BS: George W.'s Real New Plan

Subject: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 03:52 PM

It is fairly clear from the straws in the wind that the real new plan is not what the commentators have been saying. The real plan is to delay the Iraq situation long enough so that the subject can be changed to the Iran threat. Various reports (Sunday Times, the Spectator) have now been carefully leaked to make it clear that the Israelis are planning to use nuclear weapons to destroy the Iranian nuclear plants, and that only the Americans can stop them, or help -- this presumably explains why the new guy in the region is from the Navy.   The New Bush solution: escalate the problem, and shift countries. It is noticeable that he injected Iran and Syria into his speech. The solution is to shift bad guys and make them to blame for everything going wrong. This should take about six months, just the "surge" timetable.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:02 PM

That sounds like an extremely likely scenario to me, Peter. I think you are probably correct. It will be repeated over and over again in the western media that Ahmadinejad promised to "wipe Israel off the map", which in fact he did not. Saddam is dead now, Osama is passe, and a new dire threat to all mankind is needed for the war propaganda machine, a new swarthy Islamic monster who must be stopped!!! And it will be Ahmadinejad, of course.

I wonder if the American public will buy it?

Of course, if someone (like the Israelis) drops a couple of nukes on Iran then it won't matter whether the American public bought it or not...because a new and very expanded conflict will be an accomplished fact from that moment on. Pandora's box will have been well and truly opened, and no one will be able to shut it.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:11 PM

Yes, & there will be precious little 'HOPE' left inside if that happens, LH!

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:15 PM

And, the idjit actually said we are "bringing peace to the Middle East!"

I do not think the American people will buy this one. They've had it and they voted their disgust and they are keeping up the pressure on those they voted in to put a stop to the bush-shit.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:21 PM

I guess he must be thinking of the "peace of the grave" rather than the peace of well-managed life. Not that he would know the difference.

A

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 05:11 PM

My own hope is the the Project for the New American Century policy wonks have been pushed back into an annexe by the inner circle in the White House, and Bush's primary concern now (like Blair's) is his legacy - he's concerned at how he'll be perceived by posterity and doesn't have the nerve to start any more wars. Hence the recent shuffling of the cards in the cabinet.
Thus I don't think he will actually attack Iran. Plenty of sabres will be rattled, but I think the hope is that Ahmedinajad will tacitly back down before push comes to shove- and then Bush will claim that as a triumph for his special brand of diplomacy.
Militarily the US hasn't got what it takes to carry out an invasion of Iran. A few Tomahawk strikes, yes, but anything dustier, forget it! This is Bush as poker player - but the trouble is, Ahmedinajad is as aware of his weaknesses and unpopularity as anyone else. It's not a good situation in which to be player poker, particularly given the stakes.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 05:26 PM

The American people have already "bought it" by putting their faith in the electoral system rather than getting out on the streets.

Never forget that the Dems voted FOR this war and have no intention of becomming the party which turned the chance of victory into inglorious and humiliating defeat.

As with all politicians, self image is worth much more than the lives of our children and the children of our "enemies"

WE learn nothing.........Ake

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 05:53 PM

I would agree that Bush is going to try to shift the blame for his arrogance and stupidity to Iran and Syria. And it will work. You should see how many Americans foam at the mouth at the mere mention of Saddam Hussein. And it's obvious they were conditioned to do this via the media and nothing else. So the media machine will feed us horror tales about Iran and Syria and the same thing will happen--idiotic yanks will swallow all that garbage and blame them for this whole debacle.

As for the dems, I've already lost faith in them to do anything sane. They yacked about a 5-day work week for Congress and then call Monday off so they can watch a college football game (that didn't even come on until the evening anyway).

Pelosi is micromanaging everything and refusing to let various committees properly investigate the lies and corruption of this administration.

Lieberman is now not going to pursue the administration's foul-ups over Katrina. He's even gone so far as to say that certain evidence is now missing and then HE LEAVES IT AT THAT!! That should be an investigation of its own and he's going to drop the whole thing instead. Granted he's not officially a democrat but really he is.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:05 PM

The Democrats and Republicans are two halves of the same rotten piece of fruit. They serve the industries that fund them, not the public. To expect either one of them to behave responsibly would be like expecting a wolf to become a vegetarian.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:13 PM

A dog will eat vegetables if hungry (and a labrador will eat anything any time any place) so I'm guessing if a wolf wants re-election enough he will say or do anything.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 07:26 PM

Yes, of course he will say or do anything...while he's campaigning. After he's elected, however, he goes back to doing what he does best.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Bee
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 09:24 PM

My poor Southern neighbours, you really do need a new electoral system, one that allows you to 'kick da bums out' with more frequency, perhaps. (Note I haven't suggested ours, although I do prefer it to yours, it ain't by any means perfect.)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 09:31 PM

Naw. What they need is to abolish those 2 political parties and start all over again with no political parties at all.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 03:29 PM

a US strike or (US backed Israeli strike) on Irans nuclear reactor sites
would be counter productive - It wouldnt be like the Osirak Reactor in Baghdad in 1982 as the potential targets are spread all over Iran.
2nd it would endanger US troops in Iraq - it would increase the power of the radical clerics even more in Iran.
Certainly oil tanker traffic in the gulf would grindto a halt and oil prices would go up. The IRanians have their own versions of the Russian
supercavitating Shkval torpedo - which can travel up to 370km/h underwater - and to which the US navy has little defense.

