Well, it begins to look like this may work out after all. Dubyah appears to be backpeddling:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...wh/us_iraq_551

WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid fresh calls for caution, President Bush ( news - web sites) said Friday that the United Nations ( news - web sites) should be given a chance to force Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) to give up his weapons before the United States and its allies act on their own to disarm him.

"I'm willing to give peace a chance to work," Bush said at a Republican campaign fund raiser in Denver while his administration continued to push for a congressional resolution of support for using military force against Saddam's Iraqi regime.

Key Democrat Sen. Ted Kennedy urged the administration to proceed cautiously on war. And trouble brewed for the administration at the United Nations, as well. There, a tough resolution prepared by the United States and Britain to threaten Iraq faces stiff opposition from France, Russia and China, who hold veto power in the U.N. Security Council. . . .

Kennedy, a senior Democrat, argued that the administration has failed to make a persuasive case for going to war against Iraq and that the top U.S. priority should be getting U.N. inspectors back in Iraq, not preparing for unilateral military action.

"War should be a last resort, not the first response," the Massachusetts senator said in a speech to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

Kennedy said the administration has not laid out to the American people the "cost in blood and treasure" of a war with Iraq and "it is inevitable that a war in Iraq without serious international support will weaken our effort to ensure that Al-Qaida terrorists can never, never, never threaten American lives again."

This is a significant retreat from Bush's earlier belligerent position. The nation has approached the brink of a radical departure from our political and military history, which would have seen us assume the mantle of imperial conquerer openly for the first time, but appears to be backing away from that brink.

If this continues, it will represent the first time that the opposition has successfully stood up to Bush on a matter of national security or foreign policy since the September 11 attack. And if it rouses the Democratic Party from its torpor and brings new progressive voices to the fore, it may cascade the events leading to this Crisis' regeneracy.

Of course, I'm getting ahead of things just a bit. But this is a hopeful development.

Charley Reese sends a hearty Sieg Heil out to our reigning Chickenhawks:


http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20020927/index.php

(For educ. and discussion)



Neoconservatives Are Crazy

by Charley Reese
Friday, September 27, 2002


The neoconservatives around George Bush are crazy. They actually believe the United States can run about the world, overthrowing governments by force and establishing democracies in their place.

This group of maniacs not only wants war with Iraq, but after that, war with Syria, Iran and North Korea. Any government that doesn't meet their standards of a modern, Western-style democracy is a target for America's military might in their warped minds.

This is a prescription for the decline and fall of the American Empire. Overextension ? urged on by a bunch of rabid intellectuals who wouldn't know one end of a gun from another ? has doomed many an empire. Just let the United States try to occupy the Middle East, which will be the practical result of a war against Iraq, and Americans will be bled dry by the costs both in blood and treasure.

This crowd has the gall to sneer at people trying to keep the United States out of war as being "appeasers," if not traitors. They act as if it were brave for a fat, pale-skinned journalist or commentator to advocate war that will be fought by other people's sons and daughters. It is the worst kind of moral cowardice to be for war if you yourself are not going to participate in the fighting.

There is one, and only one, justification for war, and that is self-defense when the country is actually attacked. For some two-bit politician with a third-rate mind to tell the American people that a Third World country is an imminent threat to the survival of the United States is ludicrous. The only threat to the United States that I can see on the present horizon is the folly of the Bush administration.

I was really wrong about that guy. I thought he was smart. He's not. Look at how he latches onto the bromides provided by his speechwriters and then repeats them over and over. Look at how totally unaware he is of the reality of the rest of the world, including the United States.

It's hard to see how the "world's worst leaders" can actually blackmail the United States with the "world's worst weapons," since the United States itself has more of these world's worst weapons than any country on the face of the earth except Russia. As a matter of fact, we might even have one of the world's worst leaders, at least as measured by competence.

As president, Bush ought to be paying close attention to countries that have the capability of destroying the United States, and at the moment, China and Russia are those countries. A lot is going on in Russia that does not bode well for the democratic people in that country. And maybe in the long run it does not bode well for us. If Saddam Hussein could get an atomic bomb, it would be in a crate in a warehouse. Every month, the Russians roll off the production line more of their mobile ICBMs. Not only can these missiles strike the United States, we can't even target them because we don't know where they are. Mr. Bush is like a hunter looking at an ant and not seeing the lion.

