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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

Iraq Doesn't Need Any More Heavy Weapons

By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real. Posted December 8, 2006.


The Baker-Hamilton report proposes to "beef up Iraqi military" with billions in new hardware -- the absolute last thing the war-torn country needs.
Advertisement

I know everyone is abuzz today about how the Baker/Hamilton commission's bleak report on Iraq represents the beginning of the end for Bush's disastrous blunder. True, there is now light at the end of that bloody gauntlet. But more US kids will have to die before it's over, not for strategic, but for entirely face-saving reasons.

And, if you listened carefully to statements from both administration and Iraqi officials over the the last couple of weeks, you heard the lid on the KY jelly jar being loosened for one last reaming - of you, your kids and your grandkids.

It's a "new plan," a plan to "beef up Iraqi military" so it can take over from US forces. You heard Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki last week claim that the only reason his forces have not stood up to the insurgents so far is because they don't have any "heavy weapons." He wants heavy weapons -- tanks, Humvees, artillery, that kind of stuff.

Maliki's request fell on eager -- no, desperate -- ears. George W. Bush, now painted into a corner by his own incompetence, is now looking for any way to hold off Iraq's inevitably collapse until after he leaves office. And Maliki's request for more military gear was just the ticket, especially now that the Baker/Hamilton has sanctified the notion of encouraging and enabling the Iraqis to fight for themselves.

Of course, Iraq can't even pay it's own utility bills, so guess who's going to have to borrow a few billion dollars more to pay for those heavy weapons Maliki wants?

Bush's new strategy, which has already begun to emerge, will be a two-pronged ruse: 1) Increase training of Iraqi troops, and 2) Provide them "the means" to function after US forces leave. ("Means" = heavy weapons.)

Bear with me here as I free associate on this "new course forward:"

Let's see -- first let's talk about "heavy weapons."

Over the past three years the harsh Iraq environment has worn down our own military's stock of heavy weapons to the breaking point. Nearly $8 billion in US heavy weapons, tanks, trucks, Humvees and trucks, are now up on blocks awaiting repairs at US headquarter and supply depots around the world. Our soldiers in Iraq are now so short heavy equipment that the Pentagon has been looting National Guard and Reserve units to make up the shortfall. Gutted reserve units now need their own $7 billion infusion of heavy weapons to replace theirs which are now being degraded in Iraq.

So, just what can we give Mr. Maliki? The heavy weapons and gear now on the ground in Iraq, of course. We could just leave it behind when our own troops split. Forget for moment that we will have to then replace it all for our own armed forces. Let's instead consider what the Iraqis will do with those heavy weapons.

Well let's see. Maliki is a Shiite. So is that little two-legged tumor, al-Sadar. Shiites are to Iraq what racist segregationists were to the US south a century ago -- only meaner. Sunnis are Iraq's minority. What does common sense suggest the Shiite-government of Iraq has in mind for those heavy weapons. (You only get one guess.)

Which is precisely why, at such as critical tipping-point moment, al-Maliki is not begging for more US troops. And he's not begging US troops to stay in Iraq either. All Maliki is asking for now are "heavy weapons" for his 350,000 US-trained and supplied Iraqi soldiers.

On top of that al-Sadar has his own 60,000-man Shia militia. These are the folks who have been kidnapping Sunnis off the street. Most are later found shot in the head, but only after militia soldiers amused themselves by making holes in them with electric drills. (Imagine the creative uses those dudes will come up with once they have heavy weapons!)

Meanwhile up north the Kurds, who have been stabbed in the back by the US more than once, will go berserk at the very notion that the US is providing the Shiites the heavy military gear. That's all the Shiites need to reclaim the Kurd's newly acquired oil fields -- which of course is another reason al-Maliki wants heavy equipment.

I guess my point here is Bush is about to make things worse in Iraq -- again. We should not give Maliki "heavy" anything. We've already armed and trained his new army with the kinds of weapons necessary to bring law and order to Iraq. I suggest he be told to get on with that task because that's all he's getting from Uncle Sap. (Thank goodness it takes too long to train helicopter pilots or we'd be giving them choppers too.)


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, baker report, military spending

Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans, which was nominated for a Pulitzer.

