Bush’s war policies
It’s remarkable how President Bush’s war policies have alienated even some of the United States’ most reliable Middle East partners. Even the typically servile Saudis have tired of the disastrous doings in Iraq and have openly announced their support for the tenacious Sunni insurgency there.
The Saudi Wahhabist royal family would love to see the Shiite Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, deposed and have baldly named Iraq an “illegally occupied” country.
In response to these dramatic diplomatic deviations, Bush now characteristically offers his wavering Gulf clients the only thing he’s capable of delivering. He’s placed more than $20 billion of hi-tech U.S.-made weaponry on the table, enough it’s hoped to convince the Saudis to stifle their insurgent Sunni allies inside Iraq.
Moreover, Israel’s understandable concern over such a destabilizing deal will be allayed with financial and military emoluments worth billions more, prompting, in turn, a balancing boost in armaments and funds to prop up Egypt’s corrupt police state.
That these hackneyed arrangements, when inevitably approved in substantial form by Congress, will continue to fatten the wallets of Bush’s friends in the military-industrial-oil complex is, of course, merely a convenient coincidence.
Peace.
This letter has not been edited.
thank you cord for your socialist comments. I am sure that anyone would do better than Bush has in your opinion. now tell us how they would change the attitude of a group of morons who's only goal is to kill americans?
Posted by on July 31, 2007 03:12 PMCord: I'm pleasantly surprised to see that your commune finally got electricity. I'm shocked that you broke down and acquired a PC made by some capitalistic company. Wow...will wonders never cease...
Posted by on July 31, 2007 03:21 PMGee guys, I never knew you were so articulate. You must be very well educated.
Everyone'll surely be enlightened by your clever, insightful contributions to this amazingly difficult & complex digital computer opinion forum.
Cord: You established your credentials as a faux intellectual of dubious socialist credentials years ago. Listening to, or debating with you is strictly an exercise in non-orgasmic mental masturbation.
Posted by on July 31, 2007 06:30 PMBut what are your credentials?
You won't even stand by your name, whatever it is.
You don't even provide us with a faux one.
How about Ripcord?
Posted by on July 31, 2007 08:27 PMHow about "the blind following the stupid?"
Hang in there, Cord, you're OK.
Posted by dmz on July 31, 2007 08:36 PMCome now folks, let's be a little more erudite for our guest "intellectual".
How about ligature?
Posted by on July 31, 2007 08:39 PMAnon 3:12,
Your Kommie pegging sure offers some zingers. Your wit and obvious intellectual stature really impresses the hate radio shock jock type.
Posted by Holy Reality on July 31, 2007 08:46 PMGo back to the "Camera" where other faux intellectuals will salivate over your astounding analysis of current events. We humble people in the lowlands can't really appreciate your infinite wisdom, and are most humbly not worthy of your gracious attention.
Posted by on July 31, 2007 08:46 PMAnd not a one of the idiot anonymous posters has offered you a counter-point Cord.
Your letter must be irrefutable.
Posted by Charles B on July 31, 2007 08:58 PMI feel like I'm definitely missing something here. Is there an inside joke that might be shared? Or, is this an encrypted debate of the issue initially raised?
Posted by Trinity on July 31, 2007 09:01 PMThere is some definite history with Cord. The vast majority of it rather unpleasant. Let's just say that many find it better to stay clear of his arrogance and rudeness.
Posted by on July 31, 2007 09:23 PMI'll bite. Outside of business as usual for the political power elite of both parties (Democrats in Congress who approve it will be rewarding their own special interests), what's new?
Posted by Trinity on July 31, 2007 10:01 PMOkay; I can take a hint...I'm out of here.
Cord, good assimilation of factors pointing toward probable attitudes and reactions to activity in the middle east. It would have been both informative and interesting to explore this speculation further.
Posted by Trinity on July 31, 2007 10:27 PMWhat in his letter makes Cord a socialist?
Posted by BO on August 1, 2007 06:36 AMBO, anyone slightly left of Barry Goldwater is a extreme left socialist according to the Kool-aid wingnut Bushite.