Bush showed us what a naive, out-of-touch-with- reality guy he is when, after meeting the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, he pronounced him a trustworthy friend "because I have looked into his eyes and seen his soul." I think you could look at a career KGB officer's eyes for a long time and not see anything he didn't want you to see. Bush even proposed a nuclear disarmament treaty based on a handshake, with not a word in writing. Fortunately, better heads led him away from that foolish idea.

It's unfortunate that he has surrounded himself with neoconservatives full of hubris. At their urging, he's acting like a little boy who suddenly fancies himself a soldier and emperor of the world.

Brian might enjoy this one:


Not again

Tomorrow thousands of people will take to the streets of London to protest against an attack on Iraq. Here, the distinguished Indian writer Arundhati Roy argues that it is the demands of global capitalism that are driving us to war

Friday September 27, 2002

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...800015,00.html

Here is an interesting investigation of Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, the guy who claimed to tip off the authorities about 911 a month before it happened:


http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...eland_gnn.html

Hi!

Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as human garbage, and it has no moral qualms whatsoever about killing people for poll numbers or personal gain. It is in the White House as we speak:


http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...356034,00.html

(For educ. and discussion)



General Karl Rove, Reporting for Duty

BY JAMES CARNEY

Sunday, Sep. 29, 2002


Karl Rove spent last week where he usually does, out of the limelight. But that
didn't stop Democrats from seeing Rove everywhere, his invisible hand guiding all that the White House has done to prepare the country for war. For months Democrats have suspected that Rove, President Bush's chief strategist, was manipulating the war on terror to Republicans' political advantage. In August, when Democratic operative Jim Jordan was asked how war might affect the November elections, he replied caustically, "You mean when General Rove calls in the air strikes in October?" And when majority leader Tom Daschle erupted on the Senate floor last week, accusing the Bush White House of politicizing the national-security debate, he fingered Rove as a principal culprit.

Over dinner in a Washington steak house, Rove laughed off suggestions that he had manufactured the Iraq debate to divert attention from the sagging economy. "It's ridiculous!" he told TIME. "That's not me, and you know it." But that's the thing about Rove; few people know exactly where or whether the perception of his clout diverges from reality.

There is no doubt that Rove ranks among the most influential staff members ever to advise a President. He is so peripatetic, his political and policy interests so catholic, that it's tempting for Democrats and Republicans alike to assume there are no limits to Rove's power?even if there are.

It doesn't help that Rove has the habit of fueling speculation that the White House is wagging the dog. In January he suggested that the war on terror created a political advantage because Americans "trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America." In June a misplaced diskette containing one of Rove's private PowerPoint presentations included advice to candidates to "focus on the war" in their fall campaigns. When friends ask whether Bush really plans to invade Iraq, Rove has been known to reply, "Let me put it this way: If you want to see Baghdad, you'd better visit soon."

But the image of General Rove drawing up war plans exists mostly in the imagination of Democrats who fear and loathe the man. Insiders swear that Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell wouldn't stand for interference from a political operative. Superhawks Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't need Rove to tell them to target Saddam, and Powell has warned the White House that he doesn't expect to receive, and won't accept, phone calls from Rove.

Then there's the President, who likes to keep his exuberant aide in check by tartly reminding him who's boss. Says Ed Gillespie, a G.O.P. strategist who worked with Rove on the Bush campaign: "If Karl said we should invade Iraq to help us in the November elections, he would have found himself sitting on his ass on Pennsylvania Avenue because the President would have thrown him out of the Oval Office."

Still, Rove knows an opportunity when he sees one. In private, Republicans concede that Bush's focus on Iraq has vastly improved their chances in November and bless Rove for his efforts. More than a few G.O.P. candidates, taking their cue from Bush's political guru, are beating the war drums in their speeches and insinuating that their Democratic opponents are soft on defense. But others fear this kind of talk has gone too far and could backfire. "There are some high-level people in the White House, Karl Rove being the main driver, who are using this for politics," says a G.O.P. Senator, whose message to his colleagues is: "Don't be baited. Don't let Rove hook you."

Though Rove insists he doesn't play a foreign policy role, he fought an internal battle last spring with Bush's economic and foreign policy advisers over steel tariffs. Rove was for imposing the duties?favored by steel companies and unions in Mid-western swing states?and he won. It was Rove who in July warned Republican lawmakers who wanted to lift the trade embargo on Cuba that the White House would never go along.

