If I want headline clippings I can watch Fox News scroll them for me. Do you have an opinion and if so what is it?

It's an interesting article. Do you have something to say about it - do you support it? Are you in disagreement with it? What?

This is a place for debate. You can't debate with the mute, and I'm damned if I'll do your work for you by making any kind of proposition about the linked article - other than that I found it an interesting read.

You should also be careful about copyright. If you're in the US you're probably okay, but the UK, Australia and many European countries have very clear limits on what you quote and how much of it. A chunk that big without comment breaches copyright.

If I want headline clippings I can watch Fox News scroll them for me. Do you have an opinion and if so what is it? It's an interesting article. Do you have something to say about it - do you support it? Are you in disagreement with it? What? This is a place for debate. You can't debate with the mute, and I'm damned if I'll do your work for you by making any kind of proposition about the linked article - other than that I found it an interesting read.

Maybe you didn't see the description of my blog:

Good Point's JoeUser.com Blog Sites: goodpoint.joeuser.com " Take a look around " I'm not a writer, so this is simply to redirect inquiring minds to people who can say what I want to say in a better way. Created: 11/2/2005 Last Post: 7/28/2006 Total Points: 7320 Points (Last 30): 3550

If it's an article I syndicate, it means I agree with it. If I don't agree with it, or don't agree totally, I add a few words after it. For instance, the last article I submitted: http://goodpoint.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=124808

Actually Emperor, no this isn't a place for debate. It's a blog and people can write about whatever they want.

MOST blog sites simply link to articles and things they find interesting. The world's most popular blog site is http://www.instapundit.com.

 

"I'm not a writer, so this is simply to redirect inquiring minds to people who can say what I want to say in a better way."

Fairy Nuff, then.

Fairy Nuff, then.

Cheers

Anyway, I do have an opinion. I was apprehensive but not morally opposed to war in Iraq. I was never for nation-building, and was very bothered by the administration's lack of intellectual curiosity when it came Middle Eastern affairs. The capture of Saddam should have been time to really consider packing up for friendlier ground.

Actually Emperor, no this isn't a place for debate. It's a blog and people can write about whatever they want.

I have no problem with debate whatsoever. I encourage it. Unfortunately, the last time it took place on my blog, a certain anonymous user caused it to degenerate into something less than raw sewage.

Our oldest is in Iraq too. I don't fully understand either. He's tried to explain - it has to do with the duty, honor, country code.
I haven't been in a situation like theirs where the stakes are so high. It's not the same as my employer counting on me - so much more than that. My family counts on me - but - at I don't feel like it's the same thing as what he's talking about.
Why are we still there? Hmm - I get my hackles up - I think because we haven't been forceful enough.

I'll pray for your husband, you, & your kids.

The reason their father, and all the other officers and men, are still in Iraq long after they should have come home, is that Bush had an idea, and now the idea has him.

I find that statement to be VERY insightful.

We're all tangled up in Iraq like a mass of knotted necklaces. There's no way in hell to pry them all apart with our stubby little fingers.

PRELUDE TO WAR--THE 1990s

The decade of the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf war set the stage for the war of 2003, but not for the reasons you\'ve been told.

The official narrative of both the Clinton and Bush administrations, which generally goes unquestioned in the media, is that Saddam repeatedly defied the UN, ignored UN resolutions, and flouted international law. This narrative pretty much turns reality on its head. It\'s not true, and it can\'t account for what has happened in Iraq.

In reality, the Hussein regime was desperate to have sanctions lifted, so it mostly complied with UN resolutions and disarmed--perhaps in the early 1990s, most likely by the mid-1990s. That is why virtually no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were found in Iraq after the U.S. invasion.

Yet the U.S. goal in Iraq during the 1990s was never merely disarmament or compliance with UN resolutions. It was regime change. This is why the U.S. illegally attempted to overthrow Hussein via coups, why it illegally turned UN weapons inspections into intelligence-gathering operations for assassination attempts, and why it maintained killer sanctions even after the Iraqi government was stripped of its weapons.

Let\'s be clear: the failure to find WMD in Iraq not only invalidates the prime justification for the 2003 war, it also invalidates the prime justification for years of sanctions which killed over 500,000 Iraqis, probably closer to 1.5 million. The victims were mainly children, as I saw on my 1991 trip there. Why aren\'t any of the officials and media- heads who claim to be \"oh, so concerned about the Iraqi people,\" screaming with outrage about this!

In 2001, U.S. policymakers did not fear Saddam was a \"grave and gathering\" threat, as Bush put it. Instead, a vastly weakened Iraq was viewed as a target of opportunity.

Nor was the war the result of an \"intelligence failure.\" In fact, intelligence concerning Iraq\'s weapons capabilities was overall quite good. In October 1998 the International Atomic Energy Commission certified that Iraq had disarmed on the nuclear front. The next year the UN Security Council\'s disarmament panel concluded that the \"bulk of Iraq\'s proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated.\" Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter wrote that by the mid-1990s, the UN had ascertained \"a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament.\" All this proved to be accurate intelligence.

