Skip to main content

Long but good assessment of Iraq -


http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-01/10bennis.cfm

ZNet
ON THE EVE OF BUSH'S "NEW DIRECTION:" Desperately Seeking Victory January 10, 2007
By Phylis Bennis

** Bush's "new direction" will escalate the war by deploying thousands more U.S. combat troops, sending potentially a billion dollars in economic support aid into Iraq, and putting more blame for the occupation's failure on Iraqis themselves.

** The strategy differs very little from the existing one, except to make things worse; more troops mean more violence, not less; the money is too little and too late, and it can do nothing while U.S. troops continue their military occupation and Iraq remains at war.

** The Bush administration is desperately seeking a new strategy to buy them either something they can call a "victory" or at least a long enough delay to insure that Bush's successor takes the blame for the failure. The current strategy of military occupation and political backing of an artificial and largely powerless government in Iraq has failed so massively that even top generals have refused to get on board Bush's latest call for escalation.

** The debate over a "new direction" emerges just as the Iraqi parliament is preparing legislation that would allow foreign (especially U.S.) oil companies to control as much as 70% of the profit in future oil exploration.

** Elsewhere in the region U.S.-orchestrated UN sanctions on Iran appear to have had little impact so far except to encourage increasingly explicit Israeli military (and even nuclear) threats; Palestine continues to burn, and the occupation-driven humanitarian and political crises in Gaza continue to escalate.

** The Democrats won the November elections with a mandate to find a new direction OUT of Iraq, not to send more troops INTO Iraq; but it remains uncertain whether they will use the only actual power they have - the power of the purse - to actually stop the war.

** There are some hopeful signs, including the Pelosi/Reid letter demanding the beginning of a troop withdrawal, and the moving of Iraq-related hearings to much higher priority and visibility; but there are reasons for pessimism too, including the lack of even a hint of teeth in the Pelosi/Reid letter and Pelosi's follow-up commitment not to cut funds, the virtual absence of experts supporting an immediate and complete end to occupation in the hearings line-up, and Biden's completely false claim that it might be "unconstitutional" for Congress to move to de-fund the war.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Ubermensch:
Somehow I don't see how the author, who if you google her, has been working to end U.S. "domination" at the U.N., worked to end U.S sanctions in Iraq, and who happens to be a anti-war Middle East activist has the best interest of the United States at heart.

Maybe its just me.


Thanks for your input as to how you see it or call it,but this is how I view it.
The last time the U.N. played its Charter-mandated role of working to stop “the scourge of war” was in the run-up to the 2003 U.S. war on Iraq, when the Security Council refused to endorse the invasion, the General Assembly condemned it, and eventually the secretary general called it illegal. The U.N. then was part of the massive mobilization in which “the world said no to war.”
It wasn’t enough, ultimately, to prevent the invasion, but it did deny the Bush administration what it so desperately sought: international legitimacy. It’s not too late for the United Nations to reclaim that role.


That first recorded use of economic sanctions didn't work, and instead helped precipitate the Peloponnesian War, a horrific and lengthy conflict that brought an end to the fledgling Greek democracy.

Nearly 2,500 years later the use of economic sanctions has become increasingly common -- and controversial.

A 1997 study by the Institute for International Economics found that since 1970, unilateral U.S. sanctions had achieved foreign policy goals only 13 percent of the time. The study also concluded that sanctions are costing the United States $15 billion to $19 billion annually in potential exports.

Sanctions have not led to democratic changes in Cuba, Iraq or Iran, and the unambiguous threat of sanctions did not deter India and Pakistan from testing nuclear weapons last year.



America's allies and enemies alike are baffled. What is going on in the United States? Who is making foreign policy? And what are they trying to achieve? Quasi-Marxist explanations involving big oil or American capitalism are mistaken. Yes, American oil companies and contractors will accept the spoils of the kill in Iraq. But the oil business, with its Arabist bias, did not push for this war any more than it supports the Bush administration's close alliance with Ariel Sharon. Further, President Bush and Vice President Cheney are not genuine "Texas oil men" but career politicians who, in between stints in public life, would have used their connections to enrich themselves as figureheads in the wheat business, if they had been residents of Kansas, or in tech companies, had they been Californians.



