Sectarian Violence/civil War In Iraq?

[tflex]

Bush's policy is to go after those middle eastern countries that have a long history of supporting terrorism against the U.S. and the west. So far his policy has been successful and assuming that the next administration will stick to this policy, the entire middle east will be transformed. These are the target countries Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Saudi Arabia.

 

The Kingdom will have to be treated through diplomatic means, it's in the interest of the royal family to assist the U.S. government with it's war on terror. They are a bigger and an easier target for the terrorists, who would like nothing more than to overthrow the royal family and install an extremist state similar to Iran. I'm convinced the royal family is working with the U.S. behind the scenes.

 

Afghanistan and Iraq have already been transformed by military force, although Iran and Syria are financing and sending terrorists to both countries which have kept the situation there volatile especially in Iraq, which borders both Iran and Syria. The turmoil in Iraq will not stop until Syria and Iran are taken care of.

 

Gaddafi learned well from Saddam's mistakes and jumped on board with the U.S.

 

Lebanon with the help of the U.S. is finally independant of Syrian control. But Syria and Iran continue to smuggle arms and money through the Lebanese border to help finance Hizbullah's war against Israel and to terrorize anti Syria or pro west lebanese politcians and citizens. Once the Assad regime is removed from Syria, Lebanon will be completely stabilized.

 

I think the next U.S. target is Syria, there will be a regime change soon, but I'm not sure if it will be done by military force or diplomacy. The U.S. recently opened dialogue with the 'Muslim Brotherhood' who are banned by the Assad regime. Something is in the works to oust Assad.

 

Iran's government is the head of the snake and by far the most anti U.S. especially now with this lunatic Ahmadinejad, who is trying build nukes. Being the last U.S. target, Iran will feel increasingly isolated from it's neighbours. The future of Iran is with it's younger generation who significantly outnumber the older more conservative population and are supportive of better relations with the west. The U.S. will support an opposition party that will help overthrow the tyrannical regime that has been in place since 1979. I don't think this will happen anytime soon, maybe 4 years down the road.

 

If the U.S. can stay on course and accomplish this policy, then I truly think with friendly governments in the middle east, it will be more feasible to implement real peace between Israel and Palestine.

Edited February 26, 2006 by tflex

[Ludovicus]

If the U.S. can stay on course and accomplish this policy, then I truly think with friendly governments in the middle east, it will be more feasible to implement real peace between Israel and Palestine.

 

 

This is madness. Haven't we seen the effects of Bush's imperial plans played out these last few days? Iraq and the Middle East are totally destabilized by the American invasion and occupation. As a US citizen whose tax money has been squandered to pay for this folly, enough with these invasion fantasies! This is a forum where empire is discussed daily. Look to my country, the US, and see the results of empire building: 48 million citizens without health insurance, 20 million eat from soup kitchens or donated food.

[Germanicus]

This is madness. Haven't we seen the effects of Bush's imperial plans played out these last few days? Iraq and the Middle East are totally destabilized by the American invasion and occupation. As a US citizen whose tax money has been squandered to pay for this folly, enough with these invasion fantasies! This is a forum where empire is discussed daily. Look to my country, the US, and see the results of empire building: 48 million citizens without health insurance, 20 million eat from soup kitchens or donated food.

 

As someone from a country other than the US, its comforting to know you think this way Ludovicus. Tflex - you don't make me feel quite as good though....

[Sextus Roscius]

Bush's imperial plans

 

Please, can we not call them imperial. if you really look at what we've been doing and what imperialism is, then we aren't imperial, at least not in a territorial sense, perhaps culturaly, but the middle east and the U.S. are culturaly imperialistic

[Ludovicus]

Bush's imperial plans

 

Please, can we not call them imperial. if you really look at what we've been doing and what imperialism is, then we aren't imperial, at least not in a territorial sense, perhaps culturaly, but the middle east and the U.S. are culturaly imperialistic

 

 

Not imperialistic? We invaded a country that never attacked us, toppled its leadership, occupied its territory, and installed our own military base. Once in the country, we dictated that the Iraqis pay the costs of our invasion from profits from their oil. Then we threatened the surrounding countries of Syria and Iran with attack. "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck."