Posted by Holy Reality on August 1, 2007 07:33 AMCharles B
You said "And not a one of the idiot anonymous posters has offered you a counter-point Cord.” Counter point to what????
Cord said: It’s "remarkable" that ….Blah, Blah, Blah. OK, should I say it is Not remarkable? OK, then , It is not remarkable that Blah, Blah, Blah. How does that help the debate? Man your mind is somewhere else.
Finally after the Blah, Blah, Blah, cord says: ”That these hackneyed arrangements, when inevitably approved in substantial form by Congress, will continue to fatten the wallets of Bush’s friends in the military-industrial-oil complex is, of course, merely a convenient coincidence.” Ok , so a DEMOCRATIC congress approves Bush’s spending. What’s the counter-point? Impeach congress? They are, after all, the only one’s who can authorize spending. ( and Hackneyed?!?!?!, c’mon, is that a new word cord? Do you somehow mean it to be derisive?
Then you said “Your letter must be irrefutable.” Do you believe that cord’s letter irrefutable? Even you cannot really believe that. Is it sarcasm? If so, I am lost. Your definition of an idiot needs some tuning, because, by any true definition, I am not an idiot, and I really do not understand the points you are trying to make in your postings.
AF
"Hackneyed" -- made trite by overuse
You have to understand more of Cord's history to understand his position in the Utopian socialistic dream world. This letter just complains about Bush and cronies in their ongoing war profiteering...mild by Cord's standards.
Posted by on August 1, 2007 08:18 AMJeezus you're an idiot.
Posted by Tbone on August 1, 2007 10:19 AMJeezus you're an idiot.
Posted by Tbone on August 1, 2007 10:22 AMbo,it makes him a idiot.but that again is a socialist or liberal
Posted by bart on August 1, 2007 10:38 AMThere he goes again...bart has graced us with his irrefutable, infinite wisdom about "Socialist or liberal" and no offering of anything close to discussion or thoughtful debate on the topic of the letter. Come on gasbag, you can come up with something better than "it makes him a idiot.but that again is a socialist or liberal." But then again bart, that's your standard, canned response to anything you disagree with here, regardless of whether or not the poster is really a liberal or a socialist (not to say that Cord isn't a liberal, but at least he claims a stance instead of blowing gas and hot air, and at least backs up his post with a clearly stated opinion).
Posted by Beavis on August 1, 2007 11:37 AMI think the idiot is the individual who double posts. You would think by now that Tbone would have learned that you only have to click the "Post" button once, and then wait patiently for the software to work it's magic.
Posted by on August 1, 2007 11:39 AMI see that the intellectual debate for this thread hasn't improved since last night. Too bad -- this had the potential to be a lively discussion.
Posted by Trinity on August 1, 2007 11:44 AMBeavis;
"a cleArly stated opinion" He said "I find it remarkable that" I assume that is sarcasm but certainly not clearly stated. And I do know what hackneyed means. And cord's use not appropriate, Trite, c'mon, it may be a lot of things but it is not trite.
AF
AF, you said:
"I am not an idiot, and I really do not understand the points you are trying to make in your postings."
I think you're lying.
Posted by Charles B on August 1, 2007 06:49 PMGet Real,
FYI, I haven't been on the Rosen show for nearly 10 years now. He banned me in 1998. What have you been listening to? Voices in your head?
Posted by cord on August 2, 2007 08:04 AMI take it this "history" with the author, cord, is based on a talk radio station conflict 9 years old?
Come on folks, some interesting discussion could be had with an analysis such as the one submitted by cord. I think it could be more relevant to our involvement in the Middle East than holding a 9 year old grudge.
Posted by Trinity on August 2, 2007 08:27 AM
If you take into account a realistic (not idealistic wishful thinking) view of the "long term presence" military bases, and the huge embassy compound we are building in Iraq, our presence there is not going to end in the foreseeable future. While we will probably reduce our troop levels and withdraw from fighting in the local street conflicts over the next several months, we will not completely abandoning our foothold. This will remain a fact regardless of who our next president is.
