Bush plans fucking enormous bloodbath in Iraq

[Loki]

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

Nope, me neither.

 

[Barking_Mad]

The serious problem which is never discussed or really mentioned in the media is that the US army and Iraqi troops have no real control over large parts of Iraq, especially Sunni ones. You can't rebuild anything when towns, villages and cities are being run by Sunni and Shia militia groups.

The fact the US government wants to throw more troops into Baghdad suggests that they fear Baghdad is slowly slipping from their grasp and if it does go completely then they most certinaly have lost.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Interesting comment on all of this from some mate of Pat Lang

If America backs out of the middle east leaving Iran intact, the following will happen:

1. Iran is now the recognised regional power in the Middle East and will have a very large say in dictating what happens to the remains of Iraq.

2. Israel will be faced with the need to make some form of accomodation with the Islamic powers in the region.

3. Successive Congresses will bind the President and the military industrial complex hand and foot to prevent a repeat of this folly.

4. Right wing thinktanks and their associated pundits will be discredited.

5. Congress will have to reform taxation to pay for the war (remember when Iraqi Oil revenue was supposed to cover the cost of all this?)

6. A decade of soul searching and reform about the electoral system, the media, campaign finance, lobbying and similar issues will occur - sharply reducing the powers of the current ruling class to manipulate Americans so easily.

In other words, for Bush and his friends, defeat really is "unthinkable", just as it was to Kaiser Wilhelm when Wilson proposed a "victorless Peace" to Germany in 1917. Unless there is victory, the entire NeoCon world gets swept away, as do the Likudniks.

For that reason, expect a savage campaign to clear Baghdad of insurgents - which will fail with the loss of a great deal of American and Iraqi blood, followed by an all out bombing attack on Iran.

For the NeoCons, there is no other choice available to them, that is the tragedy.

source

 

[teqniq]

The serious problem which is never discussed or really mentioned in the media is that the US army and Iraqi troops have no real control over large parts of Iraq, especially Sunni ones. You can't rebuild anything when towns, villages and cities are being run by Sunni and Shia militia groups.

Which is why I found this comment from Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker of the house of representatives a little ironic:

Iraqis should do more to defend themselves

source

 

[Bernie Gunther]

That is odd. The US usually gets quite upset when Iraqis try to defend themselves.

 

[teqniq]

Well it begs the question: From whom?

 

[MikeMcc]

Oh shit...

Don't know if anybody has mentioned this before

Times article

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Don't know if anybody has mentioned this before

Times article

Yup a page or so back.

 

[grogwilton]

The serious problem which is never discussed or really mentioned in the media is that the US army and Iraqi troops have no real control over large parts of Iraq, especially Sunni ones. You can't rebuild anything when towns, villages and cities are being run by Sunni and Shia militia groups.

its not discussed much because its basically a given. the insurgents destroy anything that they see being built by the americans, as they fear the US is trying to temporarily buy off the population in order to screw them later.

is this the US's intention? most people on here would probably say yes, and i think most people without a pschologically worrying high level of naivity would agree.

if they cared about iraqis why did they secure the oil ministry from looters before the hospitals? A: they wanted to use oil revenue to fund reconstruction or B: they just wanted the oil and the iraqis came second (if at all) because they dont really give two fucks about them?

if they cared about iraqis why did they sell the reconstruction of basra ports contracts to US companies rather then iraqi? A: their would be more investment and expertise quicker, B: theyd make more money, and they couldnt really give two fucks about whether iraqi firms and engineers had jobs.

my looking at the history of imperialism, or rather, why governments do anything, ESPECIALLY abroad would suggest b in both of those.

are you suggesting if they could build stuff everything would improve? the building of a few schools would not significantly change the situation. the issue throughout the middle east is that a strong, well educated, and democratic middle east would simply not be conducive to the current world economy.

arab states have large poverty stricken populations. an educated and democratic middle east would probably lead to massive wealth distribution within the ME putting the price of oil through the roof, and shifting the balance of power in world economics to much for some current leaders' liking.

