Guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 "Wherever there's evil, we want to get there and fight it." AT WHAT COST????? West Africa: Where the Empire Will Come to Ruin by Christopher Deliso balkanalysis.com "Wherever there's evil, we want to get there and fight it." This is the logic for America's growing military presence in West Africa, says U.S. Gen. Charles Wald, according to the SF Chronicle. Wald, commander of EUCOM (the commander in charge of imperial operations in Europe and West Africa) apparently made the comment after being asked "whether cooperation would include the protection of Nigerian oil infrastructure." A bizarre response, given the question ? but then again, this is West Africa we're talking about. Indeed, America's eventual and ineluctable eclipse as an empire may be precipitated by the interventions now unfolding there ? and not by the confirmed disasters that are Afghanistan and Iraq. http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=3658 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The brown one Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Mars: It was a great analogy to get us thinking about the human nature of staying with a bad bet "against the odds." Picture yourself as the shill (house player) for a major casino at the 5 Card Stud table. When you're playing with the house's money, you play hands differently than when you're playing with your own money. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and even Greenspan are playing with the house's money. Big difference. They can afford to bluff until the bitter end, regardless of the cards they are dealt, because the alternative is more costly than spending every last cent of the house's money. In this analogy, the shill also has access to the Casino's fire alarms, and can set them off for a diversion at any time that suits his game. Succinctly put,Plunger. They are the house, have a printing press,an army at their disposal and control all buttons. It's a trade--but not as WE know it Jim! And Botch seems like a "ride 'em to zero" kinda guy(tanks Doc!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2859 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 October 4, 2004 Imperial Hubris A CIA anal cyst reveals why we are losing the 'war on terrorism' "As I complete this book, U.S., British, and other coalition forces are trying to govern apparently ungovernable postwar states in Afghanistan and Iraq, while simultaneously fighting growing Islamist insurgencies in each ? a state of affairs our leaders call victory. In conducting these activities, and the conventional military campaigns preceding them, U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden's only indispensable ally." "The way we see and interpret people and events outside North America is heavily clouded by arrogance and self-centeredness amounting to what I called 'imperial arrogance' in Through Our Enemies' Eyes. This is not a genetic flaw in Americans that has been present since the Pilgrims splashed ashore at Plymouth Rock, but rather a way of thinking America's elites have acquired since the end of World War II. It is a process of interpreting the world so it makes senses to us, a process yielding a world in which few events seem alien because we Americanize their components." We have created, in bin Laden, "the enemy we want, not the one we face," and our insistence on misunderstanding him, or his appeal, will have fatal consequences ? which are just beginning to be felt on the battlefield in Iraq, and whatever future battlefields the War Party has all mapped out for us. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3705 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patriot Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Hello Plunger, When he invaded Kuwait. When he decided to violate 16, 17? UN Resolutions. Of course if I was in Iraq i to would try and pacify him and be good. That way, when it was my turn,he would have shown his graet compassion and put me throught The Shreeder head first. Over quick i understand, That way. Best Day Best Trading patriot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patriot Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Plunger, Pres Bush: global Test, I don't know what you mean response to Kerry. Rhetorical of course. His response was well taked. He will make his decisions based on protecting America. Thank God he understands that. I wonder if John Kerry would have gotten the world opinion before we told King George to stick it. I think perhaps he would have. Of course we would have been better of under English Rule then Sad and Insanes. Or John Kerry for that matter. Growing up in Boston I can tell you. There is nothing to quicker to destroy your freedom then an educated Massachusetts Liberal. Best Day Best Trading patriot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Saddam worked for US. He invaded Kuwait when we gave him the green light to do so. We used him up and then set him up to justify this invasion. In case anyone requires a visual reminder of the monumental lies that were told, here is one of our slides used during Powell's presentation to JUSTIFY THIS WAR. Note what is says at the top of the slide. What it does not say is: "Aluminum tube used for launching conventional rockets" That would have been THE TRUTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The brown one Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Just seen a Dutch made tv documentary talking to 3 US soldiers injured in Iraq. In the first place they all wanted to get back into the Army(very much a Brothers-in-Arms thing IMO). One guy,now totally blind and missing half a leg,said that when they went into Baghdad just after it fell there were very few buildings still standing.He reckoned that the US had done a really good job in reducing the city to a ruin.He went on to say that it doesn't appear to be enough.The US should drop another billion tons of bombs and flatten the whole country as it needed to have something worthwhile to build on!!!! When asked what about the people there he said that it was just tough shit for them being there in the first place.A bit of probing about why he thought like that(disregard for all human life except US G.I.'s) he said that the Army taught him to think like that. I'm not going to suggest that this mind-set is all pervasive throughout the US military but it only takes a few soldiers thinking this way to completely dispel any thoughts of "hearts and minds" winning.The only question that the interviewer didn't ask was "Do you think we should have just nuked Iraq in the first place? or are all ragheads like cockroaches to be exterminated" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patriot Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Hello Plunger, With respect to your thoughts. When you start talking about the US giving the Green Light yo invade Kuwait I believe the only appropiate board to discuss this furthur is on the Board for Science Fiction. Best Day Best Trading patriot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Hello Plunger, With respect to your thoughts. When you start talking about the US giving the Green Light yo invade Kuwait I believe the only appropiate board to discuss this furthur is on the Board for Science Fiction. Best Day Best Trading patriot Saddam: Made in the USA I oversimplified that...the following are the facts: How the Reagan/Bush Sr. administrations backed Saddam As the world watched the military build up at the Kuwaiti border, Saddam called a meeting with then US ambassador April Gillespie, who told Saddam: "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." She went on to say: "James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction." (San Francisco Examiner, 11/18/02) The US was prepared to turn a blind eye to Iraq seizing disputed oilfields on the Iraq-Kuwait border. However, Saddam overplayed his hand, occupying all of Kuwait. American big business was totally unwilling to allow Saddam to have such control over "our" oil supply or the ability to push up the price of oil. The US also feared that Iraq could now attack Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer. http://www.bnfp.org/neighborhood/jmoore.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrStool Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Bush's people are very much a reflection of Bush himself. He simply refuses to be interested in the truth, even after the big lie has been thoroughly exposed and discredited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The brown one Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Who created SH,supplied him with nasty substances to kill Iranians and kept him in power for all those years--the US. Who found,recruited and trained OBL to fight the Russians in Afghanistan--The US. Who started off the Islamic Fundamentalists in their first important country(Iran) by installing and supporting a dictator(Shah) that was so cruel to his own people that they rose up against him and threw him out--the US. Don't even go to South and Middle Americas where the majority of the most brutal dictators were installed and supported by---yep--the US again. So,why do they hate us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Closing bases in locations with no oil, and opening bases where oil and terrorists suddenly exist side-by-side. Are you a coincidence theorist? US expands military presence in Africa afrol News, 23 September - While abandoning much of its Cold War-era bases in Europe and Asia, the US military is relocating to Africa and the Middle East to "fight terrorism" and "protect oil" resources. In Africa, US bases are to focus on Uganda, Djibouti, Senegal and S?o Tom? and Pr?ncipe, where flexible, small-scale "jumping off points" exist or are to be built. The US Pentagon is in a period of major restructuring, in particular regarding American military bases abroad. While enormous bases in Germany and South Korea are abandoned or detracted, new and more flexible bases are constructed or planned all over the world, in particular in the Middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe. http://www.afrol.com/articles/14269 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.