Operation smear Generals.

[Zebo]

Zinni was right. So was Gen. Merrill A. McPeak. So was Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan. So was Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf. So was former Navy Secretary and much-decorated Marine veteran James Webb. So was Commander Maj. Gen. Patrick Cordingley. So were a host of other top officers, both retired and active duty, who saw another Vietnam ? or worse ? in the neocons' plans for postwar Iraq. They no doubt cringed whenever they heard neoconservative agitator and war profiteer Richard Perle describe the coming conquest of Iraq as a "cakewalk." Here was another brilliant idea dreamed up by civilian national security intellectuals soon to turn into a living nightmare for the grunts on the ground.

The War Party was never all that worried about opposition coming from the Left, which is all too easy to mock and marginalize. Antiwar conservatives posed a more complex but less immediate problem, since these amounted to a small if vocal minority on the Right.

Text

 

[Moonbeam]

Boy, that article really rocked people's socks, huh, Zebo.

 

[Dari]

It was a cakewalk. But I don't remember anyone saying that the occupation was going to be easy. Furthermore, if this war was the dreamchild of neo-conservatives, they must've done their homework and prepared for the events of 2003 way in advance:


1. Hell, they were probably behind Saddam invading Iran in 1980.

2. They then told Iraq to invade Kuwait on the premise that she was their 19th province, not unlike what Taiwan is to China, and that she was deliberatly flooding the market with oil, thus lowering said price and making it very difficult for Iraq to pay Kuwait, which had underwritten most of Iraq's war debt.

3. Then they told Iraq to sign the agreement which ended the fighting...only to allow the Iraqis to break said treaty (and 16 other Article VII resolutions) for 12 years.

4. Seeing their success, they masterminded the September 11 attacks on Washington D.C. and New York City. They knew that this event would trigger a more primal instinct in America and urge her to declare a war on terror and the elimination of WMDs from the hands of outlaw regimes. Seeing that Hussein was an ardent violator of UN resolutions, and seeing that he was also an unstable despot who supported terrorists and WMDs, the perennial neocon lackey was finally brought to task.

Is this how every conspiracy theorists vision the buildup to the Iraqi affair?

Oh, I forgot, the security of Israel was the reason for all of this, right? Keeping in mind that Israel's most formidable enemy in that region is Iran.

As you can see, either the conspiracy theorists have a creative mind or the neocons have a God-like planning schema that is unlike anyother. In fact, its nearest challenger would be the Elders of the Protocol of Zion. Am I right, Zebo?

 

[dahunan]

Why don't we attack every country that violates UN Resolutions?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It was a cakewalk. But I don't remember anyone saying that the occupation was going to be easy. Furthermore, if this war was the dreamchild of neo-conservatives, they must've done their homework and prepared for the events of 2003 way in advance:

You don't remember anyone saying the occupation was going to be easy because the administration spent months upon months INSISTING there would be NO occupation . . . remember Operation Iraqi Freedom?!?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

It was a cakewalk. But I don't remember anyone saying that the occupation was going to be easy. Furthermore, if this war was the dreamchild of neo-conservatives, they must've done their homework and prepared for the events of 2003 way in advance:

You don't remember anyone saying the occupation was going to be easy because the administration spent months upon months INSISTING there would be NO occupation . . . remember Operation Iraqi Freedom?!?

I don't remember that. But maybe they didn't like the word "occupation." It has a negative connotation. Perhaps they used another synonym.

 

[Zephyr106]

Something linked to in that article really riled me up. And that was the Joel Mowbray's article flaming Gen. Zinni, Filthy Column, in which he calls Gen. Zinni an anti-semite because Zinni blamed "neocons" for eagerness to invade Iraq. The more these pathetic Jewish eggheads cry the proverbial "wolf" of "anti-semite", the MUCH less likely I will care when a real anti-semite shows up.

Zephyr

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

It was a cakewalk. But I don't remember anyone saying that the occupation was going to be easy. Furthermore, if this war was the dreamchild of neo-conservatives, they must've done their homework and prepared for the events of 2003 way in advance:

You don't remember anyone saying the occupation was going to be easy because the administration spent months upon months INSISTING there would be NO occupation . . . remember Operation Iraqi Freedom?!?

The defiinition of occupation please?

My interpretation is that one intends to take control of the country and govern it as long as one can control it. See USSR (1945-1980's)

Let us determine if the West intendes on turning Iraq into a colony or allowing them to govern themselves. We have only been in there less than a year.

Did the US occupy Panama, Haiti, Grenada, (1980's), S Vietnam(1960-1970's) Korea(1950's), Italy/Japan(1945).
I believe that we went in, removed the problem, allowed a governemnt to be set up and left. Also, provided funds and training for the flegling government.