Bush's position was based on policy, not politics, Rove promised, but the Congressmen didn't buy it. The Cuban-American lobby is key to Bush's hope of winning Florida in 2004, not to mention his brother's tough re-election bid in November to be the state's Governor. Says anti-embargo Republican Jeff Flake of Arizona: "Everyone recognizes there is a political element to this."

And to almost everything else Rove is involved in. Rove has already drawn up plans for the 2004 re-election campaign, White House sources tell TIME. Ken Mehlman, his deputy, will leave the White House to be the official campaign manager. But Rove will run things from inside, following the example of James Baker, who managed Ronald Reagan's 1984 re-election effort as White House chief of staff. Like Baker, says a senior White House official, Rove wants to be "as much about policy as politics."

Wow, Stonewall. It seems that I've found someone who hates Bush more than my mom hated Clinton!

Seriously, if you repealed the laws and commandments, Stonewall would probably shoot the guy; he hates him so much.

And some people think that Anarchism could work...

If we had that, people would be shooting each other all the time.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Wow, Stonewall. It seems that I've found someone who hates Bush more than my mom hated Clinton!

There is no hate present. That is an objective statement of fact. It goes without saying that His Satanic Majesty Karl Rove and the rest of the human garbage in the White House would not like to be killed for the sake of someone's poll numbers or pocketbook. Yet Herr Rove and the rest of the human garbage in the White House do not hesitate in the slightest to kill others for the sake of their own poll numbers and pocketbook. And at what point does this killing become murder? This grossest hypocrisy is human garbage's most blatant marker. It serves no purpose to hate human garbage. But it is in the best interests of all our lives and liberties to draw attention to it so as to disempower it.

And although I do not "hate" anyone, I do not approve of Herr Klinton any more than your mother does. The difference is that I am consistent and your mother is a Republican. We have had the same human garbage in power for the eight years preceding Junior and the four years preceding that. It is as if the same element has been in power non-stop since Reagan's second term, irrespective of party label. We have an election coming up in 2004. Let's finally take the trash out. It stinks to high heaven.

Seriously, if you repealed the laws and commandments, Stonewall would probably shoot the guy; he hates him so much.

You do not understand much. Those laws and commandments to which you refer mean nothing in and of themselves and only carry weight insofar as they reflect the dictates of conscience. I adhere to the dictates of conscience irrespective of any manmade law. It is human garbage which consciously and willfully ignores the dictates of conscience and invariably seeks a way around the law in order to so hypocritically use his fellow man to his end. This is what we see every day from His Satanic Majesty Karl Rove and the rest of the Machiavellian human garbage in the White House. It is human garbage such as Herr Rove which would gleefully seek repeal of laws and commandments in order to shoot people at will, per your example. Not I. Does one obey the dictates of conscience or does one ignore them? THAT is the determinant. Laws and commandments are secondary.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

We have an election coming up in 2004. Let's finally take the trash out. It stinks to high heaven.

Yeah, and you'll be complaining non-stop about whoever is elected then, too!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Morally, the proposed attack on Iraq differs from the Pearl Harbor attack in only two respects: it is well-telegraphed rather than a sneak attack, and its target is less admirable than Franklin Roosevelt. Which means it differs, morally, from Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in only one respect. And from Hitler's invasion of Poland in none.

I am sick to death of Bush's actions being compaired to Hitler, Bush's decision to go aganist Iraq is well meaning and intented. His plan for USA Empire is wrongheaded and will lead to problems, however Nazi it is not.

I would compare Saddam Hussein or other deposts and diactors of the Middle East to Hitler, since Hitler had a lot of popular support from the German people, however more like Stalin and the other Communist dictators. Essentially they are bullies ruling through brute terror over populations which despise them.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Morally, the proposed attack on Iraq differs from the Pearl Harbor attack in only two respects: it is well-telegraphed rather than a sneak attack, and its target is less admirable than Franklin Roosevelt. Which means it differs, morally, from Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in only one respect. And from Hitler's invasion of Poland in none.

I am sick to death of Bush's actions being compaired to Hitler, Bush's decision to go aganist Iraq is well meaning and intented. His plan for USA Empire is wrongheaded and will lead to problems, however Nazi it is not.

I would compare Saddam Hussein or other deposts and diactors of the Middle East to Hitler, since Hitler had a lot of popular support from the German people, however more like Stalin and the other Communist dictators. Essentially they are bullies ruling through brute terror over populations which despise them.

The High Command has now targeted Antarctica as part of the Axle of Elvis. On to McMurdo!

www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2002/09/28/

Sure looks like the remarks of Democratic congressmen McDermott and Bonier in Baghdad put the lie to the remarks of Senator Daschle last week.

