BS: George W.'s Real New Plan

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:56 PM

Thanks, Ake.

In looking for a parallel in the UK to 9-11 in the US, I would guess maybe the first IRA bombing in England might fit. How rational, unprejudiced, etc would you say the English were directly after that? (No aspersions meant, just curiosity).

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:50 PM

Well Ron...They will be greatly assisted by people like yourself, who seek for truth regardless of the "Party line"

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:37 PM

Ake--


" more brains"---I like that. At least you do tend to think more than about half the US electorate. But, don't forget, 9-11 was an incredible shock to the US--even worse than Pearl Harbor--attacked on the mainland. Hasn't happened since--say about 1814.

No surprise that some Americans are still shell-shocked. But, admittedly, it is about time for them to start thinking. Here's hoping.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:32 PM

Sorry, Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:32 PM

Sorry....Nologgin'

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:31 PM

Guest--get a name or a handle.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:29 PM

282 RA...Don't forget your scenario could just as easily be applied to the UK electorate.

We voted Blair and his chums back into power, although most of us knew we had been manipulated,lied to and made complicit in the deaths of hundreds of thousands (my figures, because my guess is a likely to be true as Teribus's).

The UK electorate are in fact more culpable than the Americans, as we have a better news service, more discussion in the media and in general , more brains.

The shocking fact is that most people preferred to vote for blood spattered criminals, knowing they were criminals, than for other parties who may have made life slightly more difficult domestically.
We should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves....we the great cynics are in fact the great self serving cowards.

Although I dislike American foreign policy and indeed the American culture/way of life, I believe the American people, because of their naivety can be the saviours of humanity.
They, unlike us can still see the inherant good in our species....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 03:46 PM

282RA--

Hey, calm down a bit. You know propaganda works on a frightened population. And since 9-11, that's what the US has been. Lots of people actually believed the Bush regime's message in 2004--that we should fear homosexuals --( "Your marriage will be in danger") and terrorists ("Here in___________a dirty bomb could be exploded") --(and especially homosexual terrorists?). And a bunch more didn't care if the Bush message made sense--they were just looking for a scapegoat.

And still about half the electorate recognized the Bush "message" for what it was---despicable tripe.


Admittedly it is amazing that some people who appear to be sapient beings--even some Mudcatters-- still buy Bush's disgustingly stupid lines.

As I've said earlier, I've never heard of or met a person who voted for Bush out of anything but hate and/or fear.

But, as we know from the 20th century, that's a winning platform.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: 282RA
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 03:32 PM

Funny that most Americans are rejecting Bush's new plan.

I know I'm a cranky sonofabitch and I know it gets on people's nerves. Hell, I get on my own nerves BUT Americans piss me off. They're rejecting Bush's plan NOW????? Well, fuck, people, where the hell were heads at in 2004 besides up your stupid asses???

You remember something, Americans--you fat, whiny, fickle, complaining, self-pitying lot of overweight morons with no brains or will power--YOU ELECTED THIS COCKSUCKER!!! YOU DID!!! YOU!!!!!!! This is not Bush's fault. THIS IS ALL YOUR FUCKING FAULT, YOU ASSHOLES!!

The first time you elected Bush, you could be excused since Bush got in on a bunch of electoral hocus-pocus but there is no explanation for that second time. That one goes on you and you are guilty for what's been done to Iraq. Not Bush--YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clearly, Americans overwhelmingly trusted Bush and Cheney and conservatives in general. They really weren't upset about the war just so long as we win. No morals. No scruples. No conscience. No brains.

NOW you don't want to play anymore. The rules are getting a bit too complicated for you. The stakes are getting to where one wrong move could cost way more than you were ever willing to invest. You were in it for the ride. Just another reason to wave your flags and sing God Bless America and feel like the whole friggin wolrd belongs to you. But once the going rough, Americans got cold feet and start wanting to bail. Now it's all Bush's fault that we're in this. Sorry but he's about 10% responsible. The other 90 goes on you people. Now after putting these assholes in place who promptly fucked it all up, you turn to the Democrats and say, "Fix it or else!" When they fail, you'll blame them and their leftwign liberal agenda. It will never occur to you that the blame is yours and yours alone. All you did in the midterms was tell the dems, "Fix what we fucked up and you better do it right." What nerve.

