Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Who Won in Iraq? Iran Did -- Big Time

By Gary Brecher, The eXile. Posted May 7, 2007.


From the enormous advantage gained by Iran via our invasion of Iraq, you would think that Dick Cheney is a mole for the Ayatollah.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Gary Brecher

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

A funny thing happened on the floor of the Senate the other day. Somebody asked a serious question: "If the war in Iraq is lost, then who won?"

Of course Sen. Lindsay Graham, the guy who asked the question, didn't mean it to be serious. He was just scoring points off Majority Leader Harry Reid, the world's only Democratic Mormon. Reid had made a "gaffe" by saying in public what everybody already knows: "The war in Iraq is lost." When you say something obviously true in politics, it's called a "gaffe."

So Graham jumps in to embarrass Reid with his question.

But let's take the question seriously for a second here: who won in Iraq? To answer it, you have to start with a close-up of the region, then change magnification to look at the world picture. At a regional level the big winner is obvious: Iran. In fact, Iran wins so big in this war I think that Dick Cheney's DNA should be checked out by a reputable lab, because he has to be a Persian mole. My theory is that they took a fiery young Revolutionary Guard from the slums of Tehran, dipped him in a vat of lye to get that pale, pasty Anglo skin, zapped his scalp for that authentic bald CEO look, squirted a quart of cholesterol into his arteries so he'd develop classic American cardiac disease, and parachuted him into the outskirts of some Wyoming town.

And that's how our VP was born again, a half-frozen zombie with sagebrush twigs in his jumpsuit, stumbling into the first all-night coffee shop in Casper talking American with a Persian accent: "Hello my friends! Er, I mean, hello my fellow Americans! Coffee? I will have coffee at once, indeed, and is not free enterprise a glorious thing? Say, O brethren of the frosty tundra, what do you say we finish our donuts and march on Baghdad now, this very moment, to remove the Baathist abomination Saddam?"

It took a couple tries for Cheney-ajad to get his American accent right and chew his way into Bush Jr.'s head, but he eventually got us to do the Iranian Ayatollahs' dirty work for them by taking out Iraq, their only rival for regional power. Iraq is destroyed, and Tehran hasn't lost a single soldier in the process. Our invasion put their natural allies, the Shia, in power; gave their natural enemies, the Iraqi Sunni, a blood-draining feud that will never end; and provided them with a risk-free laboratory to spy on American forces in action. If they feel like trying out a new weapon or tactic to deal with U.S. armor, all they have to do is feed the supplies or diagrams to one of their puppet Shia groups, or even one of the Sunni suicide-commando clans.

All these claims that Iran is helping the insurgents really make my head spin. Of course they're helping. They'd be insane if they weren't. If somebody invades the country next door, any state worth mentioning has to act. If Mexico got invaded by China, you better believe the U.S. would react. We'd lynch any president who didn't.

What really amazes me is how patient Iran has been about it, how quiet and careful. They've covered their tracks carefully and kept their intervention to R&D level: just enough to keep Iraq burning, and patiently test out news IEDs.

But that's the Persian way: behind all the yelling, they're sly, clever people. If Iranian intelligence really wanted to flood Iraq with weaponry that would turn our armored personnel carriers into well-insulated BBQs, they could have done it long ago. It's clear they're not doing that. They're smart enough to follow Napoleon's advice not to interfere with an enemy in the process of destroying himself -- and stockpiling the new IED designs on their side of the border in case we're stupid enough to invade.

The situation in Iraq right now is optimum for Iran. Iraq is like a nuclear reactor that they can control by inserting and removing control rods. If Shia/Sunni violence looks like cooling off, Tehran's agents, who have penetrated both sides of the fight, play the hothead in their assigned Sunni or Shia gangs and lobby for a spectacular attack on enemy civilians or shrines -- whatever gets the locals' blood up. Then, if things get too hot, which would mean the U.S. getting fed up and leaving, they drop a control rod into the reactor core by telling Sadr to call off his militia or letting the Maliki regime stage some ceremony for the TV crews, the kind that keeps the Bushies back in Ohio convinced it's all going to come out fine.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, iran, united states

Gary Brecher writes for the English alternative weekly in Moscow, The eXile.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Dead on!
Posted by: zyxwvut on May 7, 2007 1:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dead on! Posted by: Bozwell
» RE: Dead on again! Posted by: flipside
Iran ain´t dumb
Posted by: ZPaul on May 7, 2007 1:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yep, Iran´s leadership is a lot shrewder than many people think -- and its policies are in rather sharp contrast to the Bush administation´s disastrous activities in the area.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Iran ain´t dumb Posted by: willymack
IDIOT!
Posted by: colinmeister on May 7, 2007 3:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuke Iran and you'll be paying 6+ bucks a gallon for gas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Then there is only ONE SOLUTION!
Posted by: annm on May 7, 2007 3:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
oops. someone can't read!! i suggest you go back and read the article again.