Tristan, as I said earlier, take away from Hitler the racism, the anti-semitism, and the oratorical ability, and he becomes Bush; the comparison is made only with Hitler's foreign policy which, like Bush's, was that of a ruthless conquerer and unabashed militarist.

But as I also said earlier, a better comparison is with Napoleon.

Monoghan: I see what you mean. But Daschle was raising the wrong point all along. That Bush is using his proposed war for political purposes, and wrongly accusing Democrats of not caring about national security, is secondary to the fact that he is calling for the war in the first place.

This is a pattern the Democrats have followed under Silent leadership. They don't argue with Republican principles at all, just whine when they aren't nice and "bipartisan" about it. To my way of thinking, it's about time the Democrats remembered that they are supposed to have principles of their own. In that respect, McDermott and Bonier were more on target than Daschle.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Brian might enjoy this one:


Not again

Tomorrow thousands of people will take to the streets of London to protest against an attack on Iraq. Here, the distinguished Indian writer Arundhati Roy argues that it is the demands of global capitalism that are driving us to war

Friday September 27, 2002

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...800015,00.html

Arundhati is far to young to be Gray Champion, but her message feels right. I have believed that the progressives triumph in any given crisis. The crisis is driven by technological change. Cultures cannot stay stagnant indefinitely in the face of shifts in the technology that drives them. However, in any given crisis, the establishment will attempt to maintain the power structure which gives them their wealth and power. This time around, US corporate culture best personifies the status quo.

I have only begun to encounter Arundhati's perspectives. She is a writer interested in politics, not a politician. She is also at least as critical of her native India's government as the United States'. Her message includes a rejection of racist hatred. She might play the role of a Frederick Douglas, Thomas Paine or William Garrison.[/img]

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Brian might enjoy this one:


Not again

Tomorrow thousands of people will take to the streets of London to protest against an attack on Iraq. Here, the distinguished Indian writer Arundhati Roy argues that it is the demands of global capitalism that are driving us to war

Friday September 27, 2002

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...800015,00.html

Arundhati is far to young to be Gray Champion, but her message feels right. I have believed that the progressives triumph in any given crisis. The crisis is driven by technological change. Cultures cannot stay stagnant indefinitely in the face of shifts in the technology that drives them. However, in any given crisis, the establishment will attempt to maintain the power structure which gives them their wealth and power. This time around, US corporate culture best personifies the status quo.

I have only begun to encounter Arundhati's perspectives. She is a writer interested in politics, not a politician. She is also at least as critical of her native India's government as the United States'. Her message includes a rejection of racist hatred. She might play the role of a Frederick Douglas, Thomas Paine or William Garrison.[/img]

born in 1961? that places her in her 40s... possibly 45 when the crisis starts and in her 60s when it ends - that could very easily be GC age PLUS the fact that she's pretty damn hot might also help...

The column below discusses some interesting aspects of the Bush administration's maneuvering for war in Iraq and I will post some snippets:


http://www.centrexnews.com/columnist...2002/0927.html

(Excerpted)


BRIBING THE WORLD INTO WAR

by Joel Skousen
www.joelskousen.com



WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF
September 27, 2002
Copyright Joel M. Skousen

Partial Quotations with attribution permitted.

Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief
(http://www.joelskousen.com).


This administration knows no shame when it comes to getting its way. Neither did Clinton?s, but we expect a higher standard of principle from those claiming to be conservative. The Bush team is pulling out all the stops in an effort to get Congress to pass a carte blanche resolution for war against Iraq. It is promising money it does not have to both lukewarm allies and future enemies in order to ensure the UN Security Council allows this Iraqi invasion to go forth ? even if by default. It is promising insider participation for nations as well as multinational corporations in divvying up the spoils of Iraqi oil interests. Not surprisingly, the US and Britain are stretching and falsifying intelligence data in order to convince an unenthusiastic public, tired of being hyped about the threat of terrorism, to support an engagement in more foreign wars. Here are the details. ...

Distorting and Stretching the Evidence

There is a significant body of evidence demonstrating that governments have always had a propensity to lie about preparations of an enemy for war, in wars the government was anxious to engage in. For example, when George Bush Sr. ordered American forces to the Persian Gulf to prior to the first war with Iraq, he tried to justify his case by claiming that Saddam was poised to invade Saudi Arabia, threatening the oil fields there. The President cited secret satellite photos claiming that a quarter million troops and over a thousand tanks were massed on Saudi Arabia?s borders. However, the St. Petersburg Times of Florida purchased commercial satellite images of the same area, taken at the same time, and they showed no troops, and no tanks.