(and I wouldnt be too cocky about the US navys ability to detect an attack, despite all the systems they have - a US Carrier did collide with an Iraqi fishing vessel a couple of years ago)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 05:43 PM

petr is absolutely right. Oil prices would "go up" is putting it modestly. And an attack on Iran is the only surefire way to totally destroy the Iranian opposition to the present regime.

I believe that even clueless Bush knows this. He's putting all his eggs in Maliki's basket. The US will not invade Iran. Whether Israel will attack is anybody's guess.

One of the ironies of the Iraq situation is that Bush's new best friend in Iraq is the head of SCIRI--as fundamentalist a Moslem group as they come. But--a counterweight to Sadr. Therefore, the hope is that therefore Maliki will not be as beholden to Sadr as he is now--and can crack down on Sadr's militias--or countenance the US doing so. In theory.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 06:50 PM

Too many "therefore"s. Na und?

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 03:15 PM

I think that all the consequences you both cite are likely, but I don't think that will stop either Bush or the Israelis. When in doubt, change the subject, escalate.   The strategy of hardline pre-emptive attack is very much alive and well -- the Americans borrowed it from the Israelis.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 04:17 PM

The most realistic worst-case scenario? I don't think we'll go after Iran because they're too big and too powerful, and the current administration likes foes they can appear to soundly trounce. Bush & co. have been rattling sabers at Syria for quite a while. There will be a story that Syria has been involved in supplying and/or training Iraq insurgents. Bush and co. will invade Syria, but do so at a point in time where he can name a successor or say that a like-minded Republican must be elected so we can get the job done.

Then again, perhaps Congress will clip his wings, monetarily speaking. Perhaps nothing even close to this will happen, and I'd be glad.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 04:23 PM

Yes, Syria is always a possibility, assuming Iran appears to be just a bit too much to take on. However, they do have Iran completely surrounded. That must make it quite tempting to someone with Bush's grasp of military realities.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 06:47 PM

No, not even Bush will invade Syria (nor Iran). There's no way--trumped up story about supplying Iraqi insurgents or not--that Congress would give him yet another blank check. He knows this--and knows that therefore attacking another country without Congressional approval is a shortcut to impeachment--and likely conviction and removal, as the first US president to have that distinction.   (Already richly deserved, of course. But not really the place in history he's angling for.)

He's tied his entire "presidency" to Iraq. The question is: will Maliki take the steps necessary to make the Sunnis believe they can trust the police?--specifically, purging the Shiite militias from the police. As I've been telling Teribus, for over a year, I believe--(and he's been denying)--that's the only way to have any chance to defuse the civil war.

And the issue of oil income distribution will have to be dealt with--again so the Sunnis feel they can get a fair shake from "Iraq"--even rump "Iraq"--(without "Kurdistan"--which as has been said before, is already de facto independent. And the Kurds are smart enough to not insist on de jure independence.)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: SINSULL
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:16 PM

I have been playing with the idea of reinstating political marriages. baby bush should marry off his two useless daughters to eligible men of good families in Iran and Iraq thus creating permanent bonds between our countries...
It's been a long week.
SINS

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 07:48 PM

That sounds just like what Alexander the Great would have done in a similar circumstance.

Times have certainly changed. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 09:25 PM

It seems to us that Bush has gotten us into a mess from which there is no way out with any dignity and he (finally) knows it. His plan is simply to stay the course with occasional cosmetic changes to tactics and terminology until one of two things happens. Either congress will force a withdrawal of troops or his successor will do the same. In either case, Bush will be able to say to his dying day, "If we had only persevered and followed my plan we would have been victorious".

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:21 PM

No, there is nothing of interest in Syria.   The target is Iran. There is no chance Congress would consider impeaching him for "protecting Israel".   

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:23 PM

and here's old reliable Dick Cheney today (from the British BBC):

Speaking to Fox News, Mr Cheney said Iran was "fishing in troubled waters" by aiding attacks on US forces and backing Shia militias involved in sectarian violence.

"I think the message that the president sent clearly is that we do not want (Iran) doing what they can to try to destabilise the situation inside Iraq.

He added that the Iranian threat was growing, multi-dimensional and of concern to everybody in the region.

Mr Cheney's television interview formed part of attempts by the Bush administration to promote the new drive to improve security in Iraq, which involves sending an extra 21,500 US troops.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:24 PM

Just read on a few news sites that Bush intends to disregard the wishes of Congress. He's gonna increase the number of troops in Iraq. I don't know enough about how the American system works. Can he ignore Congress?

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:56 PM

He can "ignore Congress " now since Congress gave him the go-ahead to use force in 2003 (if it was necessary in his judgment (Bush? Judgment?) Congress can refuse to appropriate money, but, as you know, those who do will then be accused of "deserting our troops in time of war" (never mind that the war was unnecessary and started under false pretenses).

However, that does not change the fact that he cannot invade another country now without authorization to use force (again) from Congress. And this Congress will never give it just on the basis of an alleged conspiracy against the US. This time proof will be needed. Fool me once.....

