The Official Iraq is supposed to be a mess thread

[Looger]

does anyone still believe the strategy for iraq has ever been anything but making sure it's a total mess?

this site doesn't do 'articles' and does change, but:

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/
October 18, 2006

Civil War in Iraq: The Salvador Option and US/UK Policy

As the catastrophe in Iraq continues to unfold, an unresolved question remains on the role of Bush, Blair, and the US/UK military. To what extent were they passively incompetent in facilitating the decline into civil war, and to what extent were they actively pursuing policies that promoted that outcome?

Murray also cites a newsweek article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

Jan. 8 - What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November’s operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency—as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time—than in spreading it out.
...
Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and *****e militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.

John Negroponte is on the case, just like El-Salvador.

training death squads... yeah that'll solve the problem.

how can ANYONE believe this absurdity?

the neo-con rags have been 'slipping this one in' for awhil now, licking their chops at the possibilities:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3423

It also implies the need for a lowering of coalition goals. I cheer the goal of a "free and democratic Iraq," but the time has come to acknowledge that the coalition's achievement will be limited to destroying tyranny, not sponsoring its replacement. There is nothing ignoble about this limited achievement, which remains a landmark of international sanitation. It would be especially unfortunate if aiming too high spoils that attainment and thereby renders future interventions less likely. The benefits of eliminating Saddam's rule must not be forgotten in the distress of not creating a successful new Iraq.
Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition's responsibility nor its burden. The damage done by Saddam will take many years to repair. Americans, Britons, and others cannot be tasked with resolving Sunni-*****e differences, an abiding Iraqi problem that only Iraqis themselves can address.
...
Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one.

unreal.

unreal that you have to peruse the 'conspiracy' sites to get any real news these days.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/Oct...181006Iraq.htm

In a remark he made last year about the constant attacks on US troops in Iraq, Bush said: "The insurgents are being defeated; that's why they're continuing to fight." This stunning Orwellian reversal of all logic epitomizes the worsening situation in Iraq. Measuring success in terms of how far you are from success.

the left wing gatekeepers that continue to insist this is some kind of perverse comedy of errors... is really starting to **** me off.

THIS IS NOT A MISTAKE.

if people don't figure out quick what the neo-cons are really aboot and where they are going with this, we are in real trouble.

[Knut]

Nope.. it is a mistake plain and simple...

Not enough manpower or intelligence going into the mission... and not looking closely enough at History....

Fact is... logic denotes that it is in the united states best interest that Iraq and afghanistan are stable. Stable footholds in Iraq and Afghanistan would mean they are surrounding Iran..... strategic foothold as well as proving the world that the US is king-**** and finally capable of perhaps stabilizing the middle east region.

However, it has not gone as planned...

Instead of looking up unfolding conspiricies and trying to find layers of deception.. think logically about this...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Nope.. it is a mistake plain and simple...

Not enough manpower or intelligence going into the mission... and not looking closely enough at History....

Fact is... logic denotes that it is in the united states best interest that Iraq and afghanistan are stable. Stable footholds in Iraq and Afghanistan would mean they are surrounding Iran..... strategic foothold as well as proving the world that the US is king-**** and finally capable of perhaps stabilizing the middle east region.

However, it has not gone as planned...

Instead of looking up unfolding conspiricies and trying to find layers of deception.. think logically about this...

Fact is that the United States has ****ed up Iraq and Afghanistan so badly that no one trusts them to do anything right at the moment. Both countries are devolving into lawless terrorism generators. Things could not be much worse than that.

I haven't looked at the links, but I don't know what you mean by conspiracy theories? Fact of the matter is that the neo-conservatives have been hell bent on getting into Iraq since 1998. That is well documented. Also, Bush had the battle plans for Iraq on his desk less than 48 hours after the twin towers had fallen. Seems pretty pre-meditated to me. Sadly, Bush and Co. ignored the generals and went charging in, believing their own false bravado, and making a bigger mess of Iraq than when Hussein was in power. There is no argument, Iraq is a much worse place than it was prior to the invasion, Iraq is a more dangerous country, and Iraq is now the primary fuel for terrorists. What a colossal **** up!!!

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Fact is that the United States has ****ed up Iraq and Afghanistan so badly that no one trusts them to do anything right at the moment. Both countries are devolving into lawless terrorism generators. Things could not be much worse than that.