Americans apparently thought they were still going to win this thing in 2004 despite the mounting casualities. That the war was already known to have been built on trumped-up charges from WMD to attempts by the Hussein govt to purchase yellowcake from Nigeria to meetings in Prague with al-Qaeda operatives meant nothing to Americans. They could have cared less. Bush used all these lies to get them into a war and the public was well aware that they were lies WELL BEFORE the 2004 elections. But none of this bothered the American people in the slightest. An honest little mistake. A little bad intelligence. We were still right to invade this sovereign nation because we didn't like their leader and that gave us the right--we're the United Fucking States, for cryin' out loud! We'll kick your fuckin ass! After all, he's sitting on top of all this oil--that's not right. God's not stupid enough to allow that.

So we'll just go in and get rid of him as God obviously wants us to do and then the Iraqis will love us and prolly just want to GIVE us a bunch of oil as a great big THANK YOU!!!!!! to all us big-hearted Americans for caring about them and sacrificing so much for them. I mean, Saddam tortured them because he has no morals but we Americans are inherently moral and can't do bad things and this automatically gives us the moral high ground in this thing. We adopt kids from all over the world because we love everybody so much and anything we do is perfectly justifiable because love is everything and God is love and we're doing the will of God, the will of Love.

Oh, those Abu Ghraib photos? Oh, that? Well, what do you expect??? They're insurgents!!!! Are we to mollycoddle them? You're one these liberal earring-wearing freaks that have turned our prisons into country clubs while real Americans are homeless!! Those are our good, brave boys and girls torturing and degrading those A-rab bastards in order to keep America safe for you!!! So now you're against the job our troops are doing? It's liberal whining weenies like you who are going to lose this war for us and we're not gonna let it happen! So we're gonna vote overwhelmingly Republican!!! Nyah nyah, ya little pansy-ass anti-American pro-terrorist tax-raising liberal democrat faggots! That just pisses you off, doesn't it? Well TOO BAD!!! Because we're going to win as long as conservatives stay in charge!!!

And that is why this country looks the way it does.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 02:07 PM

the us navy really doesnt have a defense against the supercavitating torpedoes.

but in fact the Iranians could target tanker traffic with plenty of repercussions for oil traders

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 09:10 AM

I doubt the military are too worried about the submarines.   It is those pesky fishing boats that drive them crazy. You know how it goes: big stupid machine comes up against guerrilla tactics. -- this time on water.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 09:02 AM

Well, well--according to the Wall St Journal today 20 Jan 2007: "Iraq's cabinet next week is to take up a draft law on dividing the nation's oil wealth. Lack of such an arrangement has fed sectarian friction..."

That's exactly what I've been telling Teribus for over a year--that the Sunnis must be assured of more oil income than would accrue to them from just the "Sunni areas" of Iraq--in order to make them believe they will get a fair shake in the "new Iraq". And he has been denying it--and saying they deserve nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 12:09 AM

BTW, it is unlikely the USS John Stennis will be near/in the Gulf for at least four weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:30 PM

It is stupid to put two carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. Iran owns and operates three Kilo class submarines. Have a look at the Strait of Hormuz. Now, put three Kilos in there after the carriers are inside.