Edited February 26, 2006 by Ludovicus

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

In connotation, we seem imperialistic. But literally, we're 'not!' Imperialistic is when we actually call Iraq an American state/territory/colony/whatever. Get it straight, we're not imperialistic.

[Sextus Roscius]

In connotation, we seem imperialistic. But literally, we're 'not!' Imperialistic is when we actually call Iraq an American state/territory/colony/whatever. Get it straight, we're not imperialistic.

 

Thank you flavius, thats what I've been trying to point out to everyone for a long time now. Oh yes, by the way ludovicus, your family has funded both sides of the war (so you are contributing to imperialism) and we gained little if any money of the deal. Infact, its cost us alot more to run the war than things would've been normaly. In imperialism, you PROFIT off of the action in a material sense.

 

"If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, then it may yet be a palatypus"

 

or to realte it to something american

 

"If it sounds like a quail, and moves like a quail, it may yet be a lawyer"

Edited February 26, 2006 by Sextus Roscius

[Ursus]

The National Review is not a magazine I always agree with, but they made the point that international Islam needs to grow the hell up. It's behaving like a romper room of homicidal juveniles. Until it does grow up, no it won't stop killing people for the most trivial of offenses.

 

America is imperialistic, but, really, so what else is new? Has there been any power on earth that has not tried to influence the flow of history? Would I rather have a McDonald's in Afghanistan or a Taliban-run Mosque in my backyard? And would people be more incensed if Mohammed had been potrayed as Ronald McDonald rather than a bomb throwing terrorist?

[tflex]

I really like the platypus thing, it's nicer looking than a duck. Also like the McDonalds opposed to Taliban thing.

 

Not imperialistic? We invaded a country that never attacked us, toppled its leadership, occupied its territory, and installed our own military base. Once in the country, we dictated that the Iraqis pay the costs of our invasion from profits from their oil. Then we threatened the surrounding countries of Syria and Iran with attack. "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck."

 

 

To call the U.S. imperialistic is simply not true, it's anything but that. The U.S. don't go around oprressing foriegn populations and forcing them to integrate into one empire. Iraqi's just had a free election for the first time in centuries probably. Ofcourse, the new Iraqi government will be friendlier to the U.S and why not? No matter what the motivation was behind the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the result is the same, the Iraqi's are now free of a psychotic dictator that murdered and tortured his own people for decades. If the U.S. is gonna get special oil deals then good for them, they deserved it and certainly earned it.

 

A more recent example of Imperialism is the British or French empires of the 16th-19th century. Just becuase the U.S. has military bases in there doesn't mean they colonized Iraq. Besides the U.S. troops don't plan on being there forever.

Edited February 26, 2006 by tflex

[Sextus Roscius]

You know, honestly, if this idea of "imperialism is going to countinue, c?n we call our training camps set up for the training of vietnamies troops in Nam' before the war imperialistic. After all they are military bases techniquely. Likewise, can we call out bases in countries like East Germany after WWII to help fend off the commies imperialism? Simply not so.

 

Anyways, I agree with the point Ursus made, Islam needs to grow the hell up, honestly. Christians and Jesus are made fun of at least by 100s of news papers every week. Likewise, so are Hinduism, Atheism, Judiasm, and pagans. Non of these religions get thrown into a fuss about it. Honestly, If that isn't proof that its the RELIGION thats the matter, than I don't know what is.

[M. Porcius Cato]

20 million eat from soup kitchens or donated food.

 

What is your source on this?

 

Once in the country, we dictated that the Iraqis pay the costs of our invasion from profits from their oil.

or this?

Then we threatened the surrounding countries of Syria and Iran with attack.

or this?

 

These claims sound like pure propaganda from someone who doesn't know the facts.

Edited February 27, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[Ludovicus]

20 million eat from soup kitchens or donated food.

 

What is your source on this?

 

Sorry, my mistake. There were 31 million "food insecure" households in the US in 1999.

See US Department of Agriculture report:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr8/

 

 

Once in the country, we dictated that the Iraqis pay the costs of our invasion from profits from their oil.

 

From the White House's website:

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…

Go here for the source:

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

 

 

or this?

Then we threatened the surrounding countries of Syria and Iran with attack.

or this?