If "protecting Israel" meant attacking Iran, there is every chance Bush would be impeached--and convicted. Israel does not run US foreign policy--and it's verging on anti-Semitism to suggest that it does. I hope nobody is suggesting this.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 10:57 PM

Thanks, Ron. I was unclear on that. Appreciate your response.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jan 07 - 11:02 PM

Hmm. So what is really required, then, I suppose, is another very bad "terrorist" attack on American soil...? I bet that would prove sufficient to get Congressional consent.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 01:35 AM

Mary that's a great idea, to marry off his two daughters. Though he'd do better if they were horses. The best that they'd produce would be foul foals & the good 10 or 12 studs would then have to be shot so that none would know where the defects were coming from.

I hope for the nation's sake they practice safe sex.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 02:08 AM

Remember Cambodia?

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 07:40 AM

It is hardly anti-semitism to suggest that Israel is the centrepiece of American foreign policy in the middle East. In fact, the opposite: support for Israel demands that some solution be found to the Palestinian issue, otherwise everyone will be dragged down.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 08:14 AM

It is, however, ignorance--or worse-- to suggest that Israel's welfare is the guiding principle behind US foreign policy--that, for instance, there is "no chance" that Bush would be impeached if he attacked Iran in order to "protect Israel"--and no other reason. And to avoid impeachment, the "other reason" cannot be a shadowy conspiracy. Proof will be needed this time.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 08:21 AM

Though I obviously agree that some solution must be found to the Palestinian situation--and that Bush has thoroughly ruined US chances of helping this-- during his regime-- by his blatant abandonment of the "honest broker" approach of previous administrations. Just one of a LONG list of ways Bush has made the world situation worse.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 12:01 PM

Evidently the Iranian staffed office in the Kurdish region of Iraq that was raided recently was functioning as an informal consulate with the approval of the Kurdish administration. The Kurds are not pleased that it was raided and shut down, especially without their prior approval.

Too bad, it seemed the one part of Iraq where are soldiers were still welcome.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 03:44 PM

Well, some evil Iranians had to be found somewhere to crack down on! Can't those Kurds see the big picture? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 04:09 PM

There is a lot of discussion about exactly how much and in what way he can 'ignore Congress' some of the money he needs has already been appropriated, but he will need more, and he isn't likely to get much more, except as funds earmarked for troop protection and withdrawal. A constitutional lawyer said that any sneaky tricks of trying to use signing statements or moving other funds about would likely result in serious charges.

Congress does have 'some' leverage now.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 04:26 PM

"If "protecting Israel" meant attacking Iran, there is every chance Bush would be impeached--and convicted. Israel does not run US foreign policy--and it's verging on anti-Semitism to suggest that it does. I hope nobody is suggesting this."

What the fuck does "verging on anti Semitism" mean?
Surely one is either anti semitic or not.
Anyone who thinks that America does not take the State of Israel's aspirations into account when formulating it's foreign policy is indeed guilty of "ignorance or worse"

And I am no anti-semite....Name calling is the easy way out on this forum.
Peter T was addressing US foreign policy, not religious bigotry..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 04:49 PM

The real plan is to delay the Iraq situation long enough so that the subject can be changed to the Iran threat.

Not quite, but close.

The real plan is to delay the Iraq situation long enough so that this colossal clusterfuck becomes the next president's problem to resolve.

Will the "American People" buy it? In a New York minute.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 04:58 PM

That would actually be exactly what a reasonably canny politician would do...he'd delay, drag it out, and then pass the buck to the next administration and let them deal with it. We'll see in the next 2 years if Bush is that reasonably canny or if he's crazy enough to enlarge the conflict by attacking still another country.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 05:07 PM

Its also what an ignorant jackass whose advisors weren't absolute morons would do. Wait for it.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 05:21 PM

Id venture that whoever is in the next administration doesnt want to deal with it. You will see a substantial troop reduction, and withdrawal to bases by next election.

Idont think that Bush and his administration realize the US population is no longer buying the scare tactics that the 'Democrats would be giving in to terrorism' (the last election showed that.)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 05:35 PM

Quite so, Greg. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 07:46 PM

"...(without "Kurdistan"--which as has been said before, is already de facto independent. And the Kurds are smart enough to not insist on de jure independence.)" - Ron

Unfortunately, they are not smart enough to stay out of Baghdad. Looks like Bush is sending the Kurdish military (3000 or so) into the "eye of the storm". I guess Bush figures they owe him a favour.

Big mistake!

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 07:52 PM

My God. If I was a Kurd I would not volunteer for that mission.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 08:36 PM

It is interesting that no one has heard anything from the Turks about any of this, who have always been adamant about no Kurdistan (one of the few opinions they share with the Iranians). They must be lying low because of the European Union discussions.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 10:30 PM

We're all gonna die!

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 11:14 PM

Apropos of what, Peter Woodruff? Are you referring perchance to the threat posed by Liechtenstein? See my thread on that subject.

Or have you just become aware of your own mortality? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 11:18 PM

Induced Armageddon! Geoge W.'s New Plan...This could be BIG!

