Prelude to a Bigger War?

[Winstonm]

Here are direct quotes from the transcript of the Bush "surge" speech.

 

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom – and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

(emphasis added)

 

Is this or is it not a declaration to expand nation building across the entire region?

Is the U.S. engaged in U.S.S.R.-like satellite state building in order to expand an empire?

 

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

(emphasis added)

 

At long last Bush lays out his reasoning for the pressing need for success. Do you accept this view? Was Iraq a "safe haven" for terrorists prior to the U.S. invasion?

Would Iraq indeed becoming a launching base for hijacked U.S. airliners?

 

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

 

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

(emphasis added)

 

How do we plan on addressing Iran and Syria? Is "seeking out and destroying networks" imply a Cambodian-like operation? If Iran is the country that could "dominate the region", were they the targets originally - and what was the purpose of invading Iraq, then?

 

And lastly, how often do you use aircraft carriers in a civil war?

 

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Winstonm]

Late-breaking news item:

 

Pentagon sources tell CBS News the U.S. military has planned covert cross-border raids into Iran — but so far none has been approved.

 

Cambodia, anyone?

 

By KIM GAMEL

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Five Iranians seized by U.S.-led forces were working in a longtime government liaison office that was being upgraded to a consulate, the Iraqi foreign minister said Friday.

 

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said the building where the Iranians were detained Thursday had operated with Iraqi government approval for 10 years.

[ (emphasis added)

 

Seems like this should be funny, but I'm not laughing.

 

WASHINGTON, Jan. 12 — A recent series of American raids against Iranians in Iraq was authorized under an order that President Bush decided to issue several months ago to undertake a broad military offensive against Iranian operatives in the country, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.

 

 

So Bush ordered the raid on the consulate - who would have guessed.

 

ANKARA, Jan 11 (KUNA) -- U.S. F-16 jet-fighters arrived Thursday in Incirlik Air base in southern Turkish city of Adana after, the first time in three years.

 

According to Local Cihan News Agency, at least 16 F-16 jets joined by early warning system AWACS airplane, as well as tanker airplanes landed here at Incirlik coming from an American base in Germany.

 

 

F-16 fighters in Turkey - isn't that kind of close to Iran?

 

WWIII Countdown Contest: Grand prize awarded to the first to predict the day we start a war with Iran.

[Al_U_Card]

Anyone remember the "Dead Zone" and the president (Martin Sheen) that wanted to press the button? Life and art.....where is Chris Walken when we need him?

[Winstonm]

Guess I'm not the only one concerned:

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. contingency planning for military action against Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday.

 

"I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.

 

"You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank.'

 

And how dangerous is Iran?

 

Middle East expert Kenneth Katzman argued "Iran's ascendancy is not only manageable but reversible" if one understands the Islamic republic's many vulnerabilities.

 

Tehran's leaders have convinced many experts Iran is a great nation verging on "superpower" status, but the country is "very weak ... (and) meets almost no known criteria to be considered a great nation," said Katzman of the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service.

 

The economy is mismanaged and "quite primitive," exporting almost nothing except oil, he said.

 

Also, Iran's oil production capacity is fast declining and in terms of conventional military power, "Iran is a virtual non-entity," Katzman added.

 

The administration, therefore, should not go out of its way to accommodate Iran because the country is in no position to hurt the United States, and at some point "it might be useful to call that bluff," he said.

 

But Katzman cautioned against early confrontation with Iran and said if there is a "grand bargain" that meets both countries' interests, that should be pursued. "

 

Where is the big, spooky country that can threaten world peace I keep hearing about? Sounds like Iran isn't much different than North Korea - lots of noise with no way to loose the threats. We wouldn't go after them just to change a regime and get their oil, would we? Nah.

[mike777]

The fear is, right or wrong, silly or not is that radical islamic elements will be encouraged in places such as Pakistan, India, Egypt or Turkey and cause huge domestic problems for those countries that affect USA interests. Another is the fear of some sort of larger Sunni/Shia regional battle. Of course this is all just speculation based on a defeat of the USA in Iraq and the USSR defeat in Afghanistan years ago. The fear is this will be a major problem for the USA for another 40 years.

[pbleighton]

"The fear is, right or wrong, silly or not is that radical islamic elements will be encouraged in places such as Pakistan, India, Egypt or Turkey and cause huge domestic problems for those countries that affect USA interests. Another is the fear of some sort of larger Sunni/Shia regional battle. Of course this is all just speculation based on a defeat of the USA in Iraq and the USSR defeat in Afghanistan years ago. The fear is this will be a major problem for the USA for another 40 years."