In short, the WMD scare was a deliberate, conscious lie. No wonder the lapdog Congress hasn\'t \"investigated\" the WMD flim flam.

So the problem by the late 1990s was not that Saddam possessed WMD. Nor was \"tyranny\" the problem; that tyranny over the Iraqi people had been quite useful to the U.S., which is why they had supported Hussein in the past. No, the problem was that his continued survival was eroding the U.S. grip on the Persian Gulf and creating problems for the empire.

Hussein\'s survival, after a decade of tension with the U.S., was an affront to America\'s \"credibility\"-- i.e., image of unchallengeable power--in the region. The toll exacted by UN sanctions on Iraqi civilians, the near constant air attacks on Iraq, Israel\'s step-by-step ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and U.S. support for the region\'s brutal tyrants were creating a host of contradictions--including a quantum leap in anti-U.S. anger across the region. Sanctions against Iraq were unraveling, and their collapse would have been a serious political defeat for the U.S. This could have increased the influence of rivals France and Russia in Iraq, thanks to the massive oil contracts both countries had signed with the Hussein government.
THE GLOBAL DIMENSION: `RESHUFFLING THE WHOLE DECK\'

It is impossible to understand the 2003 Iraq war without understanding the U.S.\'s post-Sept. 11 global strategy.

The problems facing the U.S. in Iraq were occurring as ruling class strategists moved to consolidate a new global strategy. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 temporarily removed a nuclear-armed imperialist rival and major impediment to U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East from the world stage, and opened up new opportunities for Washington to assert its power more forcefully around the world.

The Soviet collapse also unfroze Cold-War relations, accelerated capitalist globalization, unleashed major global economic and political shifts, and had the potential to give rise to new centers of world power. So the U.S. rulers were confronted with new openings, and new problems; new opportunities, and new necessities.

After a decade of debate within the bourgeoisie, the Bush regime took power determined to take down Saddam Hussein and assert U.S. power more forcefully around the world. Sept. 11 gave them the opportunity to do both--and to enshrine their grand strategy, made official in September 2002 with the signing of a new U.S. National Security Strategy.

What is this new grand strategy? Most people, even those who opposed the 2003 war, still don\'t understand how vast, sweeping and brutal U.S. aims really are--or their connection to Iraq.

Bob Avakian\'s \"The New Situation and the Great Challenges,\" written shortly after Sept. 11, remains the most incisive and insightful summary of that agenda, and it\'s an analysis that greatly influenced my own understanding of the seriousness of U.S. plans for war on Iraq post-Sept. 11, the larger strategic canvas, and the urgency of the moment.

Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, put it like this: the U.S. rulers \"have ambitions of essentially reshuffling the whole deck, reordering the whole situation--beginning with the strategic areas of Central and South Asia and the Middle East that are more immediately involved now--but, even beyond that, on a world scale. They\'ve set themselves a very far-reaching agenda with gigantic implications.\"1

Think about it--\"reshuffling the whole deck, reordering the whole situation\" captures the enormity their goals: Iraq, after all, was only supposed to be phase two. Then--\"beginning with the strategic areas of Central and South Asia and the Middle East.\" Where were the first two wars of the so-called \"war on terror?\" Afghanistan in Central Asia, then Iraq in the Middle East. What\'s so important about these regions? They\'re home to 80 percent of the world\'s oil and natural gas, and they\'re a gateway to Eurasia, where 75 percent of the world\'s population lives and 60 percent of the world\'s GNP is produced. Imperialist strategists call Eurasia the world\'s greatest \"prize.\"

There are many dimensions to this global agenda, including:

preventing the rise of any rival which could challenge U.S. global or regional supremacy--which is what lies at the heart of today\'s tensions between France, Russia, and Germany on one side and the U.S. on the other.

the imperialists want to open up the oppressed countries, or Third World, to greater and more direct U.S. exploitation and control--in other words, globalization at gunpoint. Their first actions in occupied Iraq included privatizing Iraqi businesses, opening up the country to global commerce and investment, and pushing Iraq to join the World Trade Organization.

the U.S. seeks to assault and crush any resistance movement standing in its path. All--whether genuine revolutionaries like the Maoists of Nepal, nationalists waging just struggle against imperialism in Iraq and Palestine, or various Islamist trends with their own conflicts with the U.S.--are broad-brushed with the label \"terrorist.\" Today the U.S. has counterinsurgency operations underway in some 80 countries around the world.

In sum, the imperialists arrogantly dream of asserting U.S. power on a whole new level. Their vision, to paraphrase the title of a recent James Bond movie: \"Most of the world is not enough, we want the whole thing.\"
WHY IRAQ IN 2003?

Given this global agenda, why the focus on Iraq? In short, there was no one reason, but many reasons, both regional and global. Think of Iraq as a key piece on the global chessboard of empire: conquering Iraq removed a troublesome piece, seized strategic squares and opened up new lines of attack.