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 11:29 PM

Oh, I see... ;-) Yes, that is a big one allright.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 11:53 PM

Remember it's de facto "Kurdistan", not de jure. Knowing the difference is part of what makes the Kurds smart.

Why they volunteer for Baghdad duty--no doubt the pay--by the US--is good. They are also probably the best for the job--seen as not having a dog in the Sunni-Shiite fight. On the other hand they can be seen as mercenaries.   

And the more favors they do for Maliki, the less he can oppose their continued-- unofficial-- separation from Iraq.

We'll see how it goes.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 02:42 PM

speaking of which, here is an interesting item ----

TURKEY: KIRKUK NOT JUST FOR IRAQI KURDS, CONFERENCE DELEGATES SAY

Ankara, 16 Jan. (AKI) - Delegates at a conference in Ankara on the future of Iraq's ethnically contested, oil-rich Kirkuk region concluded that the city and its surrounding districts should not fall under the authority of Iraq's Kurdistan regional government but that "it should be the city of all Iraqis". Iraq's main Kurdish political parties the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) led by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and the Kurdistan Democratic Party were not invited to the one-day conference held at Ankara's Hilton hotel on Monday.

A PUK representative in Ankara, Behroz Gelali, criticised his party's exclusion accusing the conference organisers, Turkish think-tank the Global Strategy Institute, of bias and of meddling in Iraq's internal affairs.

The conference was mostly attended by delegates from Iraqi political parties representing ethnic Turkmen who live in the Kirkuk region and Shiite and Christian Arabs. These included: Iraq's Turkmen Front, Iraq's Republicans Union, the Iraq Islamic Party, the Iraq Dialogue Front, the Assyrian General Congress, the Shite Association, the Virtue Party (linked to prominent Shiite cleric Moqtadar al-Sadr), as well as some Turkish officials and politicians.

"Iraq's national identity should be put forward. Forty percent of Iraq's oil lies in the Kirkuk area and a UN peacekeeping force should be deployed there," said Onur Oymen, a foreign affairs expert for Turkey's main opposition Republican Peoples Party (CHP).

The number of guns that civilians and militia own in Kirkuk amounts 350,000 while more than 40,000 violations of private property were registered last year, according to a report presented at the conference.

yours,

Peter T.

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

Ahhhhh, not to be splittin' hairs here but if Iran wasn't the next target then why bring in another aircraft carrier in any fruitless attempts tp pacify the streets of Bagdad??? Them things, if I have it correct, don't do streetes too good...

Don't take a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows...

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.

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: 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 - 08:59 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 11:58 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: 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: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 12:40 AM

Let's hope so.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 12:57 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 - 01:15 PM

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

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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:31 PM

Guest--get a name or a handle.

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 - 04:32 PM

Sorry, Ake.

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: 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 - 04:56 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 - 05:22 PM

I wouldn't see the IRA campaign or first bomb as a parallel, as many in the UK sympathised with the aims of the Republican movement.
In fact many would have been pleased to see Thatcher and her government "wiped of the map" by the Brighton bomb.

More of a parallel would be the attack on London on 7/7, but but even then most thinking people saw the bombing as a consequence of Blair's War....THey were disgusted by the tactics employed and the needless loss of life, by were still able to rationalise what they saw...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:04 PM

Ake--

There have been postings on Mudcat which indicate that Irish people in the UK felt "under suspicion" soon after the first IRA bombings---just for being Irish. Is this not a fair statement?

It's certainly true that in the US directly after 9-11 anybody who even wore a turban was under suspicion--including Sikhs. Frightened people don't think.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: 282RA
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:12 PM

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.<<

I couldn't believe that Britain was going to help the US invade Iraq. I was really hoping they would spearhead an opposition. Then when the Downing Street Memos came out, I was flabbergasted. Britain KNEW the whole scheme was crackbrained and unworkable and STILL went along with it. I thought it was just Tony Blair and then in the elections, the British reelected him!!

>>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.<<

Americans are the same. "Oh, no, I'm not voting for a democrat or there go all my tax dollars." Let's keep cutting taxes for the rich in wartime and borrow from Red China. These same Americans who see nothing wrong with Bush doing this would be howling to high heaven if it was a democrat president.

>>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.<<

I don't know what that's supposed to mean so I won't argue it with you even though my gut instinct tells me I should.

>>They, unlike us can still see the inherant good in our species....Ake<<

But only in themselves. Everyone else is a devil.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:30 PM

The American people "can be the saviours of humanity". Or frightened sheep. Of late, unfortunately, it's been mostly the latter. We can hope that has changed--perhaps the 2006 elections are a positive sign.

But we'll see--- for instance, with the coming propaganda campaign against Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 07:43 PM

No,no, Canadians are the saviours of humanity. Saviours of humanity. What an absurd notion.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 07:48 PM

You're right, Peter--it's the Canadians. Let's stuff the ballot box for them. The Americans are only interested in saving time--or a dollar.

What's a bit of purple prose between friends?

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:29 AM

We already KNOW this stuff. (Any of you Americans have Canadian money? We put microphones in them ya know.)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:33 AM

I'm glad, 282, that the UK's complicit culpability was brought up. To my mind, if we are to assign blame for this stupid, indefensible war, the UK would get a hefty share of it. If Blair had NOT acquiesced Bush would NOT have invaded.