 

So the obvious solution to these fears is another doomed invasion?

 

When will we learn to MYOFB?

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

If anything, the eventual Sunni-Shiite internecine war is being relied on to defuse any "real" threat to the US and its "economic" interests.....its just an oil grab, plain and simple.

[Winstonm]

Regress to Jimmy's argument:

 

From the New York Times:

 

"I rejoice in the newfound freedoms in Iraq. But there are indications that the U.S. government souped up intelligence, leaned on spooks to change their conclusions, and concealed contrary information to deceive people at home and around the world.

 

I will not argue whether "souped up intelligence", "leaned on spooks to change their conclusions", and "concealed contrary information" should be classifed as "knowingly falsifying intelligence"; however, to do the above "to deceive people at home and around the world", would, IMO, be an impeachable offense.

[luke warm]

Regress to Jimmy's argument:

 

From the New York Times:

 

"I rejoice in the newfound freedoms in Iraq. But there are indications that the U.S. government souped up intelligence, leaned on spooks to change their conclusions, and concealed contrary information to deceive people at home and around the world.

 

I will not argue whether "souped up intelligence", "leaned on spooks to change their conclusions", and "concealed contrary information" should be classifed as "knowingly falsifying intelligence"; however, to do the above "to deceive people at home and around the world", would, IMO, be an impeachable offense.

since you won't argue those things, neither will i argue that "indications" of such actions differ from facts... however, even if those indications are facts, upon what charge would you hinge impeachment? would you have impeached roosevelt (re: japan)? kennedy (re: bay of pigs et al)? i'm just asking so that i can have a clearer view of which "concealed contary information" used to "deceive people.." is impeachable

[mike777]

If anything, the eventual Sunni-Shiite internecine war is being relied on to defuse any "real" threat to the US and its "economic" interests.....its just an oil grab, plain and simple.

Good grief how long does it take to grab the oil. It seems it would have just been cheaper to pay for the damn stuff? How much oil has been grabbed and how much did we save?

[luke warm]

If anything, the eventual Sunni-Shiite internecine war is being relied on to defuse any "real" threat to the US and its "economic" interests.....its just an oil grab, plain and simple.

Good grief how long does it take to grab the oil. It seems it would have just been cheaper to pay for the damn stuff? How much oil has been grabbed and how much did we save?

stop it, you're just trying to confuse me

[Winstonm]

Regress to Jimmy's argument:

 

From the New York Times:

 

"I rejoice in the newfound freedoms in Iraq. But there are indications that the U.S. government souped up intelligence, leaned on spooks to change their conclusions, and concealed contrary information to deceive people at home and around the world.

 

I will not argue whether "souped up intelligence", "leaned on spooks to change their conclusions", and "concealed contrary information" should be classifed as "knowingly falsifying intelligence"; however, to do the above "to deceive people at home and around the world", would, IMO, be an impeachable offense.

since you won't argue those things, neither will i argue that "indications" of such actions differ from facts... however, even if those indications are facts, upon what charge would you hinge impeachment? would you have impeached roosevelt (re: japan)? kennedy (re: bay of pigs et al)? i'm just asking so that i can have a clearer view of which "concealed contary information" used to "deceive people.." is impeachable

The presumption is the administration was aware that the intelligence did not coincide with the desire for war, so intelligence that contradicted that view was ignored while flawed intelligence that supported that view was supported. If true, this would define a conspiracy to attack a foreign country without provocation, which would be a violation of interntional law, therefore satisfying the constitutional requirements for "high crimes and misdeamenors" necessary to impeach.

 

I do not see in history a total parallel - The Gulf of Tonkin is probably closest and that was used to escalate an existing war and not used to instigate an illegal war.

[Winstonm]

If anything, the eventual Sunni-Shiite internecine war is being relied on to defuse any "real" threat to the US and its "economic" interests.....its just an oil grab, plain and simple.

Good grief how long does it take to grab the oil. It seems it would have just been cheaper to pay for the damn stuff? How much oil has been grabbed and how much did we save?