I haven't looked at the links, but I don't know what you mean by conspiracy theories? Fact of the matter is that the neo-conservatives have been hell bent on getting into Iraq since 1998. That is well documented. Also, Bush had the battle plans for Iraq on his desk less than 48 hours after the twin towers had fallen. Seems pretty pre-meditated to me. Sadly, Bush and Co. ignored the generals and went charging in, believing their own false bravado, and making a bigger mess of Iraq than when Hussein was in power. There is no argument, Iraq is a much worse place than it was prior to the invasion, Iraq is a more dangerous country, and Iraq is now the primary fuel for terrorists. What a colossal **** up!!!

Take this from a guy that was in support of both wars.... they screwed up... there is no way around it... something that all sides should agree upon...

Looger's point was that the Bush Admin purposely ****ed up Iraq for their own gains... i cant see how it would at all benefit the US to have a civil war in Iraq....

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Nope.. it is a mistake plain and simple...

Not enough manpower or intelligence going into the mission... and not looking closely enough at History....

Fact is... logic denotes that it is in the united states best interest that Iraq and afghanistan are stable. Stable footholds in Iraq and Afghanistan would mean they are surrounding Iran..... strategic foothold as well as proving the world that the US is king-**** and finally capable of perhaps stabilizing the middle east region.

However, it has not gone as planned...

Instead of looking up unfolding conspiricies and trying to find layers of deception.. think logically about this...

Very well put.

I think "most" people will agree.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Fact is that the United States has ****ed up Iraq and Afghanistan so badly that no one trusts them to do anything right at the moment. Both countries are devolving into lawless terrorism generators. Things could not be much worse than that.

And everyone forgets what a stable Iraq and Afghanistan would do for the Middle East...simply because, like you said...nobody trusts the US anymore.

I don't blame them either. North Korea is looking very dangerous right now.....

[Looger]

i think people seriously confuse the best interests of the iowa farmboy with the best interests of arms dealers and oil companies and the long-term objectives of israel.

tax money flows straight to the pockets of halliburton, defence contractors, etc. - it does NOT pass go, it does NOT pick up $200.

these things are at such odds with each other that it is totally unbelievable to me that people could possibly confuse them.

was it in the common german citizen's best interests to conquer europe? his taxes skyrocketed, that vw he 'bought' never arrived, his son was kidnapped and thrown into the russian meatgrinder, and the bombs started dropping and never stopped.

as america's debt soars and the taxes literally can't cover more than the interest, ask yourselves who really benefits from a longer war, and who from a shorter one.

who benefits from iraq being split, and who does not.

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Makes you wonder what things would be like if the US hadn't foolishly gone into Iraq and focused all their attention on Afghanistan instead. I would even be inclined to believe Afghanistan might actually be on their way to becoming a semi-stable democratic country if all the resources pouring into Iraq were going into Afghanistan instead.

As bad as Saddam was, maybe Bush should be asking him for some tips on how to keep Iraq under control right about now...

[Agamemnon]

Quote from George W. in an interview with George Stephanopolous, commenting on increased violence possibly being related to the US midterm elections:

That “could be right,” Mr. Bush said, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News. “There’s certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election. George, my gut tells me that they have all along been trying to inflict enough damage that we’d leave.”

His gut tells him this? Shouldn't his top military advisors be telling him this? My God he's an idiot... his style of speech makes him sound like a moron when you read transcripts, he doesn't 'speak well'. Its got to be demoralizing to be more eloquent than your own President.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Looger

i think people seriously confuse the best interests of the iowa farmboy with the best interests of arms dealers and oil companies and the long-term objectives of israel.

tax money flows straight to the pockets of halliburton, defence contractors, etc. - it does NOT pass go, it does NOT pick up $200.

these things are at such odds with each other that it is totally unbelievable to me that people could possibly confuse them.

was it in the common german citizen's best interests to conquer europe? his taxes skyrocketed, that vw he 'bought' never arrived, his son was kidnapped and thrown into the russian meatgrinder, and the bombs started dropping and never stopped.

as america's debt soars and the taxes literally can't cover more than the interest, ask yourselves who really benefits from a longer war, and who from a shorter one.

who benefits from iraq being split, and who does not.