Blair was totally cynical about it- he had the Downing Street memo in hand. He knew what was what. And he STILL chose to go with Big Brother.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:34 AM

I should add that unlike you, I am not attacking the people who put the man in office- and repeated it.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 06:55 PM

"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"

"What an absurd notion" says Peter... Well I don't know Peter, is it really as absurd as the creator sending his son as a sacrifice to absolve humanity from sin?
That absurdity has survived two thousand years, causing the deaths of untold millions on the way.

I have friends with dual nationality who tell me that in general Americans are extremely naive about politics, seeing things in the most simplistic terms, respecting authority, and believing in the best Hollywood tradition, that good will triumph in the end.
They believe in independence, and have a healthy distrust of state welfare.
They are on the whole kindly people who dislike arrogance.

We in the UK on the other hand, know too much.
We know all politicians are corrupt, therefore feel free to be corrupt ourselves.
We know drug abuse, prostitution, exploitation and injustice as symptoms of our social/economic system...again corruption from the top down. We know that there are no ideals left to discover for our young people.....we have given up hope for the future.

If humanity is to survive, we must believe that we are worth the effort involved to accomplish that survival and these silly Americans still think we are worth saving.....Maybe it was Walt Disney who told them so .....but they still believe.

To survive as a species we must change every thing which has ruled our lives in the past.
How we live, how we work, how we relate to one another.
We have to realise that everything we have been told in the past about material possesions or the virtue of hard work to better ourselves financially was as big a pack of lies as the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

Of the developed Western nations, only the Americans are daft enough or optimistic enough to believe we can, or even deserve to survive...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 08:02 PM

To imagine that any sovereign nation is "the saviours of humanity" is absurd, and and nation whose people think that way is a nation bent on establishing an empire by treading upon other nations.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 08:45 AM

There have been a few interesting articles in The Jerusalem post recently. Much of the Israeli mindset now is now on how to avoid the next Holocaust which will be unlike the last one in which Israel will BE wiped out with a few nuclear strikes in just a very short period of time. They believe the Iranians have this as a primary goal in mind regardless of how many other innocent Arabs, Palestinians get killed in the process. They also believe that after Iran carries this out there will be no retaliatory strikes from the U.S.A. Their bind is what to do about it instead of just sit back and let it happen. Read this latest speech by Netenyahu http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467780742&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 10:57 AM

Many nations fear lots of things. I grew up in America believing that the Russians were about to kill us all in 15 minutes.

That does not give any nation a blank cheque.


yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 07 - 11:21 AM

I think Israel will rely on a MAD policy. History shows it works.

Like Peter T, I recall the era (which seemed to last for most of my life) and 'hiding-under-desks drills' in elementary school and the air raid sirens that went off near noon in New Your City (in 1964 or 1965. It's no fun, but it was much better than the actual use of nuclear weapons would have been.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 10:17 AM

GUEST,petr - 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"

Part a) of the above - "defence against supercavitating torpedoes" - Oh yes it does, in depth and rather well practiced.

Part b) of the the above - "Iranians could target tanker traffic" - Oh no they couldn't, or wouldn't.

You and Peace seem to be rather over-awed by this torpedo, to the extent that you have forgotten the vulnerability of the vessel that carries it and the array of vessels, weapon systems and weapons that would be deployed against it. As always it boils down to the following:
- Accurate intelligence
- Positioning
- Target acquisition data
- Firing solution

Your Iranian submarine commander must somehow gather all of those, before he even opens the outer-doors of his tubes. He must do it without communicating and he must manouevre without attracting attention.

Also remember that the former Soviet Union bankrupted itself five times trying to develope a weapon that would be successful against a US Navy Strike Carrier and its associated battle-group. They never managed to do it, and have not done so with this latest toy, that they have sold to the Iranians.

The policy of MAD would not apply in the middle-east. For MAD to be viable each "nuclear power" must have a second strike capability, and at the moment none do. While no second strike capability exists, the doctrine that applies to a regional conflict would be "who strikes first wins".

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peter T.
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 03:45 PM

No. You don't need a second strike capability. You just need to be able to retaliate. That was all part of the ridiculous escalatory fantasies of the cold warriors. America and Russia always had the capacity to retaliate. The second strike crap was to keep the stupid game going for the defence industry.

At the moment, although there is secrecy involved, Israel obviously has the capacity to wipe out any nearby opponent forever. The idea that someone could launch a nuclear strike against Israel that would eliminate Israel's ability to fire back is crazy. They have hardened sites and deadfalls and the usual stuff the Americans have. And even if they didn't, how would an opponent know?

The Israelis probably also have submarines (anyone know?) that are essentially invulnerable.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:22 PM

Yes, Israel does have submarines. They have a minimum of three type 800 Dolphin class submarines which are capable of carrying nuclear ordnance.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:25 PM

Peter T. - 23 Jan 07 - 03:45 PM

"You don't need a second strike capability."

Then why do you think that the US, USSR, UK, and France expand all that time, effort, resources and money to develop not only second, but third strike options, if they are not needed.