peace

annm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

well said, agent Cheney-ajad
Posted by: cold2touch on May 7, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how about finishing Iraq first?
But I forget, according to the unelected US ruler, this was a Mission Accomplished 4 years ago ...
so, let's repeat the succes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are you insane?
Posted by: Knowmad on May 7, 2007 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excuse me, but are you people actually discussing the price of gas, when the thread has to do with attacking yet another country and likely massacring hundreds of thousands of innocents?

I know your country is circling the drain, but this is too much: immoral, backward, criminally elitist and simply shameful. It's something I'd expect from your ignorant righties, not the supposedly progressive minded. Are you blind to what you've been doing lately, particularly over the last six years?

Perhaps it's not Iran who needs disipline by munitions - seems that's all some of you understand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's what the teasonous PNAC neocons say, Temporary. Are you a traitor too?
Posted by: HughScott on May 7, 2007 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ditto.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Then there is only ONE SOLUTION!
Posted by: flipside on May 7, 2007 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And then what? The US would be stupid to fire the entire arsenal off on Iran leaving itself vulnerable to the genuine nuclear players not to mention the very shallow laying oil fields in Iran catching fire and burning away without producing any useable energy instead creating a whole new meaning to global warming in an area that would be contaminated for hundreds of thousands of years.
That might be just the excuse Russia needs in order to step up their role in the theater. Russians stand behind Putin like no other russian leader since Kruschev, he has repeatedly claimed to want to restore Russia to the splendor it once possessed.
Even if no nation or nations dared to defy the US after such an attack, the reputation is ruined for decades, and when it's no longer cool to invest american, the foreign interests take their capital and leave which makes the nation ripe for financial isolation. Past allies rethink their alliances and in the end, the US loses because the cronies and flag wavers are chosen to lead instead of the best person for the job.
It would be delightful to live in a world where the simplest sounding solutions were a "sure thing", but as Einstein said, "The level of intelligence that caused this problem is not sufficient to solve it.".
Diplomatic relations may sound boring and a compromise always seems to be railed against as giving ground, but at the end of the day, the security of the world always depends on a certain level of respect for one another and this regime has proven times over that it has no respect for law, custom or even the truth.
Follow their lead at your own peril.
For history has always shown that such a financial drinking binge as the US has embarked upon winds up with one heckuva hangover, Brownie! The working people that have to work that one off will hold the symbols of the authoritarian/fascist accountable for some time to come.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who won?
Posted by: han on May 7, 2007 3:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The international money bankers, the chinese, the weapons industry and... BushCo won. Sure they lost popularity, who gives anything about _ratings_ _after_ the elections. They made shiploads of money, that's what counts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who won? Posted by: willymack
Overlooking the obvious
Posted by: le_blanc on May 7, 2007 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The true winners of the so called Iraq war have nothing to do with flags, national boundaries, or political idealogies.

To name but a few:

Halliburton (check their profit charts for the past few years. Ask yourself why they're moving headquarters to United Arab Emirates if the owners are Americans. Visit this article for the scoop.

Blackwater Need an Army?... just pick up the phone!... (and buy some Blackwater stock while you're at it... ) More info...

Chevron
Exxon
Shell Oil
British Petroleum -- Read Joshua Holland's article from October 16, 2006, right here on AlterNet

The list goes on....

A good magician works great magic with a wonderful tool: distraction.

Anyone focusing on flags, nations, and idealogies will make an easy audience for the magicians who care not how many lives are destroyed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Overlooking the obvious Posted by: Veronique
No one. Everyone loses.
Posted by: Jim on May 7, 2007 4:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Generally wars are not won. Everybody loses. True this time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not everyone, Posted by: kellysgarden
Iraq War Beneficiaries
Posted by: guybjones on May 7, 2007 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The military industrial complex seems to doing quite well as a result of the war. Northrop Grumann, General Dynamics, United Technologies, Raytheon, Boeing, et al. are reaping solid profits as a result. Just think of all the munitions and equipment that is being used up over there and has to be replaced continuously. Is is distinctly in their interest to perpetuate this conflict (and other fronts in the "war on terror") for as long as is feasible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get over it, Democrats. The Iraq War was never lost.
Posted by: HughScott on May 7, 2007 5:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because it wasn’t winnable in the first place. And not because President Bush rushed our troops into Iraq without just cause, proper equipment, adequate peacekeeping training or a viable exit strategy.