Missiles: 8 Strela-3 (SA-N-8 Gremlin) or
8 Igla (SA-N-10 Gimlet)
8 Strela-3 (SA-N-8 Gremlin) or
8 Igla (SA-N-10 Gimlet)

Torpedoes: 6/533 mm Torpedoe Tubes
18 VA-111 (w: c/nucl) Torpedoes or
24 mines
6/533 mm Torpedoe Tubes
18 VA-111 Torpedoes or
24 mines

"Apparently fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes [VA-111 torpedoes], Shkval has a range of about 7,500 yards. The weapon clears the tube at fifty knots, upon which its rocket fires, propelling the missile through the water at 360 kph [about 100 m/sec / 230 mph / 200-knots], three or four times as fast as conventional torpedoes. The solid-rocket propelled "torpedo" achieves high speeds by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the torpedo in a thin layer of gas and forms a local "envelope" of supercavitating bubbles. Carrying a tactical nuclear warhead initiated by a timer, it would destroy the hostile submarine and the torpedo it fired. The Shkval high-speed underwater missile is guided by an auto-pilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes."

Bush needs his head read and a reassmennt of those folks in the military who have agreed with the idea of two carrier groups in the Gulf, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 09:40 PM

"no reason to assume that George W. would be impeached for assisting or starting such strikes" ?


I said impeachment was unlikely for "assisting". For starting strikes on nuclear sites without Congressional approval--totally different kettle of fish--as I said. Impeachment? Absolutely. And probably conviction too. Fool me once...

Reason? Attacking the nuclear installations will not be a "surgical strike" with no repercussions. Any consequences will be obviously Bush's fault. Among other likely consequences is a surge--recognize that word?---of Iranian troops across the long border--look at a map--that Iran shares with Iraq.   And slaughter of all US troops they can find. Then combining with the "Mahdi army" to continue that operation. A guaranteed bloodbath--with lots of US body bags.

Sounds rather impeachable to me.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 11:19 AM

It makes no sense militarily or diplomatically to attack Iran. Does that mean they (Americans or Israelis or both) won't do it? Not necessarily. But there are certainly strong reasons for them not to do it. It depends how rational they are about it, I suppose.

Do I regard Bush as irrational, Ron? Yes and no. Remember, I said that all people are irrational about some things and at certain times, while they are rational about a lot of other things much of the time. Same goes for Bush. No one is just either "rational" or "irrational", including Bush and Ahmadinejad. It isn't a clear dichotomy. Would Bush be irrational in regards to attacking Iran? I'm not sure.

We'll have to wait and see.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: 282RA
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:41 AM

The question is how extensive an engagement are we talking with Iran? Bush has made it impossible to engage Iran for very long. We can't just bomb them and walk away or they will simply rebuild. At some point, we need people on the ground. And we just can't do that anymore. Bush could face charges not for attacking Iran but for making it impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 08:29 AM

Again, opinions about the rigidity of the spinal cord of Congress differ. I think that the whole Iran situation and the nuclear issue has been made very muddy. The reason the Americans went to war, recall, over Iraq was that bogeyman "weapons of mass destruction". The British did the same. When it was analysed what this meant to the powers involved, it turned out that it meant that the Iraqis were supposedly capable of firing missiles with possibly nuclear, but more likely biological weapons, as far as Israel, and again, supposedly, a bit farther into Europe. Now, I am of the opinion that the term is not helpful: biological weapons and gas are much harder to work with than your standard issue nuclear weapon, which is the real weapon of mass destruction. In any case, the bogeyman of "weapons of mass destruction" paralyzed most official opposition the last time.   The next time people will be more careful. Still, the prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons -- assisted by the rantings of the head Iranian -- has already caused many American politicians to not condemn the possibility of taking out the Iranian nuclear plants.   I still see no reason to assume that George W would be impeached for assisting or starting such strikes. It would be insanely stupid, but that hasn't stopped him before.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 12:14 AM

Good point, Petr., especially if the Peshmerga are allies of the U.S.

Good advice, Ron -

"If you assume your opponent is irrational, you may as well not plan--there's no way you can cover all the possible actions of an irrational opponent."


282RA - I think the public voted Republican because they wanted to see them clean up the mess they started. You're right, it didn't work. They will continue to rape and pillage both at home and abroad as long as they are in power. It will all be dumped on the Democrats next term and they will have no money to do anything about it, no matter how well meaning they might be.