 

[EddyBlack]

Don't know if anybody has mentioned this before

Times article

I had seen that one.

This has been escalating for some time. Not in a gradual curve but more like in gears of hostilility.

It is hard to predict if and when a strike on Iran will come.

The Times articles maintains that Iran is ‘hell-bent on obtaining a nuclear weapon’. I don’t believe this. And even if it where true, many nations have them now, it would not justify a military strike. Also the article says Iran’s leaders are ‘Mad Mullahs’. Is this true?

I cannott understand why relations have gone so cold with Iran.

Terrorism- Nearly all the 9/11 hi-jackers where from Saudi Arabia, Americas ally.

Nuclear Ambitions- Iran is allowed under international laws and agreements to use nuclear power.
The allies are being two faced, allowing and assisting India, Pakistan and our good friends North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons..

Threats to Destroy Israel- Is it a matter of partisanship; America and Britain’s strong alliance with Israel?

The threat to 'wipe Israel of the map' has been distorted and mistranslated.
link

I'm not saying Ahmadinejad is a good President or a bad one, but at least he hasn't invaded anybody, nor has he any responsibility for the regional instability.

I've noticed some reports, originating in Washington about Iranian attempts to de-stabilise Iraq and arm certain factions as they are alleged to have done in Lebanon.

I don't accept that Iran should be condemned and threatened in this manner.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think the rhetoric against Iran is because the US has made a huge strategic blunder with the horrible mess they've created in Iraq. They've handed the Iranians a very substantial strategic gain on a plate and are very upset about it. So they're looking for a way to start a war with Iran to redress things.

 

[EddyBlack]

The rhetoric against Iran has been going on for years.

Insofar as America has been trying to bully Iran for years, and now that America's position is weak, they feel they have attack Iran too? Maybe.

That is pretty aggressive and depraved as strategies go, but quite possible.

Another likely factor is the long term domination of the region. This would explain the blind-eye turned to the likes of North Korea and Pakistan and their nuclear weapons.

 

[teqniq]

^^^
Plus there is also the 'unfinished business' aspect to relations between Iran and the U.S. Re: the U.S. Embassy hostages fiasco which was and possibly still is a lasting embarassement to the U.S. Couple this with the oil and gas reserves in Iran and Iraq and you have naked greed and revenge! Great.

 

[Loki]

And the trouble for Dubya is finding an excuse to attack Iran. I don't think he's got a good enough one atm.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> an educated and democratic middle east would probably lead to massive wealth distribution within the ME putting the price of oil through the roof, and shifting the balance of power in world economics to much for some current leaders' liking.

That's an interesting point and I've no doubt that there is considerable truth in it.

 

[laptop]

the article says Iran’s leaders are ‘Mad Mullahs’. Is this true?

Personally, I am interested by the idea that all religion is related to paranoia.

But the important point is that they seem to me to be clever mullahs.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Personally, I am interested by the idea that all religion is related to paranoia.

But the important point is that they seem to me to be clever mullahs.

They certainly seem smarter than Bush, but that's not saying a lot.

I'm guessing the calculation by the Iranian leadership is that they win most via peace, because a peaceful democratic Iraq, purely on demographics, is their natural ally.

So the US is probably going to look long and hard for ways to change that and for a plausble casus belli to attack Iran. The nuclear thing, despite everything Iran has done being entirely within the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and despite the US and Britain repeatedly ignoring their own obligations under that treaty, has always seemed the mostly likely excuse. I'm wondering though, whether the US is going to try to provoke Iran into some sort of rash action by doing something awful within Iraq. It probably won't work, but the Iraqis in question will all be dead by then.