Almost every administration spokesman, including President Bush, keeps hammering away at Congress to act now, not later, conjuring up more dire scenarios: for instance, asserting that Saddam might give chemical or biological warfare agents to terrorists who might attack America. This particular scenario is offered up to fortify the case that somehow Saddam?s weapons might be a direct threat to the US, a case wholly lacking in evidence even a year after 9/11. What have the terrorists been waiting for? The administration continues to offer up tenuous links between Iraq and Al Qaeda ? another area in which critics have noted a weakness in the US case. Whereas, two weeks ago, the US was admitting there was no evidence of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda linkage, the administration is now developing evidence seemingly out of thin air. What is always strange is that the government claims to know very little when accused of malfeasance in the wake of 9/11, and yet whenever they want to point the finger of guilt at someone recently arrested, they always seem to have a pile of evidence surfacing from their computers--that goes back well before 9/11. Somebody is lying.

Truth is, the Kurdish resistance has already captured Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq and offered them up to the CIA for interrogation ? and the CIA has declined. As the Washington Post reported, "The Kurdish Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, an anti-Hussein group in northern Iraq, says it has jailed 15 to 20 al Qaeda members and was surprised that no one from the US government has come to interrogate them. One senior counterterrorism official confirmed that the CIA knew of the detentions and that US officials have not interrogated the prisoners." Clearly the CIA isn?t interested in ending this war on terrorism, only in documenting the flow of Al Qaeda agents so as to justify further war with Iraq.

Even though I am convinced Iraq does have biological and chemical weapons, the US must bear a good deal of the responsibility for their acquisition by Iraq. Documentation of US deliveries of biological agents to Iraq has now surfaced in Congress through a letter addressed to Sen. Don Riegle. Dated 1995, the letter is a communication by the Center for Disease Control, apologizing to Senator Riegle for not having given him a complete list of biological agents delivered to Iraq in prior correspondence. The full list is then included. The letter, with its corresponding list of agents, can be viewed at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/ 9/23/210336.shtml.

In this week?s testimony before the Congress, Sec of Defense Rumsfeld was asked point blank about US assistance in providing Iraq with biological agents. Rumsfeld ducked the question and moved on to other issues. Predictably, Rumsfeld was allowed to get away with this evasion.

The British dossier on Saddam?s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was a particularly deceptive and sloppy piece of work. The evidence PM Tony Blair waved in front of the press lists several chemical and pharmaceutical companies in Iraq as biological and chemical weapon factories. Iraq was so confident of the evidence?s falseness that it immediately invited members of the international press to inspect any of these facilities to see for themselves. As it turned out, much of the British evidence had been careful prefaced with assumptions and "if-then" hypotheses. Why neither Bush nor Blair can be satisfied with the credible evidence that already exists is beyond me. By stretching and falsifying "new" evidence, they do nothing to enhance their credibility. Of course, since the establishment press does not take issue with the lack of credibility, the purported evidence has its desired effect upon the public anyway.

Bribing Our "Allies" With Direct Aid

The French have leaked the story that the US has offered to compensate both France and Russia for any outstanding Iraqi debts owed these to countries (in excess of US$10 billion), in exchange for an "abstention" in the Security Council vote on the proposed US/ British resolution to authorize the use force in Iraq. In other words, the US understands that Russia nor France want to be caught voting for the resolution. Their "yes" vote isn?t needed as the US already has a majority lined up ? all bought and paid for with bribes of aid and trade or promises of support for pet causes in these small nations who are temporary members of the Security Council. What the US fears is a veto--that must be avoided at all costs. Even with the US economy in recession and with budget shortfalls, this administration continues to act with fiscal abandon in promising billions to all comers in this global buyout for war. China has already been bought off with promises that the US will look the other way at its human rights violations against Chinese Muslims (nothing new), plus promises of increased technology transfers.

Bribing With Oil Rights

According to London?s The Telegraph [my comments in brackets], "Oil companies from around the world are maneuvering for the multibillion-dollar bonanza that would follow the ousting of Saddam Hussein. Russia is so concerned that it has been holding secretive talks with the Iraqi opposition to shore up its economic interests in the country which still owes Moscow $7bn dollars from Soviet times.