Gulf War 2 was doomed to failure when Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz first advocated regime change in 1997 -- the year they formed the rightwing subversive organization, Project for a New American Century, commonly called ”PNAC.” Bush is connected to PNAC through his brother, Jeb, one of the original 25 founders.

PNAC's 1997 Statement of Principles contains the following sentence: "The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire." Even so, despite the cautious guardian goal, PNAC published a 90-page report prior 9/11 titled, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," that contained just one reference to global terrorism: a throwaway line which equated terrorists with organized crime.

The PNAC gang began planning regime change during the Clinton years. Eerily they predicted an attack on Iraq would be supported by the American people after suffering a “catastrophic and catalyzing Pearl Harbor-type event" (PNAC's words). Thus, to the neocon cabal, 9/11 was an excuse to attack Iraq, not a cause.

PNAC made its imperialist goal crystal clear on Sep. 20, 2001, with a letter to President Bush, which said in part: "It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Yet, despite that statement and the intimate involvement of key White House officials, Democrats in Congress seldom mention PNAC and have no plans to investigate the obtrusive neocon organization. To the sleepwalking Dems, “PNAC” is a snack food candy bar.

The press is not immune from criticism, either. When I began researching PNAC in early 2006, the online archives of my home newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, showed just two articles since 1997 with the keyword “PNAC.”

In sum, the blind eye shown to PNAC by our media and Democrats in Congress, including Harry Reid and Nancy, is appalling. It’s like memorializing the attack on Pearl Harbor without mentioning who did the bombing.

For AlterNet visitors unfamiliar with PNAC who desire more information, visit my non-profit investigative website, FreedomCentralUSA.com.

Bloggers spooled up on PNAC will appreciate an alphabetical list of 225 members (called “signatories”), including Democrat hawks with liberal skins, such as former Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright.

PNAC signatories currently in the Bush administration included:

Elliott Abrams, Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs
Seth Cropsey, Director of Voice of America
Paula Dobriansky, Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs
Bruce Jackson, U.S. Committee on NATO
Peter Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intl. Security
Randy Scheunemann, DOD advisor to Secretary Rumsfeld
Robert Zoelick, Deputy Secretary of State

Former Bush administration PNAC members include:

Dick Armitage
Kenneth Adelman
John Bolton
Francis Fukuyama
Richard Perle
Dov Zakheim

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz, the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rumsfeld, too.
Posted by: douglashoyt on May 7, 2007 5:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rumsfeld move his money out of the USA some time ago, into Euro's.

This article is more true than I would like to believe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look at the article from the other side of the argument
Posted by: bob357 on May 7, 2007 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually you can see the logic from China, India and Russia's point of view. They would rather see a multipolar world where the USA is one of a number of competing power centres. What a golden opportunity to bring the USA down a peg (or several in one go) while the US has a moron as leader with a team of blood thirsty cowards who have avoided any actual service in the armed forces but are happy to sent other peoples sons and daughters to their deaths in pursuit of their PNAC!

Maybe for the rest of the world the more the US's strength is wasted and bled the better for peace loving people everywhere else! (Including the majority of the US's population who have been misled and used and abused by the power elite in the US)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You still don't get it! Posted by: flipside
» You nailed it, flipside. Posted by: HughScott
Totally right
Posted by: Bobsays on May 7, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
War must never be entered into lightly. This is the biggest mistake liberals make. That is why there is no such thing as 'nice' war to help people. You only go to war when it is your direct interests at stake. And when you do, you fight to win. Anything less and your enemies will learn, and come back at you and bite your ass. That is reality.

America needs to wake up and realise that yes, it is in charge of the world's security. America makes sure it is reasonably safe for planes to fly, for people to do business in peace. And that means showing no mercy to anyone who threatens that. And that means fighting it like we did in WWII. You area bomb if that is what it takes.

Security never comes free and mincing guilt freeks are putting the whole world under grave threat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Totally right Posted by: ateo
» Total Doublespeak bob Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Totally wrong Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: Totally right Posted by: leafsong1
» yah... what he said!!!!! Posted by: elfinito
» RE: yah... what he said!!!!! Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: yah... what he said!!!!! Posted by: elfinito
RE: America lost because America lacks the will to do what is necessary to win
Posted by: brunowe on May 7, 2007 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So you propose winning an unjustifiable war by genocide?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

absurd on so many levels
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on May 7, 2007 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all your post is full of some pretty serious contradictions. First you say we should have completely leveled cities like Falluja. Fuel air bombs you say! (As if blanketing the land with DU wasn't enough?) Then you say we need to start up a draft? WTF do we need a draft for, to use people as bombs?