You partially answer that question yourself:

Because irrespective of where and how you are hit - You need to be able to guarantee that you will be able to retaliate - That you cannot do with nuclear bombs dropped by aircraft, or by static land based missile systems.

At a Royal Institute of Strategic Studies Seminar held at Exeter University during the bad old days of the "Cold War". One question that was posed was where should one direct that second strike if pre-emptively attacked, concentrations of military targets, or centres of government and population.

The Army were all for targeting the strike against the former, while the RAF's preference was for the latter. The Navy's presentation stated neither. The premise that you are capable of directing your second strike implies that you can communicate. That being so you communicate with your attacker and invite him to surrender, or come to terms to restore the status quo. The reasoning behind this approach being that while we may have lost everything, you still have everything to lose.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:53 PM

>>I'm glad, 282, that the UK's complicit culpability was brought up. To my mind, if we are to assign blame for this stupid, indefensible war, the UK would get a hefty share of it. If Blair had NOT acquiesced Bush would NOT have invaded.<<

That's how I feel also. There would have been no Coalition without Britain. I think if Britain had told the US no and put pressure on other European nations to follow suit then it is very unlikely Japan or other Asian nations would send troops. No Coalition. And Bush couldn't have invaded without a Coalition.

>>Blair was totally cynical about it- he had the Downing Street memo in hand. He knew what was what. And he STILL chose to go with Big Brother.<<

I can only surmise Blair, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their ilk are criminally minded people. That's all that can explain it. They had to know this couldn't work and went ahead and did it anyway. They had to know that sooner or later they would get caught but they did it anyway. Both figured they would be proven right and be forever after regarded as saviors of humanity. For the glory and to hell with everything else!

It's like Bush plunked a huge amount of money down on a certain number at the roulette wheel and did it with such calm certainty and complete confidence in himself that the others around the table all began plunking their money down on the same number--putting their faith in this calm, cool stranger's self-assured little smirk. He must have known something and everyone in the room wanted in on it.

The bets are down, the wheel has been spun, it is slowing down and the ball has settled in a hole and it looks to all appearances like the stranger's number missed tragically. The rest are grateful they didn't lay down the same amount as the stranger did because he just pissed away a fortune that was someone else's money. He thought he was going to double for them and really surprise them.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 06:11 PM

re; the Shkval supercavitating torpedo.

Im not really in awe of anything the either the RUssian Navy or the US navy (for that matter) has Teribus.

by the way it was a Canadian Agent that secured one of those torpedoes
much to Putins displeasure.

and you didnt exactly say what answer the US navy has (other than that its well practiced)

(in July 2004 the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy collided with an arab dhow..The navy relieved the commander after the incident)
if the US navy is unable to detect a simple fishing vessel (that could actually be carrying a bomb or torpedo on board -Im not so sure about taking out a 300+kmh underwater torpedo)

part b: the Iranians certainly could target tanker traffic (as they did back in the 80s)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:54 AM

Ships are involved in collisions at sea all the time petr, just read Lloyds List to discover how often. Aircraft carriers have a particularly bad reputation for it, they are extremely dangerous things to be playing around especially if they are launching or recovering aircraft. Was that the case in 2004 when the collision with the dhow took place?

It does not matter what is used to carry the weapon the situation and requirements are still the same:

- Accurate intelligence
- Positioning
- Target acquisition data
- Firing solution

You must somehow gather all of those to mount your attack and you must do it without communicating and without attracting attention.

As for part b) It was not very successfully done back in the 80's was it petr. Not a single tanker was stopped or sunk. On the subject of submarines sinking ships, you might be interested in taking a look at what had to be used to sink the Belgrano, any idea why? The task of the armament carried by SSN's is primarily anti-submarine, as are the torpedoes carried by SSBN's. Against a ship as massive as the double hulled super-tankers of today, a submarine could fire it's entire outfit of torpedoes against that ship and achieve nothing. Way back in the early 70's one sub captain said that if faced with such a target in wartime he would disable it then hang around to sink whatever came to rescue it.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 02:12 AM

Sorry petr, I forgot to mention. The Straits of Hormuz are an international seaway, that has a special meaning in relation to the United Nations Security Council. Should Iran ever attempt to close those Straits, it would not be the US it would be fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:31 AM

Unless nuclear weapons are on the launch pad 24/7/365, the chances of a response from countries within short range of each other getting theirs into the air are slim. Any first strike would likely utilize air burst to take advantage of the EMP. Others would be targeted to military areas and government areas. However, having subs capable of launching nuclear ordnance then forces the first strikers to consider what's coming in on them, because it will be. And that should be enough to make everyone go back to the drawing board to ask what Plan B is. One would hope, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:21 AM

sure teribus aircraft carriers run into fishing boats all the time.
and the captain of the Kennedy was promoted? (I guess the Cole was just a distant memory)

considering they couldnt detect one dhow, Id be less concerned about the safety of those launching the torpedoes -

and since you brought up the Belgrano - it only took one exocet to knock out the Sheffield (and thats 30year old technology now)
there is a reason the British kept their ships out of range.

regarding the international waterway business, well back in the tanker war 20years ago, how many other countries went to war against IRan?
(also it wouldnt need to do too much - the strait is pretty tight in places, sink some tankers and watch the price of oil go up)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,Peter T.
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 11:05 AM