In the meantime, everyone will be focussed on the election.

No wonder people are so disillusioned with politics.




Never mind impeachment, treason is more appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 11:35 PM

As long as Bush is president, there are two things we count on him not to do:

1. Pull out troops.
2. Start the draft.

Either of these admit defeat. For most of us, pulling out is a simply a way of saving what we haven't yet destroyed or worn out. For Bush, though, it is admitting he couldn't finish what he started. And he doesn't have the brains for diplomacy and political intrigue. He's a stupid bully who ruled the playground with "do what I say or I'll kick your ass" and that isn't working so well anymore.

For us, starting the draft is logical since our military is collapsing in exhaustion. For Bush, it is an admission that he destroyed our volunteer army for his own self-glorification as a brave Christian crusader.

Congress surely realizes that Bush has no options open to him other than to stay the course, that he will give any subsequent "new direction" lip service about how it reflects the public desire for change but will only be more the same. It is all he can do. If he pulls troops out, he has been defeated. That simple.

He's going to keep us in Iraq until he leaves office if Congress lets him. They need to pull the plug. This new way forward has to scare a lot of republicans because they know that this is it. If tis doesn't work, we leave and the people are going to be very unhappy with the asshole who started it. And they won't be in a mood to hear how them "liberal pussies" undermined the war effort. The public voted republican in 2004 to prevent just such an occurrence. They allowed Bush to to do what he wanted unchecked, unstopped. And it failed miserably.

There is so little chance for this "new" plan to work that I think a lof of republicans are getting cold feet thinking about it. If they put their names on the line for this last ditch shot and it fails, their careers are pretty much done.

No one can be sweating more than John McCain. Here is a perfect example of someone who shot his mouth off too many times. Knowing he had to differ with Bush publicly on the war--he advocated more troops at a time when Bush seemed adamantly against the idea. Then Bush turned around and took McCain at his word in order to silence him. It worked. McCain has no choice now but to support the move and shen it fails, McCain too will be history. Apparently, Bush decided "If I'm going down, that white-haired bastard is going with me." For once, I agree with Bush about something.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 10:53 PM

Going to war over "Kurdistan" is a moot point, since, as I mentioned earlier, the Kurds are smart enough to be satisfied with de facto, not de jure independence---probably for quite a while.

LH, Peter etc--

What's interesting is that you guys are looking at Bush the way the neocons look at Ahmenijad (sp). They say we must attack Iran because he is irrational. You say we have to assume Bush is irrational. I say you cannot plan unless you assume the opponent is rational. That was, after all, the assumption behind the Cold War strategy--on both sides--especially MAD. You may not like it--but it worked.

If you assume your opponent is irrational, you may as well not plan--there's no way you can cover all the possible actions of an irrational opponent.

You guys may just be letting off steam--but, as you may know, I can hold my own with anybody in the Bush-loathing contest--and I still think we should grant him the presumption of rationality. The "higher father" quote seems to give him a healthy push towards crackpot status. But, as the article recently cited points out--that's such a handy excuse for refusing to justify an action that it may just be a Bush defense mechanism--lest his lack of any attempt to reason be made obvious.

Bush is a despicable chickenhawk-worm-- (a new species--no doubt a mutant)--but rational.

At this point he is concerned ONLY with his "legacy". So far, his "legacy" is a hellhole----present-day Iraq. Stirring up the Iranians, uniting them against the US, would only destroy the rather lively Iranian opposition, and empower Ahmenijad--who has other options than nuclear, remember. Turning the MidEast even more against the US would not improve Bush's precious legacy.

It's certainly true that Israel may attack Iran and the US may offer assistance. And that would likely not be impeachable. But the US will not initiate it.

For what it's worth, if I am wrong and the US does attack Iran, Cheney, you can bet, will be in it up to his neck (or above). So if there's no Congressional approval in advance, he will be impeached and convicted right along with his Chickenhawk in Chief.

