i am sick to effin' death of hearing this pisspoor watery excuse for the clusterfk in iraq! the republicans decided spontaneously to invade this country and now their talking point involves blaming the country for not being better at being invaded.

i'm listening to replays of the sunday talk shows right now and every conservative commentator is saying something to this effect. i have a feeling this is going to be their platform going into 2008, that next time they plan to invade a country that will have more of a knack for being occupied. gawd!

We're not over there to run Iraq.  We are over there to steal.  Our ruling class has never been satisfied with stealing from us, they must go out and steal from everybody unable to defend themselves.  This is the reason why Iran and so many other countries want atomic weapons.  Vietnam, Iraq, and Nicaragua didn't have nukes, and look what happened to them!

Young men suffer mayhem and death so old men can get rich.

If you believe we have any humanitarian goals or intentions of good will in Iraq, it is you who are the cynics, not I.

>:(

We're not over there to run Iraq.  We are over there to steal.  Our ruling class has never been satisfied with stealing from us, they must go out and steal from everybody unable to defend themselves.  This is the reason why Iran and so many other countries want atomic weapons.  Vietnam, Iraq, and Nicaragua didn't have nukes, and look what happened to them!

Young men suffer mayhem and death so old men can get rich.

If you believe we have any humanitarian goals or intentions of good will in Iraq, it is you who are the cynics, not I.

>:(
I think there are some humanitarian goals,maybe very small, but the intentions are good nonetheless, like trying to help stablize the place so that young men can have opportunities to work and make a living for them and their families. Without any money, an offer of $300 from al-queda, which is probably equivalent to a years wages may be enough to lure someone into becoming a bomber. These stories aren't told much and are not very visible but then maybe the BrigadierGeneral I heard speak at a luncheon was just telling us what he thought we wanted to hear, but it sounded pretty convincing to me and painted a vivid pic of young iraqi men willing to do anything to make their families lives better. Will the 3 groups be able to co-exist under 1 govt. after we leave? Sadly it sounds hopeless.

I think there are some humanitarian goals,maybe very small, but the intentions are good nonetheless, like trying to help stablize the place so that young men can have opportunities to work and make a living for them and their families. Without any money, an offer of $300 from al-queda, which is probably equivalent to a years wages may be enough to lure someone into becoming a bomber. These stories aren't told much and are not very visible but then maybe the BrigadierGeneral I heard speak at a luncheon was just telling us what he thought we wanted to hear, but it sounded pretty convincing to me and painted a vivid pic of young iraqi men willing to do anything to make their families lives better. Will the 3 groups be able to co-exist under 1 govt. after we leave? Sadly it sounds hopeless.


The problem is this.

These people and by these people I do indeed mean Arabs. Have for the most part lived in a system where there is a total social vacuum, there is literally nothing. You have squalor and then fabulous riches. They have no concept of a social system, nor do they have any concept of understanding the other side or working for the same cause.
For the most part (and I realise I generalise somewhat here.. but not much) these guys want their own specific group to be top dog and want the others dead.

The problem is this.

These people and by these people I do indeed mean Arabs. Have for the most part lived in a system where there is a total social vacuum, there is literally nothing. You have squalor and then fabulous riches. They have no concept of a social system, nor do they have any concept of understanding the other side or working for the same cause.
For the most part (and I realise I generalise somewhat here.. but not much) these guys want their own specific group to be top dog and want the others dead.
so pretty much, it's not gonna become a vacation resort in the near future.

so pretty much, it's not gonna become a vacation resort in the near future.


Maybe for cochroaches.. or Hillary Clinton.  ;D

Maybe for cochroaches.. or Hillary Clinton.  ;D
I'd be surprised if Hill the Pill made a visit

the impression i got, and i'm expert from having read "guns germs and steel"  ;D, is that a big problem with that whole region is that it basically has a single resource, oil, in mass quantities, but basically no other exports or ways to be productive. so as davey says, you can have fabulous riches if you're among those who run the oil industry, or if you work for the industry you can possibly be middle class -- but the regional economy can only employ those who work in oil, and the rest of the people basically get to sit on their hands.

oh, and also there's the flagrant exploitation of the region a la bush's invasion of iraq. which, luv ya badfinger, but i'm just not sure the intentions really ARE good. i'm seeing lots of happy talk but little genuine indication that the intentions are good.