Like I said, Plan B. yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 11:11 AM

Now then petr, just from memory, HMAS Melbourne cut two of her escorts in half during her lifetime, HMAS Voyager in 1964 and the last being the USS Frank E Evens in 1969. Around about the same time HMS Ark Royal, while under the command of Raymond Lygo, cut the back end off a Russian Kotlyn Class Destroyer. Not carelessness, or anything like that, you see when an aircraft carrier is engaged in flying operations it must maintain a steady speed and course into wind, it cannot alter for other shipping. That is why it displays the international codes for a vessel engaged in special operations. Any vessel ignoring that, is going to come off decidedly second best. The incident you mention with the dhow did take place during night flying operations. As such it seems rather harsh that the Captain of the Kennedy was relieved of his command, the incident with the "Ark Royal" also occurred during flying operations and Lygo went on to be promoted to Flag Rank.

I believe that there were rather a lot of British Task Force ships well within range in San Carlos Water for some considerable time.   Sandy Woodward had rather a lot to ask of the 12 fully air-to-air combat capable Sea Harriers that he had at his disposal, and the carriers were therefore kept well out to sea to the east of the Islands.

Conqueror had to load Whithead Mk8 torpedoes to take on the Belgrano (A Second World War torpedo for a Second World War target). The mega-intelligent torpedos in use these days are designed primarily to sink other submarines at depth, their warheads are not best suited to put down large ships.

The Straits of Hormuz are pretty tight in places, they are also very deep, and a tanker, particularly the large double hulled super-tankers take a lot of sinking, particularly if full of oil.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Alba
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 07:06 PM

ROFL, sorry but the spam that has been posted (and most likely will be removed very soon) for just a second looked like an answer to Teribus's post!!
So I am easily amused, sue me.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 07:10 PM

Anyone have any (printable) thoughts on the recent but very secret jaunt Israel allegedly made into Syria?

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: bobad
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 07:18 PM

I am wondering why Syria isn't raising more of a stink over it.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 07:22 PM

Well, the problem is, what did they alledgedly hit??

If it was a nuclear program, more power to them: WE should have the resolve to uphold UN rules ( NPT) by action when diplomacy has obviously failed.

If it was military supplies to Hezbollah, then the UN truce terms from last summer REQUIRE **ALL** nations to prevent them from getting to Hezbollah, so that is ok, too.

On the other hand, if it were anything else, why hasn't Syria made some comment, and provided some evidence, to the rest of the world?

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Sep 07 - 07:49 PM

While, yeah, I am concerned about these littel sergical attacks the Isreali's are carrying out, I am equally puzzeled why the US is flying nuclear missles over our own heads...

"Geeze, Ralph, didn't realize them things could hurt anyone???..."

Nevermind...

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 11:16 AM

It would only ever be pure speculation as to what they hit and whether or not a raid was mounted to snatch whatever before the air strike. But one thing is for certain I bet that it has put the Syrians, the Iranians and the Russians on notice and illustrated that US technology and the Israeli Air Force can still run circles round the very latest in Russian air defence systems (Russia recently sold such to both the Iranians and the Syrians).

As some have noted, the Syrians have been very quiet about it, so it must have been something that they don't want attention drawn to.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 11:40 AM

Condi Rice says that I am against the Iraq war for the same reasons that people were not against slavery during out civil war.

Thats like accusing me of embracing slavery.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 07:19 PM

billions of $ of US technology has been unable to deal with relatively simple technology of modified artillery shells in IRaq.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Sep 07 - 11:52 PM

Re: Syria: Believe it or not, the Wall St Journal (editorial page, of course) was speculating the North Koreans were also involved. Sounded far-fetched to me--I didn't read the whole column--but if I recall correctly, they were theorizing that North Korea had transferred some nuclear technology to Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 07 - 01:05 AM

Oh I don't know Guest petr, compare the success rate for the IED's against the detection and disposals and I think you'll find that the MNF are doing rather well.

Just had a look at the BBC's pages for the Middle East and Asia, that covers events happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing at all for Iraq and news of the latest NATO/ISAF Operation "Palk" in Afghanistan where 160 Taleban have been killed.

On the Syrian raid, the more the Syrians stay quiet about it, the guiltier they look, going by past form.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 11:58 AM

oh really teribus, so they won and can go home?
youre kidding yourself.

Everyone knows they've lost, including BUsh, but hes determined to pass on the problem to the next administration. The so-called surge has done nothing as expected despite Petraus' report (did anyone expect him to say anything else). The so-called success with the Sunni SHeiks in Anbar had nothing to do with the surge -as they realize they will have to deal with the shiites after the US pulls out.
And Petraeus predicted that the surge can wind down early in 08
- of course it will, they dont have anymore troops and its time for many to go..

The Democrats wont insist on a withdrawal until Bush is gone anyway, why give up the one stick they have against the republicans..

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 02:10 PM

We'll see Guest petr, we'll see.

Again had a look at the BBC's web-site famous for painting as black and as pesimistic picture as possible about both Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Iraq another senior commander of Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq has been killed, no reports of any major attacks apart from the failed attempt on a Sunni Sheik who is heloping his Government.