If you disagree with this analysis, please specify one instance in the past when the US has attacked nuclear facilities. Bringing "nuclear" into the picture raises the stakes--and the punishment for going ahead without Congressional approval---substantially.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 03:24 PM

Peter T.
regarding Turkey - I dont think its obvious they would go to war over Kurdistan, while Turkey wouldnt be happy about it, they do want join the EU. and many EU members are looking for an excuse to deny Turkey membership. Second Turkey spent 20 years putting down a fairly small PUK insurgency in Turkey that numbered maybe 30,000 - are they ready to take on over a 100,000 well trained Peshmerga?

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 01:15 PM

LOL! Yeah...right... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: TIA
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 12:57 PM

LH, you sumbitch! How can you say that!?!? *I* don't have any triggers that make me irrational!!! Take it back, take it back I say....arrgghghggrrrr mumble mumble whimper........

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 12:36 PM

Very interesting article, TIA.

Yes, of course we all normally feel as though we are rational. And so does George Bush, right? But we all seem irrational at times to other people...because we all (I believe) are irrational at times.

It's because of our emotional triggers, coming out of our past. You can see it in anyone if you're around them long enough. There are certain things they are simply not rational about.

When a person is deeply conflicted and frequently irrational, however, then it becomes a serious problem. Specially if that person is the leader of a nation.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: TIA
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 12:10 PM

And here we sit (rational at least in our own minds), trying to predict what an irrational person, with the power to actually order the irrational, might do.

"At this point, the president seems to have entered a place in his psyche where he is discounting all external criticism and unpopularity, and fixing stubbornly on his illusion of vindication, because he's still "The Decider," who can just keep deciding until he gets to success. It's hard not to feel something heroic in this position - but it's a recipe for bad, if not catastrophic, decisions."

Excerpt from fascinating, and very scarey, full article found here.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 11:57 AM

The past has shown that the USA president (any of them) feels free to launch a limited military strike anywhere in the world that he wants to without prior consultation with Congress or the public. Surprise has to be achieved on the target, after all, for maximum effectiveness! ;-) (ask the Japanese and Germans about that) You can't have surprise when you talk about it beforehand to the public or Congress or deliver an official declaration of war beforehand to the upcoming recipient of the strike.

Therefore I tend to agree with Peter that Bush could easily decide to launch a limited strike of some kind on Iranian nuclear facilities....or the Israelis could do it...or the Israelis could do it and the Americans could give them some support.

All kinds of possibilities.

Look, Clinton did it more than once. Reagan did it. It happened in the Kennedy administration at the Bay of Pigs. Johnson did it. Nixon did it. None of them declared war on anyone. None of them got impeached for it. Nixon got in lots of legal trouble eventually, yes, but over Watergate, not over illegally attacking foreign countries.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 10:57 AM

I doubt it very much. I don't see what he would be impeached for -- he is that absurd phrase, Commander-in-Chief. He has broken the law on numerous occasions concerning personal security, and a good case could be made that he is a walking "misdemeanour" (as in "high crimes and misdemeanors"). He has systematically violated the Geneva conventions. But nobody seriously thinks any of that will bring him down (and make Dick Cheney President!!!!!)

It would be extremely difficult for the opposition to impeach him on military grounds -- one can see the difficulty they are having right now just getting him to stop doing anything he wants to do on the military scene. The last two impeachments were on sex and obstruction of justice.

But opinions differ!

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 09:02 AM

Clarabelle, other than being a second-rate troll, you have a poor grasp of current events. Dung is Vietnamese.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 06:14 AM

That was inelegant--and possibly grammatically incorrect. Correction: If a strike were to "just happen", impeachment and conviction would "just happen".

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 05:38 AM

No, Peter T. If a strike would "just happen", impeachment and conviction would "just happen".