And I don't suppose it matters to you that the republicans played themselves off as allies of the Iraqi people. You know, liberators? SO MY REAL QUESTION IS, HOW CAN WE BE ALLIES AND AT THE SAME TIME BOMB THEM TO SMITHEREENS? I wouldn't expect an answer to that, because if you could give a logical answer to questions like that, then you wouldn't have your Hitlerian worldview to begin with. Since you mentioned Prozac, I feel it important to ask... are you on it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: right on Iconoclast Posted by: Ripcord
RE: America lost because America lacks the will to do what is necessary to win
Posted by: mommy64 on May 7, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Just wipe it off the face of the Earth and leave every man, woman and child dead. We would continue to do this in every area of the country that gives us trouble until the will of the people is completely and utterly broken." Why should Americans behave so horribly because someone else might? Additionally, you have "axis[ed] of evil," the whole of China and Russia. Bush II got oil contracts, and "Halliburton, Blackwater, Chevron, Exxon, Shell Oil, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamic, United Technoloby, Raytheon, Boeing, AND British Petroleum," celebrate their triumph at a tax-payer-funded White House dinner this evening. Twenty-four air bases, property of the people of Iraq, built by U.S. contractors, manned by United States authority, are positioned to attack other countries, an out-post attack station, one that deflects from its source, The United States of America, in legion with its collaborators, including Supreme Court member enablers, to extent, repeating Nazi Germany, 1933-45.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» agreed mommy64 Posted by: Ripcord
But what about the OIL
Posted by: james2021 on May 7, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THAT is the only reason we are there, and to make profits for the Industrial/Military complex. Only way to have an ever increasing profit stream is to have a War Without End. And that is exactly what The NeoCons wanted. America will be bled dry, all for the sake of Money to the Rich. This is not a liberal ideal. it is a Repugwican ideal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: But what about the OIL Posted by: mommy64
» RE: But what about the OIL Posted by: mommy64
Don’t attack us, ateo. Blame the bastards who got America into Iraq -- the treasonous PNAC neocons.
Posted by: HughScott on May 7, 2007 10:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ditto.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The failure in winning the social front
Posted by: chomsky on May 7, 2007 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iraq is no good for anyone if all of it's cities are destroyed and all of it's people killed. Who would want to occupy and rebuild a country like that? That would create far more problems then solutions. The massacre of Falluja and others like it would inspire countless Muslims in the world to devote their lives to fighting the savage and unholy cruelty of the US super power. Fundamentalist Muslim would cease to be a fringe group, because they would now have hard evidence of the West's evil.

Iraq cannot be won by a purely military solution.

The war should have been fought on an equally strong social front along with the military front. The key would be to get the average Iraqi to approve of US intervention, to see us as a benevolent giant. Besides strategic military action (which are an important front), we needed equally strong social actions. Recruit the most brilliant and qualified (not the most right-wing loyal) minds in America to build hospitals, power plants, create new jobs, etc. Have the best American professionals train Iraqi professionals in every field. Have the president tell the American people that it is their duty to help Iraq in every constructive way they can because it is ultimately in the best interest of the US as well.

The president must tell the people that terrorists are the enemy, AND our ally is the average Iraqi citizen, who are a people of faith who love their families and seek a better future not unlike most Americans. Winning the social front of the Iraq war would require the most brilliant minds America has to offer working towards a common goal. And the result, if done right, would be replacing a dictatorship with a shining America friendly democracy in the heart of the Middle East, new found respect and pride for America, and a life with hope for the Iraqi people. A goal worth endeavoring.

Winning the social front in Iraq, which would require military actions against Soddam and insurgents, would of course mean not torturing or massacring anyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» sensible suggestions chomsky Posted by: Ripcord
» correction Posted by: chomsky
We leveled Falluja yet it is as violent as ever
Posted by: sarahk on May 7, 2007 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keep up with the war news. We leveled Falluja and killed enough people so that we had to dig a mass grave and dump bodies in with bulldozers.
The interesting thing was that for a couple weeks before we invaded Falluja, we put a tight ring on the city and only let women and children out. Any boy over 14 had to stay in the city and was not allowed through the US checkpoints, therefore many mothers chose to stay in the city to avoid being separated from their older sons. When we went in, our estimates (the estimates given to the US media by our military) said that there were only 30,000 people in the city. Non-US estimates put the total of population left at 300,000. Once we started bombing, we exploded the hospital very early on, because some higher-ups was annoyed with the propaganda stories of horribly wounded families streaming in to the facility. Bombing the building stopped that "propaganda" dead. Meanwhile, there was speculation that most professional fighters, insurgents, ect... had already left the city before the invasion by swimming the Tigris river and evading the US checkpoints--something that would be more difficult for family groups to do. Our military was against going into Falluja, but our politicians thought it would be cool for us to take down the city.
The problem is not that the US is not violent enough in its methods, the problem is that now, with our lose of global respect and prestige, we only seem to have violence left as a method to motivate other countries to do as we wish.