I think there are some humanitarian goals,maybe very small, but the intentions are good nonetheless, like trying to help stablize the place so that young men can have opportunities to work and make a living for them and their families. Without any money, an offer of $300 from al-queda, which is probably equivalent to a years wages may be enough to lure someone into becoming a bomber.

Again, the goal is for for froreign contractors to fleece the joint.  There are administrators, civil engineers, architects, artisans, and business people galore native to Iraq.  They don't need Halliburton. 

Our government told us Saddam was running a primitive and backward state full of illiterate savages.  That was a lie.  Saddam was a vicious dictator holding together a bogus state forged by colonial powers after WWII.  Saddam was much more akin to Marshal Tito than Idi Amin.  Saddam in his tyranny did manage to maintain a solid physical and social infrastructure.  It wasn't a theocracy.  Men and women alike could go to the university.  Baghdad was cosmopolitan not provincial.

Today, Iraq is a war-splintered, anarchic disaster.  The famine, disease, sky-high infant mortaility, and lack of a stable economy is the result of 15 years of war and sanctions.  Because of America's actions, a young Iraqi is more likely to be a paramilitary insurgent or suicide bomber today, whereas in 1989, that young Iraqi would be off to college and looking forward to a productive career.  If the Jeane Kirkpatrick's of the world don't like "blame America first," then it behooves them to change U.S. foreign policy so our country is not culpable for so much human suffering. 

These corrupt contractors cannot even build simple buildings that will stand up straight.  They are pocketiing untold billions and have no intention of some kind of socialist New Deal program for unemployed Iraqis.  They don't care about the people, they just want to get rich. 

These stories aren't told much and are not very visible but then maybe the BrigadierGeneral I heard speak at a luncheon was just telling us what he thought we wanted to hear, but it sounded pretty convincing to me and painted a vivid pic of young iraqi men willing to do anything to make their families lives better. Will the 3 groups be able to co-exist under 1 govt. after we leave? Sadly it sounds hopeless.

Any Middle East scholar not working for a right-wing think tank could have told you that twenty years ago.  Imperialist powers like to set up social friction to maintain internal conflicts among occupied populations.  Divide and conquer.  That was the purpose of Iraq.  It took a ruthless dictator like Saddam to hold Iraq together by force and terror.  From a foreign policy standpoint, the Iraq war is the worst blunder since Vietnam and the most foolish in a century.  But we make a mistake looking at it as foreign policy.  Criminal enterprise is a more accurate definition. 

Again, the goal is for for froreign contractors to fleece the joint.  There are administrators, civil engineers, architects, artisans, and business people galore native to Iraq.  They don't need Halliburton. 

Our government told us Saddam was running a primitive and backward state full of illiterate savages.  That was a lie.  Saddam was a vicious dictator holding together a bogus state forged by colonial powers after WWII.  Saddam was much more akin to Marshal Tito than Idi Amin.  Saddam in his tyranny did manage to maintain a solid physical and social infrastructure.  It wasn't a theocracy.  Men and women alike could go to the university.  Baghdad was cosmopolitan not provincial.

Today, Iraq is a war-splintered, anarchic disaster.   The famine, disease, sky-high infant mortaility, and lack of a stable economy is the result of 15 years of war and sanctions.  Because of America's actions, a young Iraqi is more likely to be a paramilitary insurgent or suicide bomber today, whereas in 1989, that young Iraqi would be off to college and looking forward to a productive career.  If the Jeane Kirkpatrick's of the world don't like "blame America first," then it behooves them to change U.S. foreign policy so our country is not culpable for so much human suffering. 

These corrupt contractors cannot even build simple buildings that will stand up straight.  They are pocketiing untold billions and have no intention of some kind of socialist New Deal program for unemployed Iraqis.  They don't care about the people, they just want to get rich. 

Any Middle East scholar not working for a right-wing think tank could have told you that twenty years ago.  Imperialist powers like to set up social friction to maintain internal conflicts among occupied populations.  Divide and conquer.  That was the purpose of Iraq.  It took a ruthless dictator like Saddam to hold Iraq together by force and terror.  From a foreign policy standpoint, the Iraq war is the worst blunder since Vietnam and the most foolish in a century.  But we make a mistake looking at it as foreign policy.  Criminal enterprise is a more accurate definition. 
Max, you've got a awesome talent for writing and your insights of the present situation in Iraq are beyond my skills to debate, but I know there is some good being done by the U.S. in Iraq, unfortunately it's overshadowed by all the negatives, corruption, and the race for power and control of a weaker nation, yet there are some Iraqis that are thankful we're there and see a glimmer of hope for a brighter future.    The title of the link for the pics below was "Photos of troops Terrorizing Iraqis, A must see"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1732167/posts