It will be sold to the American public as a best scenario compromise: "we ended our involvement in the local sectarian fighting by maintaining a long presence capable of staging operations against Al Qaeda and any other radical threat to the US.
Part of what cord has outlined above -- the $20 billion armament package to the Saudis is already on the table. In order to maintain our presence in the Middle East we will probably have to continue to arm other countries, i.e., Israel, in order to maintain at least the appearance of balance power.
Where do we end this arms escalation insanity? How is Iran going to react to everyone around them receiving more arms and power -- consider especially their reaction to Israel, their avowed enemy receiving more US arms.
And believe it, this will happen REGARDLESS of who is elected president. The industrial war complex and other special interests who have been and are currently supporting Bush will be switching their financial endowments to which ever party is "in power" (in reality it's one party with two wings). Politicians will be politicians and respond to the money and special interest lobbying which provides them ultimately with their power.
Posted by Trinity on August 2, 2007 09:48 AMMan, this is a tough crowd! cord must have pissed of a lot of people in the past.
Posted by on August 2, 2007 10:43 AMCord-
My bad, I was confusing you with Steve The Socialist from Co. Springs.
Posted by Get Real on August 2, 2007 12:49 PMHere's a fulsome article which backs up my brief argument. -Cord
US Has Been Covertly Arming Gulf States since 2004
////////////////////////////////////
by Larisa Alexandrovna
RAW STORY
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_has_been_covertly_arming_Gulf_0801.html
August 1, 2007
A recently disclosed US agreement with Saudi Arabia for a 10-year, $20 billion dollar arms sale is a “done deal,” according to intelligence officials and experts familiar with the negotiations.
Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made a rare joint visit to Saudi Arabia to meet with members of the monarchy, as well as representatives of other Gulf States including the United Arab Emirates, to discuss a $20 billion dollar arms deal to deliver weapons, training, and weapons systems upgrades to Saudi Arabia over the next ten years. Although officially the meeting is to negotiate an agreement, sources have confirmed to RAW STORY that the deal has already been approved.
“It is a done deal. Everyone who needed to has already signed off,” said a former National Security Council official, who wished to remain anonymous given the security aspects of the topic. The deal also includes massive aid packages to Egypt and Israel, which have not yet been formally announced.
Full story: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_has_been_covertly_arming_Gulf_0801.html
***
Posted by cord on August 2, 2007 04:49 PMnice spin cord,but just like every un-informed liberal you are wrong.The Saudi's support the sunni's because of the threat of Iran.And now the Sunni's have turn on Al Qaeda because.Sort of like the democrap party turning on the Amercan people in support of Al Qaeda.
Posted by bart on August 4, 2007 10:29 AMBush & al Qaeda work hand in glove. There's a damn good reason why Bush won't capture Osama. They're both oil men.
As for Iran, it's the only democracy in the region, not counting Israel. That explains why the US elite has a problem with them. Bush prefers his client Sunni dictatorships & Osama is one of the biggest Sunnis.
Check out this item:
Israel's Jewish Problem in Tehran
////////////////////////
by Jonathan Cook
Anti-War.com
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=11394
August 4, 2007
Iran is the new Nazi Germany and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new Hitler. Or so Israeli officials have been declaring for months as they and their American allies try to persuade the doubters in Washington that an attack on Tehran is essential. And if the latest media reports are to be trusted, it looks like they may again be winning the battle for hearts and minds: Vice President Dick Cheney is said to be diverting the White House back on track to launch a military strike.
Earlier this year Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's opposition leader and the man who appears to be styling himself scaremonger-in-chief, told us: "It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs." Of Ahmadinejad, he said: "He is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state."
A few weeks ago, as Israel's military intelligence claimed – as it has been doing regularly since the early 1990s – that Iran is only a year or so away from the "point of no return" on developing a nuclear warhead, Netanyahu was at it again. "Iran could be the first undeterrable nuclear power," he warned, adding: "This is a Jewish problem like Hitler was a Jewish problem … The future of the Jewish people depends on the future of Israel."