In Afghanistan almost no new news at all, an unsuccessful car bomb attempt in Kabul which saw the two bombers killed for no other casualties. BBC are chattering about the Taleban regrouping over the coming winter and coming back more determined than ever. This after the BBC's prediction of an unstoppable "Spring" offensive in Helmand that never happened followed by an equally unstoppable "Summer" offensive that never happened. Neither happened because down in Helmand the Taleban are being harried from pillar to post and losing men right left and centre. How would you describe that petr? They've really got us on the ropes haven't they.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 03:24 PM

Hey, T, you objected to having your 'name' spelt Ter E bus' but the most common spelling of Taliban does not have an E. :)

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 04:16 PM

"Oh I don't know Guest petr, ** compare the success rate for the IED's against the detection and disposals ** and I think you'll find that the MNF are doing rather well..."


Okay, I'll bite. If MNF detects and disposes of... let's say 50 IEDs, and one that they have missed kills two soldiers, who wins this round? I just want to know how the scoring works.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 04:49 PM

success in detection of ieds
Would that be the monkeys that Morrocco offered as part of its contribution to the Multinational force?

As far as Afghanistan, Canadians are still getting killed there quite frequently, (in fact much more than the US casualties in IRaq - in proportional terms to the number of troops committed)

(basically after trying to fight in the open the Taliban failed and have now adopted the Iraqi IED tactics, even a slow rate of attrition results in growing opposition back home. And while I actually support the action in Afghanistan, counter-insurgency warfare takes years, and right now in Canada there is definitely no political will to continue past the current commitment to 2009. ANd no other Nato countries are willing to put their troops in the trouble areas of Afghanistan. So we'll see indeed what happens.

on another note; we get very little reports of how effective the Canadian forces are in Afghanistan. A recent Frontline documentary
did a story on a Canadian forward base..

The Canadians tried to get on good terms with the local villagers by offering to fix their generators - but no luck after weeks of trying to fix them (no spare parts) - they set out to a nearby town to obtain parts but its not like Canada - theres no Canadian Tire Store around the corner.. the expedition ended up a waste of time they couldnt find parts and also shot up and killed some Afghans who happened to drive to close to the convoy (causing further local resentment)

It would have been way cheaper in my opinion to just bring over some new generators but all of this made more difficult by the fact that Canada doesnt have any helicopters over there..(which is another story)

Then, as a friendly gesture they offered free medical services to the local village. And quite a few of them came to take advantage of this
(despite being threatened by Taliban if they did) So how did that pan out? Well after seeing about half the villagers, the Canadian Doctors
called it off as they ran out of supplies.

A couple of weeks later the Canadians pulled out of that base.
It really makes me wonder how effective they whole thing is..

The Taliban can them come in and behead any village leader that sympathizes with the coalition troops..

Never mind the coalitions failure to do anything about the opium crop..

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 07 - 06:02 PM

Detection and disposals Guest TIA:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7012889.stm

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:13 PM

Our strategy (in the micromanagement sense) has always been to drive around as bait and wait until we are blown up and then see if there are any hostiles in the area.

Hire TITAN BLackwater and 123 other private firms to do the real torture and simple jobs the army used to do until the good ol boys found that there is a good profit in triple billing for everything and stealing the rest.

Damn the Country, FULL Privatization ahead YAHOOO

boom

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:43 PM

The plan is to ááÝäÇä ÐßÑì ÇÛÊíÇá ãæÓíÞÇÑäÇ ÇáßÈíÑ Úáí ãÚÇÔí Úáì íÏ ÌíÔ ÇáÇÍÊáÇá Ýí ÇáËÇãä íæäíæ ãä ÓäÉ 1958. ÝáÇ íÝæÊäí Ýí åÐÇ Çáíæã Ãä ÃæÌå
ÊÍíÉ

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 01:24 PM

Thanks for the interesting link Teribus (really), but I still want to know the metrics for measuring:

"...the success rate for the IED's against the detection and disposals."

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 04:18 PM

His plan is to outlive his friends.

(make a new plan Stan)

Happy trails in the heat Pete.
Your so damn scary Larry.
You ain't so holy Foley
I hope you find no solice Gonzales.
Your roads lead to Rome Rove
Your kindness is unfelt Rumsfeld
What's the rush Bush?
Go fuck yourself Cheney

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: kendall
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 04:53 PM

What has Condi Rice ever done that amounts to a cane hole in a cow flap?

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 11:49 PM

Teribus--

"On the Syrian raid, the more the Syrians stay quiet about it, the guiltier they look."

You could say the same about the Israelis--if they hit something worth hitting, why the tight censorship on the raid? I heard on " To the Point", public radio current events program, that even mentioning the censorship is itself censored.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 02:34 AM

"You could say the same about the Israelis" - Ron Davies.

Not at all Ron - it tends toindicate that they got what they wanted and may use the same MO again.

Subject: RE: BS: George W.'s Real New Plan
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:32 AM

Your theory, Teribus. Waiting patiently for any evidence to back it up. Until then, my statement has as much validity as yours. It is somewhat hard to swallow that if Israel had uncovered nefarious intent through this raid, it would not want to publicize this. Israeli censorship is out of control--as is recognized by many Israeli journalists.