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

Advertisement
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:
needs
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 8, 2006 12:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iraq needs a withdrawal of Americans, US weapons and US control. Then it needs advice from its neighbors about how to end civil warfare. Then it needs a free and fair election. That's all, folks except for rebuilding the infrastrucure the US destroyed. It's too bad that they can't rebuild all the Iraqis the US killed.

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

» RE: needs Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: needs Posted by: Arvy
» RE: needs Posted by: Edward George
How much of an authority is this guy?
Posted by: HeroesAll on Dec 8, 2006 1:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stephen Pizzo may have written a Pulitzer-nominated book, but I'll bet he didn't do his own text editing. This piece is riddled with typos (forgive me, I was a copy editor in a past life).

Aside from that, he makes a few egregious mistakes. Like this:

Shiites are to Iraq what racist segregationists were to the US south a century ago -- only meaner.

What? Does he really believe that you can sum up an entire group of people in such a shallow, derogatory, insulting way? Clearly he does. Would he characterise any other religious group that way? Imagine replacing 'Shiites' here with 'Jews' and 'Iraq' with 'Israel': what howls of protest would ensue, and rightly so.

Most Iraqis first choice is that their particular tribe, Sunni, Shia or Kurd, get everything they want.

And he just continues to demonstrate the boundless depth of his ignorance. For starters, he's seemingly unaware that many families comprise both Shi'ia and Sunni. For another, I'd say that the first choice of most Iraqis would be that the bloody US get the hell out of their country, and take their damned bases and weapons with them. I'm sick of hearing 'tribal' this and 'Shiite' that and 'Kurd' the other. But then he's citing Friedman, who's well-known to be completely ignorant.

And more crap from Friedman:

"We lost," Friedman, said today. "It's over. We should no longer sacrifice our first-choice soldiers to further the second choices of the Iraqis."

If he really thinks that the US is in Iraq to 'further the second choice of the Iraqis', then I think I have a bridge to sell him. I could probably also sell him the Magic Wishing Key, that opens the door to eternal life, boundless riches, and infinite power.

Yes, I'm cranky. Perhaps it was this that did it:

True, there is now light at the end of that bloody gauntlet. But more US kids will have to die before it's over, not for strategic, but for entirely face-saving reasons.

Now, while I do feel sorry for those who die, and the people they leave behind, why the hell does he not even mention the thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis who will also die, to save the face of their invaders?

I'm sick of commentators who know bugger-all and are so completely concerned about US kids and US face and US credibility (and "US power and prestige" as our own Puppet Minister proclaimed). There's far too few who even acknowledge the vast numbers of innocent Iraqis being killed in this US war. It is they who are the real innocent victims: US soldiers have options such as Canada and refusing to serve in an immoral war. Iraqis can't escape, because they have this evil brought to their homes.

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

» You've summed it up nicely Posted by: WhuThe?!?
Alternet or Der Sturmer?
Posted by: edith on Dec 8, 2006 3:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadr is a "two-legged" insect? Sadr is not a democrat or a Western secularist, but he is the acknowledged leader of millions of mostly poor Shia who have been brutally repressed for generations by Western backed Sunni financial and landowning interests.

Clearly whatever this writer is trying to do is suffused in his racist and bigoted attitude. His insect crack is right out of Hitler's favorite racist newspaper, Streicher's Der Sturmer which loved to draw Jews as leeches and cockroaches. Shia are the new Jews?

Yes, US out of Iraq now. That means that Shia might well control Iraq, and that millions of Sunni head off for Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia(and the US).

So what?

Self determination in Iraq is not going to be achieved by neocon, Western elitist "democracy". Like most third world nations, self determination is usually determined,as Mr. Mao said, from the barrel of a gun.

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

» RE: Alternet or Der Sturmer? Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Alternet or Der Sturmer? Posted by: JoeCraine
» RE: Alternet or Der Sturmer? Posted by: mjabele
Leave it to the study group
Posted by: jlohman on Dec 8, 2006 3:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't pretend to be an expert, and neither should Pizzo. But to leave Iraq naked sounds like more missing intelligence.

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

What a load of crap!
Posted by: colinmeister on Dec 8, 2006 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"So, let me get this straight. We will go to war against anyone that kills 3030 Americans in one year by flying planes into office buildings, but have no interest in going to war against those that kill 17,000 Americans every year by providing them deadly drugs."

