Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan.

[Zebo]

A must read if you have any doubts about the deception Bush and the neo-cons have masterminded..I have been saying this for months, nice to see it in print..

"The hawks' other response is that if the effort to push these countries toward democracy goes south, we can always use our military might to secure our interests. "We need to be more assertive," argues Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, "and stop letting all these two-bit dictators and rogue regimes push us around and stop being a patsy for our so-called allies, especially in Saudi Arabia." Hopefully, in Boot's view, laying down the law will be enough. But he envisions a worst-case scenario that would involve the United States "occupying the Saudi's oil fields and administering them as a trust for the people of the region." "

Worst or is it best? LOL, I guess it depends on your POV.... Text

 

[NightTrain]

"and we must presume, or at least pray, that it has--it certainly has not shared them with the American people. More to the point, the president has not even leveled with the public that such a clean-sweep approach to the Middle East is, in fact, their plan."

Assume Bush wants to destablize the entire ME and establish US imperial rule over the entire area. Of course he can't say this to the American people because they wouldn't support it. Yet he comes out and names each country in his "Axis of Evil"? If he wanted to cloak his true imperialist aspirations, why even give the people of the US (and the even more alarming the rest of the world) a look at his hand? Better to paint Iraq as the bad guy and let everyone think it ends there.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Suprise - Suprise ! Seems like the Administration didn't remember the lessons from the Religious downfall of the Shah in Iran.

Unprepared

Now - since they expound Religion (Christianity) as a virtue, how do they weasle out of this mess?
It's not the Democracy they wanted, but how do they prevent it ?

 

[Alistar7]

this is all very funny, I only need to ignore what has happened in SA recently to begin to believe the possiblity of such actions.....

 

[apoppin]

I don't they planned very well - EXCERPTED from MSNBC.com:

Iraqi Shiite strength surprises U.S.

By Glenn Kessler and Dana Priest
THE WASHINGTON POST

April 23 ? As Iraqi Shiite demands for a dominant role in Iraq?s future mount, Bush administration officials say they underestimated the Shiites? organizational strength and are unprepared to prevent the rise of an anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist government in the country.

It is a complex equation, and the U.S. government is ill-equipped to figure out how this is going to shake out,? a State Department official said. ?I don?t think anyone took a step backward and asked, ?What are we looking for?? The focus was on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.?

The administration hopes the U.S.-led war in Iraq will lead to a crescent of democracies in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, the Israeli-occupied territories and Saudi Arabia. But it could just as easily spark a renewed fervor for Islamic rule in the crescent, officials said.

?This is a 25-year project,? one three-star general officer said. ?Everyone agreed it was a huge risk, and the outcome was not at all clear.?

?We?re flying blind on this. It?s a classic case of politics and intelligence,? said Walter P. ?Pat? Lang, a former Defense Intelligence Agency specialist in Middle Eastern affairs. ?In this case, the policy community have absolutely whipped the intel community, or denigrated it so much.?

PLAN??? . . . What plan?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: apoppin
I don't they planned very well - EXCERPTED from MSNBC.com:

Iraqi Shiite strength surprises U.S.

By Glenn Kessler and Dana Priest
THE WASHINGTON POST

April 23 ? As Iraqi Shiite demands for a dominant role in Iraq?s future mount, Bush administration officials say they underestimated the Shiites? organizational strength and are unprepared to prevent the rise of an anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist government in the country.

It is a complex equation, and the U.S. government is ill-equipped to figure out how this is going to shake out,? a State Department official said. ?I don?t think anyone took a step backward and asked, ?What are we looking for?? The focus was on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.?

The administration hopes the U.S.-led war in Iraq will lead to a crescent of democracies in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, the Israeli-occupied territories and Saudi Arabia. But it could just as easily spark a renewed fervor for Islamic rule in the crescent, officials said.

?This is a 25-year project,? one three-star general officer said. ?Everyone agreed it was a huge risk, and the outcome was not at all clear.?

?We?re flying blind on this. It?s a classic case of politics and intelligence,? said Walter P. ?Pat? Lang, a former Defense Intelligence Agency specialist in Middle Eastern affairs. ?In this case, the policy community have absolutely whipped the intel community, or denigrated it so much.?

PLAN??? . . . What plan?

Sure they underestimated the shiite popularity.. Where has everyone been? I've been hearing for years Saddam was a mixed blessing of stablity for Iraq. Sure he murdered, sure he's an SOB to deal with but many considered he held the countries volitle factions together under his iron fist. We knew this was going to be a huge problem. But it helps our cause to stay there and possiblity move into other countries when the suicide bombings start... Did you read the article?

 

[yowolabi]

"As Iraqi Shiite demands for a dominant role in Iraq?s future mount, Bush administration officials say they underestimated the Shiites? organizational strength and are unprepared to prevent the rise of an anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist government in the country."

I'd like someone better than an unnamed official to say this. I find it hard to believe that people in charge are that stupid.

Anyone with the smallest amount of foresight knew that if we truly intend to give them self-rule and not install a puppet government, there's no way to insure that it will be one that is fair to the people or friendly to America.