"With the second-biggest reserves in the world, Iraq's underdeveloped oil fields have become a key negotiating chip and a backdrop to talks between the US and the other permanent members of the UN Security Council - all of which have major economic stakes in a regime change in Iraq.

"Oil industry experts say there is growing concern that America would dominate the Iraqi oil industry after Saddam. As a result, a number of oil companies have reportedly held talks with the Iraqi opposition to ensure they are involved in any future deals. The Independent has learned that the Russian government - which is friendly towards Iraq - recently dispatched a diplomat to hold talks with a senior official from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the US- backed opposition umbrella group. At that meeting in Washington on 29 August - the first for seven years - the diplomat expressed worries that Russia would be kept out of the oil markets by the US.

"James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA and a commentator on the relationship between oil and global security, told The Washington Post: ?It's pretty straightforward. France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government [subtle threat to ?get on board? the war wagon] we'll do the best we can to ensure the new government and American companies work closely with them...If they throw in their lot with Saddam it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them.? [--a NOT so subtle threat]

"Iraq has confirmed oil reserves of 112 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia, with perhaps double that in undiscovered reserves. With sanctions in place, the current production is just 2.8 million barrels a day - a capacity it struggles to reach because of deteriorating equipment. Under the United Nations' oil-for-food program, it exports about one million barrels a day.

"Since 1998, two subsidiaries of Houston-based Halliburton, the company previously headed by the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, have done $24m of business to repair Iraqi oil pipelines under the UN program. [very telling]

"But which companies will benefit from these rich pickings? Since the end of the Gulf War, companies from more than a dozen nations - including Britain -have had discussions with Iraq about developing oil fields. In 1997, Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4bn deal to develop the West Qurna oil field while last year another Russian company, Slavneft, signed a $42m deal to drill in Tuba. The French Total/Fina/ Elf company has negotiated the rights for the vast Majnoon oilfield, which is near the Iranian border.

[It is very obvious that the US is holding out the prospect of future oil deals only to those who join in the coalition against Iraq ? or at least who don?t get in the way. Another hint to this effect was dropped in the Telegraph article at the end:] "It is unclear whether such deals would be honored by a post-Saddam Iraqi government. Faisal Qaragholi, an official with the INC [which are playing ?hard to get?], said that all such deals would be reviewed. ?If the deal helps the Iraqi people then it will be carried on, if it does not, it will be renegotiated,? he said." [End of Telegraph quote.]

However, I think the INC is getting too cocky about moving back into power. Presently, the US attempts to install and control a new government in Afghanistan are not working. President-elect Hamid Karzai (US lackey and former Unical oil consultant) is only able to hold power in the capital city with direct protection of foreign troops. Iraq is way too big and unstable to even accomplish that much. There appears to be another deal being worked out under the table which will give the INC only a small piece of the pie.

Stratfor.com (a CIA mouthpiece) recently leaked the story that the US may be planning to break up Iraq into tribal/ethnic areas ? one for the Sunnis (to be controlled by Jordan, as some presumed payoff for helping in the war effort), another for Shiites, and one for the Kurds in northern Iraq. According to Stratfor, "The administration may be looking into the proposal because the current goal of replacing Saddam Hussein with a pro-US Iraqi government still would not guarantee long-term US control over the territory and its oil. First, it may become too hard for a new government in Baghdad to effectively control the whole country, even with US troop support [very true, especially if the INC is perceived as a US puppet as Karzai is in Afghanistan]. Second, the new government's attempts to establish control over all of Iraq may well lead to a civil war between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish ethnic groups, with US troops caught in the mi ddle. The fiercest fighting could be expected for control over the oil facilities." [End of Stratfor quote].

Encouraging a Military Coup?

Stratfor.com is also claiming that the US is sending out hints that it would prefer that the Iraqi military overthrow Hussein at some point in the war. The US military is very wary of getting into an urban ground war inside the major cities of Iraq. US planners also know that that phase of the war would be very bloody and unpopular with the American people. So, they are hoping that a massive US bombing campaign will pare down Saddam?s military strength and produce sufficient discouragement among the Iraqi public to motivate a coup d?etat, which will bring the war to a quick conclusion.