Nobody is forcing any Americans to take drugs, legal or illegal. This comment reverts to the old "War on drugs", another lost war, where the US dumped herbicides on fields in foreign lands because US citizens wanted to take drugs.

Supplying the Iraqis with heavy weapons is another way for the Bushies to repay the arms industry for political donations. The Bushies would find it better if the Iraqis did just kill each other off, then there would be nobody to get in the way of US oil companies stealing all the Iraqi oil.

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

» RE: What a load of crap! Posted by: Sawitcoming
» RE: What a load of crap! Posted by: jmooney
» RE: What a load of crap! Posted by: waves999
Our Friends the Israelis
Posted by: JoeCraine on Dec 8, 2006 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Israelis will never agree to letting the new Iraq have serious weapons, so that option is out.

Remember, it may have been Israel's discomfort with our having sold Chem/Bio to Saddam that got us into this mess in the first place.

Little side comment, Afghanistan never attacked us and, the guy this lying administration would like you to believe did is no longer there. They are harboring no one.

We have no business staying in Afghanistan. I might not like the taliban (no, that's for sure!), but, there will be no more drugs if we let them run the place.

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

If Bush leaves Iraq heavy weapons...
Posted by: bob t on Dec 8, 2006 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's do a logical extension of that point of leaving/or giving heavy weapons to Iraq. Not only does this allow the Shiites better able to destroy the Sunnis but in attempting to do so the Shiite Iraqi gov't will anger all the Sunnis in the middle east leading directly to a very destabilized middle east which would make Bush and the repubs very happy. BUT THEN what will happen when the middle east countries re-stabilize and come together to form a more perfect union, and that is the real danger. If they all unite and Saudi Arabia will make sure that happens as will India(nuclear weapons) and Pakistan(also nuclear weapons) and Israel(loaded with nuclear weapons) will erupt in nuclear war and quite possibly trigger a nuclear winter or at least cause a major disruption of the world wide ecosystem. But no one can stop the Bush family or the repubs or the Neocons or the Theocrats; the white southern Baptists or the Catholic Church, my church. SO
PRAY FOR PEACE
and make sure the now helpless citizens of America take back our government from all the dangerous groups within America, as previously mentioned.

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

Bush IS A Corporatist
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 8, 2006 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's about money, it's always been about money and it will be about the money as long as there is a wisp of breath in his lungs. The fact that Baker was on the group, much less the head, should tell you all you need to know.

No good answers, but more opportunities for the monied elites. And please, don't forget that they want to privatize the oil. God forbid that a state controls the national oil resources instead of a handful of international energy companies. Keeping a Texas Lawyer away from Oil is like keeping ants away from a picnic or teenage boys from looking at Playboy.

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

» RE: Bush IS A Corporatist Posted by: bjerko
Iraq and Darfur
Posted by: lamar on Dec 8, 2006 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US should not be in Iraq. But if we leave, won't it turn into another Darfur?

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

» RE: Iraq and Darfur Posted by: Conservasaurus
Good piece
Posted by: jmooney on Dec 8, 2006 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love this piece. Those figures of all the people who died the same year and the causes of their death, that's just great. This is a stupid country that would allow a man to do what Bush has done to avenge the deaths of 3000 (including using those deaths as a pretense to attack a country that had no real direct contact with the organization that did the deed). And, yet, with thousands of more preventable deaths that same year, we take, at best, only modest action and, at worst, reduce action. This is a crazy time and a crazy place.

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

» RE: Good piece Posted by: makeadifference
shannon
Posted by: shannyfitz on Dec 8, 2006 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well, of course there's a difference between supplying americans with illiciit drugs for financial gain, and flying planes in to buildings to kill innocent people. I don't think it's fair to compare the two. The point is, we're not at war with the people who flew planes in to buildings, wasn't that just an excuse to go to Iraq for our administration's own interests?

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

war on drugs
Posted by: shannyfitz on Dec 8, 2006 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well, of course there's a difference between supplying drug-wanting americans with illiciit drugs for financial gain, and flying planes in to buildings to kill innocent people. I don't think it's fair to compare the two. The point is, we're not at war with the people who flew planes in to buildings, wasn't that just an excuse to go to Iraq for our administration's own interests?