 

[CaptnKirk]

I really do think that the people in charge ARE that stupid - mater of fact, they are probably even more stuid than we know.
Stupid is as stupid does.

Vote for Gump next election.


Do you think that Cheney should wear one of those "I'm with Stupid" T-shirts when he pals around with Dubya ?

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush stragtegery is very complex and hard to follow for an ordinary mind. You really need to be a committed conservative thinker to follow the twisting threads to any depth. You liberals will have to content yourselves to being out to lunch on this.

 

[Mrburns2007]

Don't underestimate the ability of the Arab world to screw up an opportunity, they all chant that all they need is Islam and then there pissed off when that's all they end up with.

 

[CaptnKirk]

More on Iraqi Democracy effort

 

[jjones]

Wow, first people second guess the initiative of going to war saying it will be another Vietnam; then they second guess the generals after one week of war and begin stating that they are incompetent; now they are second guessing the post-war because a stable government hasn't been put in place after a week. I guess it's just too bad we can't just snap our fingers and make things happen in a split second for some of you instant gratification people.

What is being attempted in Iraq is a huge challenge that will take an extreme amount of persistent effort. It's safe to say that all possible effects following the overthrow of Saddam were not able to be taken into account and no matter what problematic areas were focused upon, we would be sure to underestimate other areas. Given the fact that we just threw down a Middle Eastern dictator and combine that with the tenuous relationships we have in the region, it's foolish to think that we will not encounter difficulties, especially since many neighboring countries would like to see an Iraqi failure. The question is how those difficulties will be handled and what will be the ultimate outcome. So far all I see here is typical naysayer and conspiracy theorist speculation, the same which proved wrong during the war.

 

[Yax]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Suprise - Suprise ! Seems like the Administration didn't remember the lessons from the Religious downfall of the Shah in Iran.

Unprepared

Now - since they expound Religion (Christianity) as a virtue, how do they weasle out of this mess?
It's not the Democracy they wanted, but how do they prevent it ?

I say we nuke those Shiite Islamic Mental-Fondle-his*. Since they hate Bush already, why doesn't he just eliminate that hatred by eliminating the source, the haters. Less people in the region means more resources per person. Go Bush Go. Nukem, Nukem, Nukem!!! We're not ill prepared, we have NUKES or as Bush likes to call them: New Killer Weapons.

Edit: Alright, I don't like Bush either, but I'm in America so I can dislike him. They're not so they have no right to hate him. That is a right reserved for Americans only.

 

[Moonbeam]

We will have to kill them to knock some sense into their heads. What a bunch of ingrates. They remind me of the Lebanese who told us to go home so they could kill each other in peace.

 

[Tom]

Places in middle east I can think of..
Israel,Iran,Iraq,Syria,Lebanon,Saudi Arabia,Kuwait,Jordan,Libya,Egypt,Yemen,Palestine

Places in middle east that aren't FU one way or another..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush stragtegery is very complex and hard to follow for an ordinary mind. You really need to be a committed conservative thinker to follow the twisting threads to any depth. You liberals will have to content yourselves to being out to lunch on this.

Ah... the touchy feely approach to clinical understanding of the committed.... conservative. The threads twist but also entangle the mind in hopefull discord... On this disquisition one must look to the bow tie and those threads appropriate first then the glossal diatribe unfolds. Perhaps.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: jjones
Wow, first people second guess the initiative of going to war saying it will be another Vietnam; then they second guess the generals after one week of war and begin stating that they are incompetent; now they are second guessing the post-war because a stable government hasn't been put in place after a week. I guess it's just too bad we can't just snap our fingers and make things happen in a split second for some of you instant gratification people.

What is being attempted in Iraq is a huge challenge that will take an extreme amount of persistent effort. It's safe to say that all possible effects following the overthrow of Saddam were not able to be taken into account and no matter what problematic areas were focused upon, we would be sure to underestimate other areas. Given the fact that we just threw down a Middle Eastern dictator and combine that with the tenuous relationships we have in the region, it's foolish to think that we will not encounter difficulties, especially since many neighboring countries would like to see an Iraqi failure. The question is how those difficulties will be handled and what will be the ultimate outcome. So far all I see here is typical naysayer and conspiracy theorist speculation, the same which proved wrong during the war.

Well, the libs have to find something to piss and moan about.

 

[LunarRay]

Quote by CPA

Well, the libs have to find something to piss and moan about.[/quote]

There is much about to entertain the "Libs". One needs only to see what is.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We will have to kill them to knock some sense into their heads. What a bunch of ingrates. They remind me of the Lebanese who told us to go home so they could kill each other in peace.

I thought it was Peace on Earth.... or bring a blanket...

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
A must read if you have any doubts about the deception Bush and the neo-cons have masterminded..I have been saying this for months, nice to see it in print..

