"Dopey and darth need continued violence in Iraq to justify our permanent military presence.* Lenin on Naomi Wolf's "Ten Steps to Fascism":
Ron Bryneart of Raw thinks we are in Iraq because we were thrown out of Saudi Arabia and need a new place to park our military in the region. Makes sense to me."
"Wolf rightly criticises Bush's openly repressive measures, including the Patriot Act. However, there is no mention Democratic complicity. There is no effort by the Democrats to reverse these measures at all (indeed, most Democratic senators have consistently supported its re-authorisation, often at the behest of the most 'liberal' senators such as Diane Feinstein), no effort to counter the crackdown on immigrants, and more basically the plan for 'withdrawal' from Iraq is - despite appearances - a plan for escalation. The Democrats will certainly, if they get Clinton elected, manage an eventual, prolonged withdrawal to the comfort of the fortified military bases if they are forced to, but what's going to happen to the troops? They're going to Afghanistan. And as for the prospects of a strike on Iran? Leading Democrats are all for it."
* TREX:
"I find Michelle Malkin and everything she stands for utterly disgusting and reprehensible. She is a privileged, unprincipled, intellectual featherweight who spends her every waking moment grasping after a fame that she got precisely because she is a woman of color who is more than willing to peddle vicious, outdated ethnic stereotypes and highly loaded racist ideology to a pathetically eager, slavering audience of lily-white, proto-fascist dickheads. If she was white and looked like Kathryn Jean Lopez, she'd still be writing for ten readers a week at Townhall.com. The fact of the matter is that angry white demagogues like Bill O'Reilly plucked Malkin from obscurity because she would regurgitate the exact white supremacist, anti-immigration, bloodthirsty xenophobia that they love and which forms the backbone of the modern conservative philosophy, such as it is."* AP:
"A U.S. officer has been accused of aiding the enemy — a charge that carries the death penalty — for allegedly providing an unmonitored cell phone to detainees while he commanded an MP detachment at the jail that held Saddam Hussein, the military said Thursday.this sounds bogus, right?
Army Lt. Col. William H. Steele faces nine charges in all, including fraternizing with a prisoner's daughter, storing and marking classified material, maintaining an inappropriate relationship with an interpreter and possessing pornographic videos."
3 comments:
"This sounds bogus right?"
Sounds kinda bogus to me Lukery. The Army has a lot of money, time and effort invested in anyone who is as high-ranking as a lieutenant colonel. I could see perhaps demoting him to major or maybe giving him some administrative punishment but shitcanning him over this seems odd. There could well be more to this than meets the eye, as is so often the case with many matters.
This started out the post,
"Dopey and darth need continued violence in Iraq to justify our permanent military presence.
Ron Bryneart of Raw thinks we are in Iraq because we were thrown out of Saudi Arabia and need a new place to park our military in the region. Makes sense to me."
I thought we were thrown out of Saudi Arabia because Osama bin Laden wanted us out of there. He wanted us out, and enough of the other Saudis agreed, so we were told to leave.
But, wasn't part of that pressure the thought that the Saudi's could not afford to have such political conflict in country. So, the longer the U.S. military was hangin' out there, the more tensions and underground nonsense was going to occur.
But, if that were true, then wouldn't the same problems arise if the U.S. would then go next door and cause Sunni-Shia and other rivalries that will inevitably spill over?
No, it does not make sense that the U.S. just does what the Saudi's want by getting out, one minute, and then goes and does what they surely would not want by going next door in the next minute.
I was under the impression that the Saudi's were told that Saddam Hussein's government were a danger to the Saudi's. They were told that invading Kuwait was just one step on their way to invading Saudi Arabia. So, this was one reason why the Saudi's supported the U.S. wars against Iraq.
I think they must have known the Iraqis were in no position to do such a thing.
I suspect that the Saudi's want the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia, and into Iraq, not because the Iraqis were a military threat, but because outsiders present a threat to the Saudi government.
So, the American military presence is just part of a western presence that shows the Saudi people that there could be a better life under some different rulers and social arrangements.
The presence of Iraq also presented the Saudi people with an example that Islamic countries could have different social arrangements where more people could have benefits.
Therefore, it was important to the Saudis to get the U.S. out of their country and to mess up Iraq.
Eliminating good examples of green grass in the next yard makes more sense to me. This could explain why the Saudi's would not be unhappy with our messing up Iran.
Isn't there something in this? Doesn't a country close itself off from others because its planners are afraid of their own people finding out too much and becoming unhappy with their domestic arrangements.
steve - it's all very confusing. nothing makes sense to me any more...
Post a Comment