However, if the military does take over, it is doubtful they will want to step down in favor of some ad-hoc, US imposed coalition government. The military doesn?t like the prospect of handing over power to the INC, which has its own scores to settle with the current military leaders as well as with the dozens of other factions within Iraq. So, if there is a military coup, the US may not be able to take control over Iraqi oil. Thus, I don?t think Stratfor has thought this one out very well. They also claim that, "Without the need for extensive US air power or major deployments of US forces, the backlash against Washington in the Muslim world would be avoided, and the US relationship with its Arab allies would be preserved." Obviously, Stratfor doesn?t have a clue that globalist leaders in the US may, in fact, want to antagonize the Arab world for purposes of fomenting future war. I?ll bet that the US won?t allow any military attempts to negotiate a truce ? they will push for a complete destruction of the Iraq military and install their own puppet government(s). I think it is likely that Iraq may be divided up in the end run for easier NWO control and less ethnic divisiveness. ...

Discussion of alleged US plan to unite Iraq and Jordan as one Hashemite kingdom under King Abdullah in Amman:


http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/sep20...main/main3.htm

(For educ. and discussion)


'US plans to merge Iraq, Jordan after war'

By Aslam Khan

ISLAMABAD: The United States is working on a plan to merge Iraq and Jordan into a unitary kingdom to be ruled by the Hashemite dynasty headed by King Abdullah of Jordan with Amman as the capital of the proposed new country, reveals a startling report made available here on Friday.

The idea to unite Jordan and Iraq in a pro-US Hashemite kingdom after an American war is aimed at "ensuring a stable post-war Iraq", according to Stratfor, a strategic forecasting think tank based in the US.

It says that as a US war against Iraq nears both Washington and Middle Eastern players are working to make sure the expected American victory will result in strategic long-term gains. "The idea of a central Iraq populated by Sunni Arabs joining with Jordan to form one Hashemite kingdom is being considered as one way to secure such gains," Stratfor says.

The plan, authored by US Vice President Dick Cheney, was first discussed at an unusual meeting between Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan and pro-US Iraqi Sunni opposition members in London in July.

The plan's goal in Iraq is to create a united Hashemite kingdom embracing Jordan and Iraq's Sunni areas. In a nutshell, the plan involves uniting Jordan and Sunni-populated areas of Iraq under the rule of the current Jordanian regime.

The report says this will be done if Iraqi Sunni leaders "appeal to King Abdullah with such a request, which has a weak but still legally valid justification, as Abdullah is the second cousin of the last Iraqi king, Faisal II, who was overthrown in 1958". The report says the plan will bring strategic benefits to the US, Israel and Jordan.

Benefits for US: The fact that the Western-based Iraqi opposition completely depends on Washington will help the "Hashemite Plan". The US favours the plan because the current goal of replacing Saddam Hussein with a pro-US Iraqi government still would not guarantee long- term US control over the territory and its oil.

"First, it may become too hard for a new government in Baghdad to effectively control the whole country, even with US troop support. An example is Afghanistan, in which the government of President Hamid Karzai still controls only the capital," the report says.

"Second, the new government's attempts to establish control over all of Iraq may well lead to a civil war between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish ethnic groups, with US troops caught in the middle. The fiercest fighting could be expected for control over the oil facilities," it adds. Uniting Jordan and Iraq under a Hashemite government will give US several strategic advantages.

"First, the creation of a new pro-US kingdom under the half-American Abdullah will shift the balance of forces in the region heavily in the US favour," the report says. After eliminating Iraq as a sovereign state, there would be no fear that one day an anti-American government would come to power in Baghdad, as the capital would be in Amman.

"Current and potential US geopolitical foes Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria would be left isolated from each other, with big chunks of land between them under control of the pro-US forces," according to Stratfor.

"Equally important, Washington would be able to justify its long-term and heavy military presence in the region as necessary for the defence of a young new state asking for US protection and to secure the stability of oil markets and supplies. That in turn would help the US gain direct control of Iraqi oil and replace Saudi oil in case of conflict with Riyadh," it adds.

The richest oil areas would not go to the Hashemite kingdom but to a widely autonomous Kurdish region that still will be formally a part of the Hashemite state. To make sure the Kurds don't upset US ally Turkey by declaring an independent state, US will have the excuse of deploying its forces in the Kurdish region, with new bases located just next to oil fields in areas such as Kirkuk.

"Washington then will be able to offer the new Hashemite kingdom as a model for other Arab states, combining what the Arab masses see as the advantages of a traditional monarchy with the benefits of a US alliance," the report says.

"The potential combination of educated Iraqis, US aid and military assistance, and oil revenues might help the new state become a beacon for the Arab world to follow," it adds. Were more states to adopt this example, the geopolitical influence of both Saudi Arabia and Egypt would decline, making it easier for Washington to deal with them.

