardest of all hard-liners, as Israel's new Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Strategic Affairs, under the new coalition with his party, Yisrael Beytenu.

One reason why the rumour is being taken seriously is that it coincides with another strong rumour - that the Iranian regime of Mahmud Ahmadinejad has ordered Iran's nuclear programme to be accelerated. According to sources, the enrichment of uranium to weapons-grade material is galloping ahead, and Iran could have its own deployable nuclear warheads within four years.

Given Ahmadinejad's wild rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map (though the translation of these remarks is now acknowledged to be somewhat fuzzy), Israel's hawks argue there is no time to lose. Former Prime Minister, and Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, for whom Lieberman once worked as chief of staff, has argued strenuously for a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

 

[slaar]

Given Iran's rhetoric, it must seem to many in the country like it makes sense for Israel to do this. That really would kick off a regional war.

What's the source for that BTW?

 

[Barking_Mad]

Given Iran's rhetoric, it must seem to many in the country like it makes sense for Israel to do this. That really would kick off a regional war.

What's the source for that BTW?

Googled it to here - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FOX20061103&articleId=3693

 

[Barking_Mad]

 

[slaar]

Thanks Barking.

I don't see a decent solution to this mess anymore. Anyone else?

 

[dylanredefined]

British forces running away in the night seems good to me .Wouldnt help
but it would be a bit of a giggle.
Sealing the borders flooding the place with troops 100 000 plus .And rebuilding it getting power on water and jobs etc might work .Hard to get someone to become a martyr if they can have a future .And roadside bombings become harder if you never know when the next army patrol is coming round the corner .

 

[Kaka Tim]

So mears - how do you think this latest Bush brainwave will pan out in Iraq?

Yet more sucess?

Please post up your predicitons of 'victory' etc so we can have a grim, blood spattered, laugh at your expense in six months time.

 

[muser]

The only Foreign Sec to claim to know nothing about the Middle East on taking office. Must've pissed themselves in Tehran.

She gave an interview in the new statesman. I don't know whether the publication is in amour with her, but the article was an endorsement of her abilities as FS. It definitely swayed me.