 

[Barking_Mad]

From Yahoo just over an hour or go

President Bush considered more U.S. troops for
Iraq, the White House said Thursday that Bush and Iraq's prime minister had agreed on the need for enough military might to calm violence-wracked Baghdad.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

bonkers

 

[MikeMcc]

I had seen that one.

This has been escalating for some time. Not in a gradual curve but more like in gears of hostilility.

It is hard to predict if and when a strike on Iran will come.

The Times articles maintains that Iran is ‘hell-bent on obtaining a nuclear weapon’. I don’t believe this. And even if it where true, many nations have them now, it would not justify a military strike. Also the article says Iran’s leaders are ‘Mad Mullahs’. Is this true?

I cannott understand why relations have gone so cold with Iran.

Terrorism- Nearly all the 9/11 hi-jackers where from Saudi Arabia, Americas ally.

Nuclear Ambitions- Iran is allowed under international laws and agreements to use nuclear power.
The allies are being two faced, allowing and assisting India, Pakistan and our good friends North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons..

Threats to Destroy Israel- Is it a matter of partisanship; America and Britain’s strong alliance with Israel?

The threat to 'wipe Israel of the map' has been distorted and mistranslated.
link

I'm not saying Ahmadinejad is a good President or a bad one, but at least he hasn't invaded anybody, nor has he any responsibility for the regional instability.

I've noticed some reports, originating in Washington about Iranian attempts to de-stabilise Iraq and arm certain factions as they are alleged to have done in Lebanon.

I don't accept that Iran should be condemned and threatened in this manner.

I agree that they are unlikely to be seeking nuclear weapons (at the moment at least) but the view that is being pushed by the US/UK governments is that they are and these will be the most influential voices dispite the lies over Iraqi WMDs. The Iranians aren't helping by prohibiting the IAEA inspectors, that was the same mistake Saddam made, it just plays into the fears generated by Bush and Blair

 

[laptop]

the US is probably going to look long and hard ... for a plausble casus belli to attack Iran.

They could certainly build launch an attack that would make sense within US politics - say cruise missile strikes in August 2008, in time to provoke some "terrism" before the November election.

But surely the actual generals realise that they can't do anything at all that makes any military sense on the ground?

Iran is fucking crinkly. Don't go there. Not even into the oilfield adjacent to Basra.

(About to go off on one about how five-star-generals being arrested for treason for disobeying Bush in mid-2008 would go down domestically... remember I had 3 hours' sleep last night...)

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I wonder if they make generals unload their sidearms before having meetings with Bush?

The temptation to become a hero might be seen as too great

 

[mears]

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.

Are you under the impression that George Bush broke some law? You never answered.

 

[Yossarian]

Course he fucking did.

 

[mears]

Course he fucking did.

Good response, your attention to detail is superlative.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Surely this latest half-cocked military plan must be enough to wake up the great American public into getting this fucking idiot out of office?

Pretty please?

This is his last term in any event.

 

[Yossarian]

Good response, your attention to detail is superlative.

You're lucky you got that much.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The problem with this plan is it's too little, too late.

There should have been 200,000 troops in country, right from the get-go.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think the rhetoric against Iran is because the US has made a huge strategic blunder with the horrible mess they've created in Iraq. They've handed the Iranians a very substantial strategic gain on a plate and are very upset about it. So they're looking for a way to start a war with Iran to redress things.

They don't want war with Iran. Iran would turn out to be a serious foe, and it would be a major war that would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

 

[Yossarian]

The problem with this plan is it's too little, too late.

There should have been 200,000 troops in country, right from the get-go.

They shouldn’t have completely dismantled the Iraqi army – surely it wouldn’t have been that difficult to get a few tens of thousands of them to help keep the peace after the invasion.

 

[oake]

They shouldn’t have completely dismantled the Iraqi army – surely it wouldn’t have been that difficult to get a few tens of thousands of them to help keep the peace after the invasion.

Instead of countless unemployed Iraqi soldiers applying their skills to the 'insurgency'.