"Today, I have signed an Executive Order implementing sanctions on Syria..." From Presiden Bush's May 2004 statement.

Go here for the entire piece: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0040511-11.html

 

Threat against Iran from Bush's "all options are the table" speech in August, 2005

Go here for speech exerpt:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...n-nuclear_x.htm

 

What do you think a US base in Iraq is meant to convey to these two countries?

 

 

 

 

These claims sound like pure propaganda from someone who doesn't know the facts.

 

Propaganda from the White House's website and from USA Today?

Edited February 27, 2006 by Ludovicus

[M. Porcius Cato]

Sorry, my mistake. There were 31 million "food insecure" households in the US in 1999. See US Department of Agriculture report: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr8/

 

"Food insecure" doesn't mean getting food from soup kitchens or going hungry even occasionally. "Food insecure" includes anyone who doesn't have enough of the right categories of food for an "active, healthy lifestyle" immediately accessible (probably many bachelors) as well as those who occasionally go hungry for a meal or two. According to this report, "How many people were hungry in the Nation?

That can't be answered precisely from these data. About 7.8 million persons - 5.1 million adults and 2.7 million children - lived in households classified as food insecure with hunger. Not everyone in those households was hungry, however. Households are classified based on whether anyone in the household was hungry because of lack of resources. In this survey, it is not possible to ask separately about the experience of each person in the household. Most of the adults in these households were hungry at times during the year, but most of the children were not. Children - especially younger children - are usually protected from hunger until hunger among adults reaches quite severe levels. Work is underway to estimate the prevalence of hunger among children." So, no--there aren't 20 million Americans lined up at soup kitchens, nor 31 million, nor even 10 of the 250 million Americans.

 

 

Once in the country, we dictated that the Iraqis pay the costs of our invasion from profits from their oil.

From the White House's website:Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz:

[Ludovicus]

"Food insecure" doesn't mean getting food from soup kitchens or going hungry even occasionally.

 

 

My mistake again, it's 25 million folks getting donated food. I stand corrected by the Christian Science Monitor:

"America's Second Harvest, the nation's largest charitable food distribution network, is now providing help to more than 25 million people..."

Go here for entire article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0223/p02s02-ussc.html

 

 

That's NOT evidence that we dictated that the Iraqis pay the costs of the invasion. The quote only says that the Iraqis COULD pay for some of the costs of running their own state. There's an enormous difference between the two. Now, do you have any actual evidence that Iraqi oil revenues were diverted to the Pentagon budget? Or were paid into ANY US government account?

 

You're right. I don't have any factual evidence. But see what Bush's press secretary had to say about plans for making Iraq pay for the invasion and reconstruction:

"Q Back on the cost issue. If the U.S. does not get a second resolution, does the President believe that U.S. taxpayers will disproportionately bear the burden of the reconstruction costs in Iraq?

 

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction."

Go here for entire press conference.

 

 

 

Threat against Iran from Bush's "all options are the table" speech in August, 2005

Go here for speech exerpt:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...n-nuclear_x.htm

 

"Options on the table" is not a threat of force nor are economic sanctions a threat of force. To equate economic sanctions with a threat of force would mean that any time I engage in boycott, I'm using force. By this logic, Martin Luther King and Gandhi would be an imperialists!

 

If you read the entire article you'll see that "all options" means "all options." It's clear that Bush is not limiting any of his choices, from sanctions to attack.

 

Perhaps this back and forth is getting a bit tedious for others in the thread. To tie this discussion to that of imperialism, an important topic when studying Roman history, I maintain that the averag citizen of an empire eventually pays dearly for imperialism. The small farmer in Italy paid dearly when tribute grain began to arrive from conquered Egypt. If I'm not mistaken, these small farmers mostly disappeared as social class in the Empire. At the cost of a billion dollars a week, the occupation of Iraq is taking its toll on the average US citizen.

 

Enough said.

Edited February 27, 2006 by Ludovicus

[LEG X EQ]

Likewise, can we call out bases in countries like East Germany after WWII to help fend off the commies imperialism? Simply not so.

 

You mean West-Germany,

East-Germany was Communist Soviet Terretory, till it became a German-Communist state that existed from 1949-1990.