Also, please remember that Saddam was propped up for many years by the US. He was our big buddy; our weapon to use against Iran. Remember when Rumsfield was the Chief Envoy to Baghdad and gave him a BIG hug in the photo op. In the 80's we sent him all kinds of biological warfare (anthrax and botiulism(sp?)) from the CDC, and over many years, our military gave him the co-ordinates he needed to gas Iranians and Kurds more effectively.

Also, you need to read up about the rise and fall of great empires, such as Rome and Great Britian and Spain. Genocide is and has been used many times by empires, but it has never stopped an empire from collapsing. Commiting Genocide is usually a sign that an empire is nervous about it's power. It is a symptom of the agressor nation destroying itself from the inside out. It represents a lose of the humanity of the agressor empire and a crumbling of its peoples' moral clarity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: America lost because America lacks the will to do what is necessary to win
Posted by: Fade on May 7, 2007 12:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a fucking pyscho. Yes, what we need is more hitleresque genocidal activity. We need to have our troops rape more citizens, shoot more 5 year old kids in the head. That'll teach these dirty ragheads to defend their country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ripcord you can't even spell! Posted by: sheena2u
You sick mass-murdering psychotic freak.
Posted by: johndoraemi on May 7, 2007 3:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"What we must do is go into a city like Falluja that has given us so many problems and level it to the ground."

They did, Herr Goering. You just are ignorant of it.

Your philosophy is indistinguishable from Nazi ideology.

Your criminal mindset is disgraceful, and you are without any moral legitmacy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: America lost because America lacks the will to do what is necessary to win
Posted by: mythbuster on May 7, 2007 4:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's been difficult for you since they disbanded the SS, hasn't it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ateo
Posted by: famouspipeliner on May 7, 2007 4:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You fascist pig.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In the minds of the right-wing fascists, they only wanted what Adolf wanted
Posted by: chief of okeefe on May 7, 2007 6:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you to ateo for, once again, letting a little of the neo-con warmonger mindset get exposed in public. Usually, you have to get a bunch of them alone, away from decent people, to hear talk like this.

As you can see from his writing, it was never about that phony "liberation" of Iraq. It was about conquest and subjugation. The same thing that Nazi Germany did to Poland in 1939. Oh sure, before the German attack, the German airwaves were clogged with BS about how Poland was threatening Germany, conspiring with the West to attack, mistreating German minorities (actually somewhat true). Any pretext to provide cover for a simple war of agression.

Once you get inside their heads, the neo-con repubs are Nazis who still need to get just a little more power before they can "turn it loose" and impose dictatorship and mass murder-- on their opposition at home, and, of course, the rest of planet earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: America lost because America lacks the will to do what is necessary to win
Posted by: leafsong1 on May 8, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You belong in prison for having posted this. You are an enemy of the Human Race and it is the right and the duty of every member of the Human Race to hunt you down and kill you like a dog. Your crime is the same as that of Goebbels and the rest of the nazi genocide mongers, except your crime comes long after the world made it explicitly illegal. Do the world a favor and die and go to Hell, where you can join your skank whore mother.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blood enemies?
Posted by: phindrup on May 7, 2007 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to keep our blood enemy Iran from forming a natural, inevitable market relationship ?????

Only because idiot Bush and his clique named them so!

There are private/company winners in this mess, all leading back to idiot Bush and his clique.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not a completely closed loop Posted by: Ripcord
Iran pulling America's chain, but then so is Osama and the AQ boys
Posted by: Bobsays on May 7, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America has walked blindly into every blind alley laid before it like a drunk on a Vegas bender (who hasn't done that?). America needs to start talking to people who think like these guys do. People who have read Clauswitz, Mao's Little Red Book, and learned a lesson or two from the Vietnam War. Instead, America is lead by a toxic combination of the rah rah crowd and the kind of guy who gets every leg up in life from his dad.

America is now on a bloody and painful journey. It is not even at the halfway point. Take a deep breath, pour yourself a big mint julip and make a lot lof ong-term plans: it is going to get rough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ALTERNET FINALLY...
Posted by: Scientz on May 7, 2007 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...prints the War Nerd.

About time...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment:&nb