I think you fail to look at the point that the neo-cons lose power in two years so what is their net gain? And the very reason they are losing it is because they screwed the pooch on this, so why would they do it on purpose?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Sowa

I think you fail to look at the point that the neo-cons lose power in two years so what is their net gain? And the very reason they are losing it is because they screwed the pooch on this, so why would they do it on purpose?

Well... Looger might suggest that the business relations of leading Neo-Con politicians have made hundreds of millions of dollars off of all this. Maybe they're just greedy for cash rather than long-term political power?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I don't buy it.
Anyone smart enought to pull off something like this is likely smart enought to realize the poential gains to be had by stabalizing these countries. America is a net importer of oil so high oil prices do not help them. A much more advantageous situation is for America to stabalize the region, opening opportunites for companies like Haliburton to operate throughout the middle east without having to pay truck drivers $200k a year, and secure a cheap supply of oil.

Wasn't that the original conspiracy theory? Go into Iraq under the guise of weapons of mass destruction, to secure cheap oil? But now it's become screw up Iraq, which destabalizes the supply of oil, and makes prices go through the roof?

This is a war that was designed to stabalize the area and is now at a stage where it cannot be described without using the word "cluster".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... Looger might suggest that the business relations of leading Neo-Con politicians have made hundreds of millions of dollars off of all this. Maybe they're just greedy for cash rather than long-term political power?

Why don't we let Looger suggest that.....and we stick to talking about our own opinion...ok?

Or maybe its your own viewpoint...

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why don't we let Looger suggest that.....and we stick to talking about our own opinion...ok?

Or maybe its your own viewpoint...

I'm sure if Looger disagrees with what I've said he can say so. I did say that he 'might suggest' that, if he wouldn't then I'm sure he'll clarify his position. I don't see the problem here... what do you care if I try to paraphrase Looger? This is a message board for discussion, I don't believe I was off topic or out of line, and if I was, Looger can tell me so himself, he doesn't need a babysitter.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I don't buy it.
Anyone smart enought to pull off something like this is likely smart enought to realize the poential gains to be had by stabalizing these countries. America is a net importer of oil so high oil prices do not help them. A much more advantageous situation is for America to stabalize the region, opening opportunites for companies like Haliburton to operate throughout the middle east without having to pay truck drivers $200k a year, and secure a cheap supply of oil.

Wasn't that the original conspiracy theory? Go into Iraq under the guise of weapons of mass destruction, to secure cheap oil? But now it's become screw up Iraq, which destabalizes the supply of oil, and makes prices go through the roof?

This is a war that was designed to stabalize the area and is now at a stage where it cannot be described without using the word "cluster".

I hear what you're saying... I agree, the 'going there for oil' theory seems difficult to accept given that they're not even pumping much out of the place right now (I believe). Though, some theorists might think that money was a factor, just not the oil money. The US has spent billions on this War and the main beneficiaries in many ways have been the companies contracting out their services to the US Government/Iraqi Government/US military. There's hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into private contractors hands... isn't that a good reason for some of those contractors wanting to push politically for a War like this? It doesn't help that leading members of the Administration have more or less direct ties to the largest of these companies (Cheney/Halliburton).

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I don't buy it.
Anyone smart enought to pull off something like this is likely smart enought to realize the poential gains to be had by stabalizing these countries. America is a net importer of oil so high oil prices do not help them. A much more advantageous situation is for America to stabalize the region, opening opportunites for companies like Haliburton to operate throughout the middle east without having to pay truck drivers $200k a year, and secure a cheap supply of oil.

so... the business interests behind the neo-con madmen must be john smith of aurora illinois and his work truck, eh?

oil companies get more money when the prices are higher.

OIL COMPANIES GET MORE MONEY WHEN THE PRICES ARE HIGHER.

OIL COMPANIES GET MORE MONEY WHEN THE PRICES ARE HIGHER.

as for halliburton, the contracts are no-bid and the higher their expenses, the higher their profit margin.

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Wasn't that the original conspiracy theory? Go into Iraq under the guise of weapons of mass destruction, to secure cheap oil? But now it's become screw up Iraq, which destabalizes the supply of oil, and makes prices go through the roof?

ah. i got it. so some idiot, somewhere, accuses the US of trying to make oil cheaper, and now all evidence to the contrary is thrown out because someone somewhere said that. gotcha.

whew, am i glad i don't have to think because someone says that 'the original conspiracy theory' was something else.

what a relief!