Saddam\'s overthrow was seen as a means of solidifying the U.S. hold on the Persian Gulf. It was intended to send a message of shock and awe around the world, and give further momentum to the \"war on terror.\"

The plan was to turn Iraq into a platform for broader, interconnected U.S. objectives. Establishing a lackey regime in Baghdad would give the U.S. favored access to the world\'s second largest oil reserves. It would put American armed forces in the center of the Persian Gulf/Central Asia region, another link in the chain of military bases surrounding Russia and China. Post-Saddam Iraq was envisioned as a launching pad for dealing with a host of contradictions confronting the U.S. in the Middle East and for opening the region up to capitalist globalization. All these measures together were intended to give the U.S. greater control of global energy supplies and greater leverage over Russia, China, and other potential competitors.

All this is predicated not on liberating the masses, but on attempting to drown their struggles in blood and terror. Massacres in Gaza and Iraq and tortures in Abu Ghraib--this is what the U.S. government\'s \"bringing democracy to the Middle East\" looks like.

The strategic centrality of conquering Iraq explains the flood of revelations from high-ranking officials and journalists--Richard Clarke, Paul O\'Neill, Bob Woodward and others--that the Bush government was focused on Iraq from day one, and that it immediately began planning for war after Sept. 11--knowing full well that Iraq had nothing to do with those attacks. And this is why, for the imperialists, the consequences of failure in Iraq are, as Bush himself put it, \"unthinkable.\"

In sum, the U.S. rulers seized on Sept. 11 to implement a global agenda and launch a war 10 years in the making. These are not \"diversions\" from the economy; they are how the imperialists intend to resolve their deep economic contradictions. They are not intended to help a few corporations, they\'re intended to help U.S. corporate capital as a whole. This isn\'t George Bush being a \"cowboy\"; this is U.S. imperialism being a \"cowboy\"--i.e., running amok, murderously scrambling to maintain and extend its grip on the planet.
UNJUST WAR, UNJUST OCCUPATION

If the war was fought for unjust, imperialist aims, how can the U.S. occupation be anything but unjust and imperialist, and how can anything good come of it?

If the U.S. rulers lied their way into war, why should anyone believe them now when they claim that want to \"liberate\" Iraq, or that those opposing them are \"terrorists,\" \"thugs,\" or Saddam \"deadenders\"? What, they suddenly took truth serum?

The occupation is a continuation of the war. Its goal is to radically transform Iraq--militarily, politically, culturally and economically--in order to serve U.S. regional and global objectives, not the Iraqi people. Recently, the ardently pro-war Wall Street Journal (May 13) acknowledged, \"Behind the Scenes, U.S. Tightens Grip On Iraq\'s Future,\" and described how occupation authorities were attempting to make sure that: \"The new Iraqi government will have little control over its armed forces, lack the ability to make or change laws and be unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval.\"

This is neocolonialism, not \"liberation,\" no matter how many times U.S. officials mouth the word.
A CAULDRON OF CONTRADICTIONS

Understanding the imperialist nature of the war in Iraq and the global agenda driving it are essential to understanding why Iraq could turn into a nightmare for America\'s rulers.

Webster\'s Dictionary defines quagmire as, \"A complex or precarious position where disengagement is difficult.\" What makes the U.S. occupation particularly precarious, and disengagement particularly difficult, is on one hand, the enormous stakes for the U.S. in Iraq, and on the other, that its spiraling difficulties are not mainly the product of poor planning or easily correctable errors. Instead, they are deeply \"embedded\" in the unjust aims and the brutal nature of the war and occupation.

High-level policymakers openly worry that \"The strategic tide in Iraq is turning inexorably against us\" ( Wall Street Journal , May 20). All this is a stunning confirmation of Bob Avakian\'s assessment that the U.S. rulers\' grab for greater global power carries with it \"the potential...for this to get wildly out of control...the imperialists have set things in motion that can\'t be easily reversed, and may not be easily controlled.\"

full text: rwor.org/a/1242/larryeverest_iraq_global%20ambitions.htm

Anonymous user Joe:

If you have an actual comment, please give it. Better yet, offer it at the Jihad Watch site to the person who actually wrote the article, Hugh Fitzgerald. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use my comment section for your own grandiose speech. Get your own blog and put it on your own site.

Your cut and paste comment essentially provides nothing of relevance to what's discussed here. "Your" whole ramble is basically an indictment of characters and reasons and justifications not offered here. No one here is a US official. Additionally. Bob Avakian is a worthless piece of shit who embraces a worthless, Mao communist, piece of shit ideology. Frankly, I don't give a damn about the Iraqi people, if there are any such people in such a phony construct of a country. So save us your garbage analysis. And get over your illusions of grandeur. You aren't the only one who's figured out what the Illuminati are up to. Thank God Bob Avakian has rescued you!

It's such a shame someone like him never set foot in southern Africa in the late 70's. He could have ended up as another notch in the buttstock of my Mao- provided SKS.

Reply By: joe(Anonymous User) Posted: Saturday, July 29, 2006 The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear

NO speeches, Joe. Get your own blog and make them on yours.