"The hawks' other response is that if the effort to push these countries toward democracy goes south, we can always use our military might to secure our interests. "We need to be more assertive," argues Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, "and stop letting all these two-bit dictators and rogue regimes push us around and stop being a patsy for our so-called allies, especially in Saudi Arabia." Hopefully, in Boot's view, laying down the law will be enough. But he envisions a worst-case scenario that would involve the United States "occupying the Saudi's oil fields and administering them as a trust for the people of the region." "

Worst or is it best? LOL, I guess it depends on your POV.... Text

WOW! That is an astoundingly ridiculous article. It's loaded with conjecture and hearsay. "When I asked Perle's friend and fellow Reagan-era neocon Ken Adelman to calculate the costs of having the toppling of Saddam lead to the overthrow of the House of Saud, he shot back: 'All the better if you ask me.'"

What is a "neocon?" How do you classify someone as one? Both Perle and "Perle's friend" supposedly said these things, but there's no proof of these statements. This kind of hearsay is all over that article. There is nothing to back up his claims.

If the author is trying to put forward the opinion that the US planned on taking over the Middle East imperialistically, then how does he explain this statement:

Prior to the invasion, for instance, they (and he's talking about the so-called "neocons" here) predicted that if the United States simply announced its intention to act against Saddam regardless of how the United Nations voted, most of our allies, eager to be on our good side, would support us. Almost none did. Yet despite such grave miscalculations, the hawks push on with their sweeping new agenda.

If we wanted to take over the region to further US imperialism, then why in the world would they have assumed this? Letting the UN in would be counterintuitive.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing the anti-war movement labelling anyone that's for the war "ignorant," especially when the people on the anti-war side are usually just paranoid conspiracy theorists. The only difference between those that agree with the war enough to hate anyone that is against it and those that are against the war enough to protest is that they get their news from different sources. The anti-war people read numerous, smaller publications that spew conspiracy theories that they want to hear while the pro-war people listen to what Bush says and (usually) takes it on face value. I'm somewhere in the middle, but I'm definitely more FOR the war than AGAINST it. I think that you have to look at both sides, take away any valid points that are indisputable, and make your own judgements.

Carbonyl, that article is ridiculous.

BTW, jjones, that is the smartest thing I've read all day.

 

[LivinOnTheEdge]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Suprise - Suprise ! Seems like the Administration didn't remember the lessons from the Religious downfall of the Shah in Iran.

Unprepared

Now - since they expound Religion (Christianity) as a virtue, how do they weasle out of this mess?
It's not the Democracy they wanted, but how do they prevent it ?

good point

 

[LivinOnTheEdge]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush stragtegery is very complex and hard to follow for an ordinary mind. You really need to be a committed conservative thinker to follow the twisting threads to any depth. You liberals will have to content yourselves to being out to lunch on this.

lol

 

[Zebo]

What is a "neocon?" How do you classify someone as one?

Ilmater, What is a neocon? Most coservatives don't know thier party has been highjacked by a small group of big government types; who favor vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well. VS. Conservative ? Specifically a "fusionist" conservative of the National Review - Heritage Foundation mold. Someone who believes in traditional morality and capitalism, and the need for a limited government to allow both to flourish.

"They are lying Adolescents, Ivy League elitists, ham-handed, boot-stomping security policy is the wet dream of a foreign policy gang of testosterone-fueled teenagers, spoiling for a fight, and longing to make their mark with a big bang. "Col. Hackworth a real American hero.

There is nothing to back up his claims.

Bush should just tell the truth I know but fooling America and keeping them scared will guantee re-election.

If the author is trying to put forward the opinion that the US planned on taking over the Middle East imperialistically, then how does he explain this statement:

Prior to the invasion, for instance, they (and he's talking about the so-called "neocons" here) predicted that if the United States simply announced its intention to act against Saddam regardless of how the United Nations voted, most of our allies, eager to be on our good side, would support us. Almost none did. Yet despite such grave miscalculations, the hawks push on with their sweeping new agenda.

If we wanted to take over the region to further US imperialism, then why in the world would they have assumed this? Letting the UN in would be counterintuitive.

The Neocons predicticted the UN WOULD go along with thier coersion not WOULD'NT. Howver they misclaculated gravly once thier poeple heard the play, and followed thier peoples will.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing the anti-war movement labelling anyone that's for the war "ignorant,"

Well If you fail reading comprehension what else do you expect? If you can't connect the dots what can you expect? KNow I am prowar. I only POed at this presidents desire to mislead the public at every turn for this war. Making us into some rabid dog hating and demonizing the worlds other people and essentially censoring decent at home as anti-american.

especially when the people on the anti-war side are usually just paranoid conspiracy theorists.

The only conspiracy pushers is bushy. Just say 9-11, Saddam, WMD, liberation in the same sentence long enough you'll see how effective it is.

 

[UltraQuiet]

You liberals will have to content yourselves to being out to lunch on this.

Content? It's where they live.

 

[Moonbeam]

Wasn't Clinton impeached for lying? This is just terrible. I'm outraged.

Carb, I'm exhausted but finished the article. What I been saying for months.

'49 reasons all in a line, all of them good ones, all of them lies.'