"In case of a future conflict with Saudi Arabia or Iran, US forces would be in the ideal position to strike not only from sea but also from land by using new bases in the Hashemite kingdom and the Kurdish region," the report reveals.

Benefits for Israel: "Iraq, arguably Israel's most determined foe, will be eliminated and Baghdad's end will deprive the Palestinians of much financial and other assistance, which can reduce the effectiveness of attacks against the Jewish state."

Benefits for Jordan: "King Abdullah will vastly expand his role and prominence in the region with a joint Hashemite state, becoming the second-most important US ally after Israel. In addition to his huge territorial gains, he also will get a chunk of Iraqi oil.

"And Palestinians, who currently make up half of Jordan's population, will become a minority in the new state, with much less potential to stir up trouble," the report adds.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Arundhati is far to young to be Gray Champion, but her message feels right. I have believed that the progressives triumph in any given crisis. The crisis is driven by technological change. Cultures cannot stay stagnant indefinitely in the face of shifts in the technology that drives them. However, in any given crisis, the establishment will attempt to maintain the power structure which gives them their wealth and power. This time around, US corporate culture best personifies the status quo.

I don't know how well India's turnings and generations match with the U.S.'s, but if their cycle is a few years behind ours, Ms. Arundhati could be a Prophet.

Dug out an article by Samuel Huntington, "The Lonely Superpower," Foreign Affairs March/April '99. Quoting: "The American public clearly sees no need to expend effort and resources to achieve American hegemony. In one 1997 poll, only 13 percent said they preferred a preeminent role for the United States in world affairs, while 74 percent said they wanted the United States to share power with other countries...Other polls have produced similar results...Majorities of 55 to 66 percent of the public say that what happens in western Europe, Asia, Mexico, and Canada has little or no impact on their lives. However much foreign policy elites may ignore or deplore it, the United States lacks the domestic political base to create a unipolar world." Admittedly the USA was still deep in an Unraveling mood in 1997. But that was only five years ago, and a defensive reaction against the September 11th terrorist attacks does not mean the majority has a sudden desire to play hegemon.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

I don't know how well India's turnings and generations match with the U.S.'s, but if their cycle is a few years behind ours, Ms. Arundhati could be a Prophet.

Hmmm... I hadn't actually researched her birth date. Let's just say that she doesn't look old enough to be a gray champion.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

We have an election coming up in 2004. Let's finally take the trash out. It stinks to high heaven.

Yeah, and you'll be complaining non-stop about whoever is elected then, too!

Alex, I have a few questions for you.

1) Do you support the War on Terrorism?

2) If so, how ready are you, personally, to join this effort? Are you willing to walk into your local military recruiting office as soon as you're old enough to enlist? Why or why not?

You see, to many of us older folks here, it's going to be your "Gen Y"/Millie necks on the line over the next couple of decades. Is this war worth it, as far as you're concerned?

FOUL, Kiff. Alex does not lose his speech rights even if he does not personally chose to enlist. (I think that articulate proponents of any war effort do more good by confronting the pacifist opposition here at home than by serving in uniform.) They also serve who stand and wait.

Follow your logic. I suppose that all the poor people should be disenfranchised from voting on tax levies because they can't pay taxes. Remember that a close relative of that argument was always for the little ladies to go back into the kitchen because war, and business, were "men's work".

Originally Posted by monoghan

I suppose that all the poor people should be disenfranchised from voting on tax levies because they can't pay taxes.

Yes. How is any other setup even remotely just?

Also, your patriotic quote about standing and waiting notwithstanding, I'd say Kiff is only being reasonable in requesting (forgive me, ma'am, if I assume too much) that one be willing to commit oneself to the same course of action one would impose on another, especially if imposed for ones own sake. Free speech rights never even enter into it (though hypocricy often does...)

Sheesh, monoghan, if we're talking about free speech here, I couldn't agree more.

I'm trying to get an idea of how a 15-year-old Millennial male, who is admittedly a conservative, would confront these kinds of questions. That's it.

I'd like to see his responses. And if he tells me to take a flying hike, so be it. :-)

Well, if the hypocrisy argument is not a bludgeon used to drive folks from the public square (even if not being wielded by the government) and thereby shut them up, then we're being a little disingenuous. So if you are not willing to sign up for the police academy, then the cops should be...disbanded?....not used?....not place themselves in harm's way because you wouldn't.?....


Just trying to protect the children.