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

This is a war that was designed to stabalize the area and is now at a stage where it cannot be described without using the word "cluster".

when all the business interestes involved, including OPEC, benefit from instability, something tells me the point might be different.

so if this war is designed to increase stability, why have special forces been caught staging sectarian violence?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4264614.stm

Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili said the men - possibly working undercover - were arrested for allegedly shooting dead a policeman and wounding another.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=1090

Baghdad, 14 October: An Iraqi army officer has said that the British military personnel and security forces were involved in acts of terrorism in Iraq.
The Iraqi officer, introduced himself to the Islamic Republic News Agency [IRNA] as Fayyadh Mas'ud, and said: The evidences at our disposal cannot be denied.
He added: Investigations show that the British Army's explosives and equipment were used in several instances of bomb blasts in Baghdad.
Mas'ud said: In this connection, the Iraqi authorities have asked for explanations from the British officials, but so far they have not given any clear answer.
Terrorist operations in various districts of Baghdad and other regions have turned Iraq into an unsafe place and thousands of civilians have been killed so far. However, America and Britain repeatedly say that their forces will remain in Iraq until full establishment of security.
Political analysts believe that America and Britain are undermining security in Iraq in order to justify their own presence.

former CIA officers have been coming out aboot this stuff:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...quebombing.htm

Former CIA analyst a and presidential advisor Ray McGovern does not rule out Western involvement in this week's Askariya mosque bombing in light of previous false flag operations that have advanced hidden agendas of the ruling elite.
During the mid-eighties, McGovern was one of the senior analysts conducting early morning briefings of the PDB one-on-one with the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

you're never going to get a 'CIA man' to totally rat out his buddies, but what in the history of the CIA leads anyone to believe that these things are NOT happening?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB90/index.htm

One of the most infamous covert operations in the history of U.S. foreign policy was the coup d'état against Iran's Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq in August 1953. That the United States government, through the Central Intelligence Agency, played a role in this affair is not a matter of dispute, although the exact nature of its role remains subject to controversy (Note 29): indeed, the normalization of U.S-Iran relations may someday require Washington to elucidate its role in the 1953 coup.

no kidding.

the number of 'private contractors' operating in iraq is stunning, and they DO NOT answer to the US chain of command.

private networks, many of them owned by neo-con interests, who get richer by stoking the fires.

negroponte, for example, was involved with the 'college of the americas' training death squads in central america - he's the one cited by newsweek as 'looking in to solutions' for this mess - yeah, i wonder what he'll suggest.

in the first post i forgot to mention who craig murray is:

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/craig_murray.html

As Britain's outspoken Ambassador to the Central
Asian Republic of Uzbekistan, Craig Murray helped
expose vicious human rights abuses by the
US-funded regime of Islam Karimov. He is now
a prominent critic of Western policy in the region.

...

2002-2004 British Ambassador, Uzbekistan
Responsible for our relationship with Uzbekistan. He found Western support for the dictatorial Karimov regime unconscionable, as detailed in the rest of this website.

he might have a thing or two to say on the situation...

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Sowa

I think you fail to look at the point that the neo-cons lose power in two years so what is their net gain? And the very reason they are losing it is because they screwed the pooch on this, so why would they do it on purpose?

Oh I don't know but hey if it stays screwed up then oil prices should hum right along at high levels. Remember who is really in control these days and it ain't the people(Democrats or Republicans) or other party's in other countries.

HUGE money is needed to get elected and that money comes from oil companies and the like. They have made oodles from this war as have defense contractors etc. etc.

Heck it's been a big boon to the Alberta economy.

Eight years of gravy plus continuing good times while the Democrats get to do the mop up job. Then they can get back in four years after that and get something rolling with the Iranians and hey the cash just keeps rolling.

George got to be the PRES for two terms and his buddies will make dang sure his retirement is a very enjoyable one.

[White Doors]

There is no way those freaking yanks landed on the moon either.
That was staged.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by White Doors

There is no way those freaking yanks landed on the moon either.
That was staged.

wow.

i stand corrected.

that does it all, right there.

you're so smart...

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by White Doors

There is no way those freaking yanks landed on the moon either.
That was staged.

What does that have to do with the War in Iraq?