But Netanyahu has been far from alone in making extravagant claims about a looming genocide from Iran. Israel's new president, Shimon Peres, has compared an Iranian nuclear bomb to a "flying concentration camp." And the prime minister, Ehud Olmert, told a German newspaper last year: "[Ahmadinejad] speaks as Hitler did in his time of the extermination of the entire Jewish nation."
There is an interesting problem with selling the "Iran as Nazi Germany" line. If Ahmadinejad really is Hitler, ready to commit genocide against Israel's Jews as soon as he can get his hands on a nuclear weapon, why are some 25,000 Jews living peacefully in Iran and more than reluctant to leave despite repeated enticements from Israel and American Jews?
Full story: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=11394
***
hey mahmoud ,I mean cord.We know who you support.Stay out of the airports.
Posted by bart on August 4, 2007 08:29 PMYou don't read much, do you, Bart.
Wonky Nonsense
/////////////
by Charley Reese
Anti-War.com
http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=11396
August 5, 2007
A couple of policy wonks, Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack, spent a week in Iraq and came back. One said he thought it was less violent. They both said in an op-ed piece that the war was winnable.
It's characters like these who make a man like Juan Cole so valuable. Cole is a scholar who, unlike the policy wonks, spent years in the Middle East and is fluent in Arabic. You can benefit from his experience and knowledge by visiting his blog, Informed Comment.
Cole, for example, points out that July was, in fact, the deadliest month for Americans since the war began. Seventy-four Americans were killed during July, and Iraqi deaths rose 23 percent over June, to 2,024. So if the American death rate is up and the Iraqi death rate is up, on what basis did the wonks see less violence during their July excursion to the land of Babylon?
As for the war being winnable, every one of our military big shots has said it can't be won militarily. They all say it has to be a political solution. Well, the Iraqi government has failed to meet every one of the political benchmarks set by President Bush. No reconciliation, no oil law, no law on distributing oil revenues, no reversal of the anti-Ba'ath policies. In fact, the largest Sunni bloc in the prime minister's Cabinet just walked out, which makes reconciliation even more remote.
Add to that the following: Reconstruction is obscenely behind schedule, corruption is nearly universal, and 4 million Iraqis have been displaced from their homes. Two million of those are refugees. I would like to know what evidence there is that the war has suddenly become winnable.
I'm sure Secretary of State Condi Rice and Defense Secretary Bob Gates got an earful at their recent meeting with Arab leaders. What they didn't get, despite offering a bribe of billions of dollars in weapons, was any pledge to do anything in Iraq. The Saudis said they might consider opening an embassy. What Gates and Rice probably heard was: We told you not to invade Iraq, you disregarded our advice and made a mess, so it's yours to clean up. Don't try to drag us into it.
Iraq is no longer a nation-state. We have shown the world that we know how to destroy a state, but when it comes to establishing one, we are incompetent dunces. It is to our everlasting shame that despite billions of dollars spent, Iraqis must still walk in open sewage and swelter in heat because electricity is only available a few hours a day. It's a clear case of greed and corruption trumping – or, God forbid, replacing – American know-how. We should not forget that prior to our wars and sanctions, Iraq had one of the higher living standards in the Middle East.
I don't know what we can do in the face of morally corrupt and incompetent officials – both theirs and ours. I suppose we shall have to sit back and watch the destruction proceed from one blunder to the next. Be glad you're not an Iraqi. Be glad if you are not in the American military.
In the meantime, try to remember that it is August, and August is a lovely time in the United States. Cherish your children and your grandchildren, and when you hug them, thank God that they are not suffering like Iraqi and Palestinian children, not to mention millions of others.
I've always believed that the best incentive to re-energizing American political energy would be a true grasp of just how unbelievably fortunate we are. We need to appreciate that. We need also to understand that it is not permanent, that we could lose it all. We are not invincible.
Since, in our republican form of government, all official actions are done by elected officials, we have to be far more careful about the people we give our vote to. It really is true, as Forrest Gump's mama told him, that stupid is as stupid does. So let us – myself included – stop stupidly voting for stupid or irresponsible public officials.
***
Posted by cord on August 5, 2007 08:36 PM