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 04:11 AM

I doubt that "proof" will be needed. A strike against Iran's nuclear facilities (as long as it wasn't nuclear) would just happen. Declarations of war don't happen any more.

I have always thought that the main aim in Iraq was to get some permanent military bases.   That is one of the main sticking points in the Americans getting out. People have been trying to get the administration to say that they have no intention of remaining permanently, but no one will. They want those bases they have spent millions in creating. The Saudis kicked them out, and (apart from Kuwait) the nearest bases are in Dubai and (I think) Abu Dhabi, some distance away.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 12:40 AM

Let's hope so.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 12:10 AM

LH--

The US may have contingency plans for a possible regional war in the Mideast. But not even Bush would himself start one without Congressional approval--he'll be fully occupied by George's Excellent Adventure in Iraq. Approval, as I've said before, will not happen this time---no shadowy conspiracy dreamt up by imaginative neocons will be enough---proof will be needed.

And when Bush finally leaves in 2009 to grace Crawford TX with his giant intellect, no successor would be remotely criminally stupid enough to start one.

Any other scenario shows conspiracy theory tendencies on the Left--fun to play with but full of sound and fury and.....

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,Clarabelle
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:58 PM

There'll be a Mudcat Peace in the Yangtze Valley some day, Premier Dung, I pray!

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:40 PM

That is quite a mysterious question, Clarabelle, and I am not sure what the answer would be...

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,Clarabelle
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:10 PM

Is Peace still shaping Chinese military strategy?

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 07:00 PM

You may well be right about that, Peace. There is always a risk of China moving into eastern Russia and fighting a major war there with the Russians.

I was not suggesting, though, that China would attack the USA directly, rather that China could easily get drawn into wars in the area of Aghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran and find itself opposing America in those regions. Why? Because those are areas that are strategically quite important to China because of their rapidly increasing need for oil. They will soon become the world's foremost user and producer of automobiles. Imagine that.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 05:52 PM

When George Jr. was a little boy it is said that when he played battle ship he would lie whenever his ship was hit. Later he progressed to playing the game Risk. Every time he surged into Asia he lost the game. Although he never learned chess, he was known to illegally king himself in checkers. When he grew older, which is different than maturing, he got to play with a baseball team. His profits did not come from a good team but rather the kick backs he got from building a new stadium free from the usual municipal and state taxes. It seems his dad was well connected.

George's new game plan is based on all his old game plans.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 03:48 PM

China would not attack the US. It would attack the old USSR. They would love to have the mineral wealth of Siberia, the east of the old CPPP. They have the labour to work it, and the citizens do as instructed.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 02:57 PM

It's my impression that the USA has been planning a regional war in the Middle East for a long time and that they intended from the beginning to use Iraq as their central staging point with permanent American military bases there from which they could strike in any direction. Their targets? Iran, Syria, and eventually (if necessary) Saudi Arabia. That's if the Saudis do not cooperate 100% with American aims. Their prize? Control of the entire Middle East (shared jointly with Israel) and control of all the oil there and in the Caspian region.

The problem with such a plan? It's far too costly, basically unworkable, and if carried too far it will lead to a fullscale Third World War with both Russia and China.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: TIA
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:26 AM

If the USA is not planning for a regional war (e.g. with Iran and/or Syria), why then the mention in Bush's speech of sending patriot missile batteries to Iraq? They do no good against suicide bombers or IED's, or even AK-47 toting Mahdi's. What they do is shoot-down (or pretend to shoot-down) Iranian missiles launched in retaliation for the (hypothetical or planned) US or Israeli strike(s).

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:02 AM

Well, that and the profits. Munitions = BIG BUCKS.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 11:33 PM

Yeah, Peace, it's exactly what I would do if I were the Russians, and here's why:

Starting in the 1980's the USA gathered today the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist fighters it could find and armed and trained them and spirited them into Afghanistan to kill Russians. The long range plan was to use radical Islamic fundamentalism to humiliate the Russians, bleed them in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, and destabilize and break up all the southern republics of the USSR (which mostly contain Islamic peoples) with the hope that it would lead to the breakup of the USSR itself. And it did!