The neocon defense intellectuals, as well as being in or around the actual Pentagon, are at the center of a metaphorical "pentagon" of the Israel lobby and the religious right, plus conservative think tanks, foundations and media empires. Think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) provide homes for neocon "in-and-outers" when they are out of government (Perle is a fellow at AEI). The money comes not so much from corporations as from decades-old conservative foundations, such as the Bradley and Olin foundations, which spend down the estates of long-dead tycoons. Neoconservative foreign policy does not reflect business interests in any direct way. The neocons are ideologues, not opportunists.
quote:
Originally posted by Ubermensch:



I think the last I heard of her she was working at the Institute for Policy Studies, human rights watch type organization based in Washington, DC. She has had articles in various publications, from Z, to Common Dreams and others and has written a number of books. I have seen her on CSPAN,MSNBC,FOX&CNN as an analyst debating someone on the right, usually discussing US policy or the UN. But she doesn't get invited too often onto Network News because as her articles shows, she doesn't pull her punches. She specialized in the UN for a while, the Mideast also, and would appear frequently on Pacifica and Free Speech news for her commentary. She is extremely knowledgeable and insightful. (More useless information, but just some background that I know of her)

To begin with, exposing the lies, crimes and murderous policies the US is carrying out "IS" in the best interests of the American people. We are being lied too by our leaders and corporate media. Her article speaks for itself. Many times when someone can't refute the article they attack the author. If there are specific points to debate then make them.

I know the corporate media makes it appear as if the US is this good country that is trying to save the world and the UN is dominated by "special interests" and corrupt regimes that always criticize the US for no reason, but it's the opposite. The wealthy European countries in the West, led by the US, have dominated and manipulated the UN since it was founded.

The sanctions are a good example how the US, with Britain, rammed through murderous sanctions against Iraq that targeted the people. It was a policy in which the US bombed the country in the First Gulf War, especially water treatment plants, then put restrictions on materials to rebuild the infrastructures and on chlorine to purify the water. A million Iraqi's died, mainly infants, children, the weak and elderly. The first 4 or 5 years they even withheld medicine and food until a world outcry forced the US and Britain to bend. The policy was a war crime. Deliberately targeting civilians hoping they blame Saddam and rise up and overthrow him. It was also to weaken the country for a US invasion. I like to point out that this policy was put in place by Bush Sr but carried out by Clinton. Clinton has killed more Iraqi's then Bush Jr, so far that is.

Of course the US corporate media kept the deaths off the front page and gave it's usual spin to cover for the crime. Around 1999, or so, 60 Minutes reporter Leslie Stall asked Madeline Albright if she thought the deaths of half a million children were worth the price of the policy and she answered. "Yes, I think it's worth the price." So the US, as did the world, knew of the deaths. We followed it in the progressive alternative media. Later, when the detahs were finally acknowledged and making headlines the UN food for oil scandal was spun to try to blame Saddam for the deaths but it was the sanctions that did it. Saddam could not buy chlorine. He was able to secretly by weapons but couldn't get the chlorine. He knew what the US was doing and if he could have gotten the Chlorine he would have.

And how is being an "anti war activist" in the Mideast anti American? If you are pro War then your pro American?
She gives the truth about Israel and the Palestinian conflict as well as the US policy for the region and other regimes in the region.

The truth is "in the best interest of America." It's why we go to wars based on lies and why the region is inflamed. The government and it's mouth piece the corporate media blame the Arab Muslims but it's the US, along with Israel and the West, that want to dominate and steal Arab and Muslim land and resources. It's what the war all about. I think she makes some great points and exposes important facts that are not mentioned in the corporate media.
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by Ubermensch:
My mom disagrees but it isn't ALL she talks about.


Hilarious pic, Uber... and good point here about your Mom.


I see that you got right on it, so this man would not look bad in here,you message him after I pointed out his post to me,
after you were cutting me down about my post trying to make yourself look good, you=don't do as i do=but do as i say. you got caught at your own game. you message him to warn him and he made a change in his post thanks to you. See lady this is what people have message me about you you talk from both sides of your mouth. and I also see that you have deleted alot of your post that referred to the issue.
quote:
Originally posted by PBA:
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by Ubermensch:
My mom disagrees but it isn't ALL she talks about.


Hilarious pic, Uber... and good point here about your Mom.


I see that you got right on it, so this man would not look bad in here,you message him after I pointed out his post to me,
after you were cutting me down about my post trying to make yourself look good, you=don't do as i do=but do as i say. you got caught at your own game. you message him to warn him and he made a change in his post thanks to you. See lady this is what people have message me about you you talk from both sides of your mouth. and I also see that you have deleted alot of your post that referred to the issue.



What is God's name are you talking about????? Message WHO with WHAT? You are delusional... no messages here. Now can you please explain what the heck you are talking about?
quote:
Originally posted by yankeewitch:
I had a boy friend like this once-Talked just to hear himself talk. He thought he was smarter than any one else-What he didn't realize was that he bored everyone and everyone started to avoid him, including me.


you are wrong about me,but that is your view point. but you need to go back to the start of it to understand it all.
quote:
Originally posted by smurph:
diddly de dum ,(can think of some other choise words to use) WHAT is it with this guy?SHEESH!


nothing wrong at all my friend,have not got to explain to you as you're a long time member of the forum as well as me you know what started it all and you don't have to play dumb about it.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×