Unfortunately, the Shi'is and Sunnis have not cooperated in their part of the plan - instead of rolling over and playing dead, they had the poor social skills to start a civil war, making it too dangerous for the execs of the oil companies to hold their photo opp at the well heads for their latest annual reports - unfortunately for the U.S., we couldn't just pay for the oil as the Bank of China has decided to hold fewer dollars and therefore is not buying enough of our bonds to allow the U.S. to create the dollars needed; instead, we had to use our Mobil-Exxon National Debt Oil-War credit card so future generations get to pay for it along with the bills for Medicare and Social Security.

[luke warm]

If true, this would define a conspiracy to attack a foreign country without provocation, which would be a violation of interntional law, therefore satisfying the constitutional requirements for "high crimes and misdeamenors" necessary to impeach.

is this true? do the high crimes etc concern int'l law or u.s. law? iow, if the u.s. entered a treaty with another nation then broke that treaty, is that an impeachable offense?

[Winstonm]

If true, this would define a conspiracy to attack a foreign country without provocation, which would be a violation of interntional law, therefore satisfying the constitutional requirements for "high crimes and misdeamenors" necessary to impeach.

is this true? do the high crimes etc concern int'l law or u.s. law? iow, if the u.s. entered a treaty with another nation then broke that treaty, is that an impeachable offense?

The constitution does not specify high crimes and misdemeanors under U.S. law, so it is arguable. Another question is whether the conspiracy to violate international law would violate U.S. law, as any conspiring would have been done in the U.S. It is an interesting question if these extend under law to impeachable offenses.

 

Of course, Bush has admitted violating the law with illegal wiretaps, so there is no question about that illegality.

 

The differences lie in the fact that Clinton denied having sex under oath and in front of a grand jury, while Bush said there were WMD in front of the UN assembly and not under oath. Odd that if Bush knew he way lying, Clinton's is still the more punishable under law?

 

Still, if the intelligence was known to be doctored then one would think a conspiracy to defraud could be argued based on the cost of the war and the contracts to Haliburton and others. It could be arued, too, that if the information was known to be false, a conspiracy to extort argument could be adopted.

 

What do you think, Jimmy?

[helene_t]

The differences lie in the fact that Clinton denied having sex under oath and in front of a grand jury, while Bush said there were WMD in front of the UN assembly and not under oath.  Odd that if Bush knew he way lying, Clinton's is still the more punishable under law?

Clinton lied about something which is no-ones business except for his own, his wife's and ms Lewinsky's, while Bush fabricated a reason for starting a pointless war that killed 100,000+ (and counting) people. Plus the wiretapping, election fraud etc. etc.

 

This whole "oath" concept is ridicolous. If you lie you must be prepared to take responsibility for foreseeable consequences.

 

Then again, the Florida election and all Karl Roves' dirty tricks were long known before Bush's second election, so obviously the majority of the voters wanted a criminal president. It would then be undemocratic to impeace him for the kind of behavior he was elected for.

 

Besides, who cares what Bush thinks about WMDs? He's not an expert in that field, just a stupid politician. If the members of the UN general assembly are stupid enough to believe what Bush says, maybe they are the ones who should be dismissed.

[pbleighton]

"Besides, who cares what Bush thinks about WMDs? He's not an expert in that field, just a stupid politician."

 

Yes.

 

The invasion of Iraq would have been a war crime even if WMDs exist - any war other than a defensive war is a war crime (se the Fourth Geneva Convention", and Iraq clearly doesn't fall under that .

 

However, it is silly to expect that Bush will ever be prosecuted for it. A large majority of U.S. citizens approved it, so our country is complicit, and our government won't ever prosecute. As for international organizations, well, large scale war crimes apply only to countries which have been conquered.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

What do you think, Jimmy?

i think the high crimes & etc apply to u.s. law, but i'm no expert... that said, i think illegal wiretaps are impeachable by definition (much as illegal aliens are criminals, by definition)...

[helene_t]

I'm not an expert either but I'm prettyr sure that Jimmy is correct.

[Winstonm]

Well, Clinton escaped the "high" crimes because he didn't inhale.

[sceptic]

It would seem to me that America is qute capable of reducing a country to ruins and not being able to manage the aftermath, would it not make sense to have to leave Iraq to destroy Iran, when that is complete the US army can go home and we can conviniently forget how we left Iraq

[Al_U_Card]

It depends on where the price of oil goes......if it continues to drop, the US will have to destabilize the middle east to get it back up so that Russia will continue to be solvent and the oil companies will make their multi billion $ profits.

 

 

btw see how the US has got Harper and his twits to sign on for quintupling the oil-sands production destined for them? This will greatly impede Canada's ability to reduce its CO2 emissions......