The further part of the longrange plan was for USA and British corporations to move into the oil-rich areas around the Caspian and get the oil (which had been the USSR's up till then). That has also been accomplished.

So the Russians got totally and absolutely screwed between 1980 and now. They lost much of their Soviet federation to separatist movements, and they lost those oil-producing areas as well. They got a society that went from being moderately well-functioning (nothing to write home about...) to being a total, absolute disaster, filled with unemployment, Mafia gangs, poverty, starvation, a very early average death rate, unprecedented levels of crime, violence, and corruption, and a dipsomaniace fool, Yeltsin, in charge of it.

When Putin finally took charge he had to deal with all that, and he is not a drunken fool. The Russians do not have reason to be pleased at all with the USA, which has robbed them blind in the past 15 years, while pretending to do it for the sake of someone's "freedom". (ha! ha!)

They do not wish the USA to continue expanding its sphere of influence further in the Middle East and central Asia, because they've already lost enough.

So of course they are arming Iran to the teeth. Why wouldn't they? It's the latest step in the great game of competing empires.

China, likewise, has quite pressing reasons for arming Iran and seeing that the USA does not take over there...they need the Iranian oil. Look into how the Chinese are assisting Iran. It's another big story.

This is all Realpolitic as usual...struggles over vital resources and spheres of influence, just like it always was. It's never about "freedom", democracy, or other such wonderful sounding concepts. Those concepts are bandied in the media in order to either get our public onside or persuade someone else's public to overthrow their system...so our energy corporations can move in afterward and make a killing.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 11:31 PM

Peter--


Thanks for that article. I've been asking Teribus if he had any inkling of the Turkmen-- (see my postings yesterday in the Displaced Iraqis thread)--and suggesting that if he didn't know about them, he should do a bit of research. He was waxing lyrical on the paradise that is "Kurdistan"--and I was trying to point out that, as usual, it's not that simple. Not that he's likely to ever bestir himself to learn anything that might question his comfortable state of denial.

Situation normal.



Dianavan--

Point is: the Kurds in general are not very religious-- many actually quite Western-oriented. So neither Shiite nor Sunni. They fight and fought for the Western-supported Iraqi regimes--and for the Bremer etc. regime--mainly for the reasons I've cited. And as I believe you've noted, the West protected the Kurdish north from Saddam after the first Gulf war.

They have no intention of staying with any Iraqi government--Sunni or Shiite. Ultimate goal is real independence--but as I said, they're smart enough to be satisfied with de facto independence--especially if they can get control of the oil-rich Kirkuk area--perhaps through a plebescite.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 08:59 PM

The deal, BTW, goes back about 1 1/2 years.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 08:59 PM

Russia just sold $1,000,000,000 worth of ordnance to Iran. And Russia has always wanted 'access on demand' to the Indian Ocean. Iran is a big piece of the picture, IMO, but it ain't the WHOLE picture. (The TOR-M1 is presented as a defensive weapon. But then, I guess ALL weapons are defensive.) Folks suspect that they will be placed near uranium processing sites, because they are a right sonuvabitch in terms of both mobility and kill ratio.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 08:53 PM

What, Brucie, you ain't suggestin' that Bush has restoked the Cold War that his hero, Ronnie Raygun, supposedly won, are ya??? What sense would taht make???

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 08:26 PM

Y'all better have a look at Russia's connections with Iran, and then rethink why the US is stationing a second carrier group in the area.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: dianavan
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 08:23 PM

Ron - "They are also probably the best for the job--seen as not having a dog in the Sunni-Shiite fight."

I'm not so sure about that. Remember, it was Iran who joined them in their fight against Saddam. I'd say they probably have some sympathy for the new Iraqi government and probably for the government of Iran. I doubt if they have much sympathy for Sunni, especially Baathists.