Wacky was leaving Muqtada al-Sadr alive after he said he would be the striking arm of Hezbollah and Hamas in Iraq. If we were serious, the only good Hamas...would be a dead Hamas...
If we had enough support, like WWII support, we could "lay the country to waste," but we do not have that kind of support. We could not get support for the war because we did not declare war and put Ramsey Clark and the rest of the traitors from his Party in an internment camp. See "South Movement," which is a part of the non-aligned movement, and Saddam's defense attorney:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-i...ames-all-bushies-warhawks.html#post1057630758
"The
non-aligned movement meanwhile affirmed Iran's 'inalienable right' to pursue these programs, and the SCO (which includes the states of Central Asia) 'called on the United States to set a deadline for the withdrawal of military installations from all member states.'" (Chomsky)
Chomsky: There Will Be a Cold War Between Iran and the U.S. | AlterNet
Why reject the notion that the Iraq war had something to do with Saddam's support for terrorism and his general badness in violation of Article one of the UN Charter and resolutions? Why reject the notion that we are trying to do the right thing? Why go so far as to claim a Hamas terrorist on a bus is not terrorism but is simply a "douchbag," to over and over again claim Saddam did not support terrorism? Why remove Iraq from the War on Terror, when the authorization was not limited to disarming Saddam, and why focus only on the lack of WMD? Why call it a "rush to war," when we were at war since 1991 with the unending right to bomb Iraq at will? In essence, they are sending the message to the region, we did not attack because Saddam was bad, and WMD was just frosting possibly making him more dangerous, we attacked because Saddam did not have WMD. The message is clear, and it is one they wanted the region to get:
"The U.S. invasion of Iraq virtually instructed Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld writes that after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, "had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy." The message of the invasion, loud and clear, was that the U.S. will attack at will, as long as the target is defenseless. Now Iran is ringed by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf and close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and particularly Israel, the regional superpower, thanks to U.S. support." (Chomsky)
Us having a reason to attack plays into the hands of those in non-aligned movement, because they come out smelling like a rose.
"Washington's worst nightmare would be a loose Shiite alliance controlling most of the world's oil and independent of the United States." (Chomsky)
Regardless of what we do it is important for "liberals" to make us to look like the bad guys here. We knew in 1992 who the Shiites in the swamp were, as first Bush let them die, so it is important for Operation Iraqi Freedom to be about keeping the Shiites from controlling most of the world's oil. It is imperative to make the Shiite majority Iraqi government appear to be a puppet. If we do not go to war with Iran, they were covering that too, the surge was to keep the puppet in line:
"Unsurprisingly, as Bush send s more troops to Iraq, tales surface of Iranian interference in the internal affairs of Iraq -- a country otherwise free from any foreign interference, on the tacit assumption that Washington rules the world." (Chomsky)
When talking about the China and Iran connection, and the greater Iran with us out of Iraq, which is connected to the quote previous to the last one, Chomsky says:
"If the Bush planners bring that about, they will have seriously undermined the U.S. position of power in the world." (Chomsky)
Even in your wildest dreams do you believe Chomshy wants anything but to undermine our position of power in the world?
Chomsky in one quote claims it would be "Washington's worst nightmare" to have a Shiite alliance controlling the oil, and that most likely would be true if they hate us, and yet he implies it is a Bush plan to bring about that Shiite control. How do you stop the plan, vote for Change, vote for Obama?
Why do everything from day one to prevent the National Energy Policy of George W. Bush? You know it was not all about ANWR. There were electric cars in there too, and an electrical grid for it, so "unsafe at any speed" Green boy should have loved it. Every attempt has been made to keep us dependant on foreign oil, knowing it would give an excuse, and one day we would hit a wall.
Listen to Chomsky, he said in response to 911 we are hated because of our attempts to control the oil resources of the region. When the Soviets went into Afghanstan Jimmy Cotter Pin told us it was an attempt to gain control of the oil in the region, and the policy was set, but that policy never created the enemy. We have interests, but Oil is not the only one. Cotter Pin supposeded wanted to help the Iranians, and improve human rights, but he was the Great Satan. The Oil embargo during Nixon was the wake-up call, and in 1978 oil was an interest we knew we had to end, but every attempt to end that dependency has been thwarted by both sides, one for ignorance and the other for economic control. You know the reasons we were attacked. I know you will not claim Saddam, Iran, and Al Quacka are bad because of the fight over oil. Oil is the reason we failed to finish the war in 1991. Oil does not give Al Quacka their Koran quotes. Oil did not make Saddam or any of the enemy, it just gives them money.
If we are in decline, the socialist has an answer. It is easy to say Bush and Congress played into the enemy's hands, and we are closer to that Newer Deal. Go all the way back to Nixon and the Budget and Impound Control Act, and look at a graph of the deficit from Washington to now. Every real attempt to find a solution has been thwarted, Line Item Veto etc. Bush doesn't even know he has a Veto pen. If the National Energy Policy could have passed in 2001, we would not be as close to decline from that. But, we would still have a problem with out of control usury.
Savings and Loan Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That sound familiar?
My point is, all of this is connected. We have too many wounds to lick for another just war, and our problems could not have been set up any better if one had planned it.
Right at the moment about all we can hope for is for Iraq to be able to maintain a democracy, for a long view, but you can bet forces which claim to support democracy are hard at work to try and undermine Iraq having a democracy. There are forces that do not want Iraq or Iran to be in our cold war court, as if the cold war is still being fought. The cold war is being fought, mainly by the other side who is doing an excellent job of making us out to be bad regardless of which way we go.
It is not "liberal" to suggest a war with Iran, which we will not get any help with, will undermine progress in Iraq.
*****
I don't know if you saw Koppel's "Iran -- The Most Dangerous Nation" but you should. There is some evidence that Iran's problem is not the whole of the Iranian people. It would not be all that "liberal" to say their "revolution" is only able to sustain itself with putting down opposition and feeding off threats.
Koppel Documentary Examines View from Iran : NPR
Koppel: Iran - The Most Dangerous Nation DVD -- Discovery Channel Store -- 774968
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Guide to Iran's presidential poll