Max, you've got a awesome talent for writing and your insights of the present situation in Iraq are beyond my skills to debate, but I know there is some good being done by the U.S. in Iraq, unfortunately it's overshadowed by all the negatives, corruption, and the race for power and control of a weaker nation, yet there are some Iraqis that are thankful we're there and see a glimmer of hope for a brighter future.    The title of the link for the pics below was "Photos of troops Terrorizing Iraqis, A must see"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1732167/posts

Forgive me for not clinking your link.  I'd just rather not go to freerepublic.com

Yes, there are mitigating factors here and there.  The armed forces must do as they're told.  If they can help some folks and create good will while they're at it, that's wonderful.  The politicians and the monied interests that control the politicians have trapped he military in an unwinnable occupation.  Humanitarian acts by fighting forces are like trying to beat back the ocean's tide.  Some of the top brass support Bush's war, I think far more do not.  However, whether it's a major general or an infantryman, military personnel did not start this war.  Politicians and corporations did. 

If we do not try Bush and his cronies for war crimes now, we will have the opportinuty to try the next group of corporate war-mongers in the next "Iraq," whether that's five, fifteen, or thirty years from now.  If we do not put a stop to the war-profiteering of the politicians and their corporte backers, we will find our nation bankrupted and our resources exhausted on these same kinds of illicit mercenary adventures. 

Max, you've got a awesome talent for writing and your insights of the present situation in Iraq are beyond my skills to debate, but I know there is some good being done by the U.S. in Iraq, unfortunately it's overshadowed by all the negatives, corruption, and the race for power and control of a weaker nation, yet there are some Iraqis that are thankful we're there and see a glimmer of hope for a brighter future.    The title of the link for the pics below was "Photos of troops Terrorizing Iraqis, A must see"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1732167/posts



thank you for posting those pics, Mike...nobody ever wants to recognize those kinds of things.

Forgive me for not clinking your link.  I'd just rather not go to freerepublic.com

Yes, there are mitigating factors here and there.  The armed forces must do as they're told.  If they can help some folks and create good will while they're at it, that's wonderful.  The politicians and the monied interests that control the politicians have trapped he military in an unwinnable occupation.  Humanitarian acts by fighting forces are like trying to beat back the ocean's tide.  Some of the top brass support Bush's war, I think far more do not.  However, whether it's a major general or an infantryman, military personnel did not start this war.  Politicians and corporations did. 

If we do not try Bush and his cronies for war crimes now, we will have the opportinuty to try the next group of corporate war-mongers in the next "Iraq," whether that's five, fifteen, or thirty years from now.  If we do not put a stop to the war-profiteering of the politicians and their corporte backers, we will find our nation bankrupted and our resources exhausted on these same kinds of illicit mercenary adventures. 
I forgive you Maxwell for not clicking the link. I happened upon that site in my quest to find something positive about this gloomy situation, & I didn't notice the link until I was ready to post, & then I had a feeling when I saw freerepublic it might be a group that you may have heard of, & not be thrilled by because of their focus. I have not heard of them. The images of the soldiers & Iraqis are photos many would rather not look at, because anti-war proponents want the focus to stay on the reasons for us to not be there & to get out because to many of them, that outweighs any good we may have accomplished & pics like these are propaganda to make people like me feel better about our war efforts. I fell for it, but I have friends & family & inthe00s friends that have family over there & I want to give whatever support I can until they come home We can still disagree with & protest our Govt. on this, but I think the troops deserve fellow Americans to hold them in as high regard as we can. They volunteered, they go where they are told. They kill, they get killed, they destroy, they build.  I guess I see things thru rose colored glasses with the soldiers trying to help the Iraqis learn how to run their own country, free to pursue life, liberty and happiness and then hopefully they can return home.



thank you for posting those pics, Mike...nobody ever wants to recognize those kinds of things.
you're welcome Erin. I actually was fearful to click on the link because I did not want to see pics of our soldiers tormenting prisoners or something like that and was completely surprised.

nobody ever wants to recognize those kinds of things.


Thats because they're completely anecdotal considering the overall situation of whats going on in Iraq.

Thats because they're completely anecdotal considering the overall situation of whats going on in Iraq.

That bugs me in general.  Our political discourse, especially from the right, dating back at least to Reagan, obscures the true nature of events and decisions with the anectdote and the personal narrative.