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

Heavily armed Iraqi Army would level the Green Zone
Posted by: ScottP on Dec 8, 2006 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it, they might attack each other, but all groups would attack their common enemy. The first target for artillery would remain the US bases, and especially the Green Zone.

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

Same old story, same old song
Posted by: willymack on Dec 8, 2006 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, giving the Iraqis heavy equipment is the answer to all our self-inflicted problems? This would be funny if it weren't for the fact that the brazen presumption of our gullibility is downright insulting. We're not all beer-guzzling nincompoops: quite a few of us use our heads, and can see through a transparent scam such as the crap in the Baker "report". What's REALLY going on here is nothing more (or less) than mo' money, mo' money, mo' money! More "war" profiteering for the Halliburtons and Bechtels, and more kickbacks for the bushies. In case somebody's interested, war profiteering is an act of treason and should be punished as such.

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

the absolute last thing the war-torn country needs.
Posted by: Ghoulman on Dec 8, 2006 9:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... yea, but the Military Industrial Complex will get lots of billion dollar contracts!

Face it America - Washington is rather obvious in it's obseqiousness.

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

Rowland
Posted by: motamanx on Dec 8, 2006 12:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, we taught the Taliban to use sophisticated weapons to beat the Russians in Afghanistan, so why not teach the Iraqis how to use them so they can beat the Israelis? No wait, that's not a good idea.

Leave this illegal war that never should have been started--NOW. And take the weapons.

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

This article helps expose Bush's real motives in Iraq
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 8, 2006 12:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What have the Bushes (Jr. &Sr.) and Baker always wanted in Iraq? It's painfully obvious - they want to turn the entire Middle East into a banana oil republic. Saddam was a creation of the CIA and was heavily supported by the US (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Baker & Bush) in the early 80's - the same period that saw heavy support for the Islamic Taliban movement in Afghanistan. In the case of Saddam, the goal was to get him to attack Iran; in the case of the Taliban, the goal was to provoke the Soviet Union to invade.

Fast-forward to the present; the Soviet Union is no more (not because of Afghanistan, but because Gorbachev realized the arms race was a dead end, much to the chagrin of Pentagon defense contractors and the Bush family) and the "#1 enemies of the US" are the Taliban/Al Queda and the Iraqi Baathist insurgency - the old allies of the fratneral Bush-Saudi clan. Iran was moving towards a more moderate political situation before Bush invaded Iraq - which gave the Iranian clerics a good reason to clamp down on democratic reforms. The last thing Bush wants is democracy in the Middle East, because then the oil companies and defense contractors (who he serves) would get kicked out.

This story helps explain how that works; it reveals how the US makes alliances with drug traffic for political convenience (and where do you think the drug profits end up? Chase Manhattan accounts? Citigroup accounts? Swiss Banks and the Cayman Islands?), and it also reveals just how twisted the US establishment really is. The real goal of the US is to install another Saddam figure who will terrorize and control the domestic population, but who will also (unlike Saddam) follow directives from Washington when it comes to the disbursement of oilfield contracts as well as on financial matters (i.e. one who won't swap dollars for euros, thereby undermining the US dollar's reserve currency role.)

Pulling the troops out now would put an end to such schemes, which is why both the neocons and the realpolitikos are so resistant to it. The LAST thing either group wants to see is a healthy nationalist democracy in Iraq. The levels of stupidity, greed and arrogance that such plans reveal is truly amazing - they must all be on drugs & alcohol most of the time - it's the simplest explanation for such behavior.

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

I have a question.
Posted by: polyquat50 on Dec 8, 2006 1:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I keep hearing recently about the 3030 Americans who died on 9/11.

After 9/11 (or 11/9 on this side of the globe) we were told that the people who died in the WTC came from all over the world to work in that great symbol of western capitalism.

So, did all those non-Americans at some stage morph into Americans, or has the number of non-Americans been discarded from the total?

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

» RE: I have a question. Posted by: monkeywrench
» RE: I have a question. Posted by: Conservasaurus
Wake up folks! The joke's on us.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Dec 8, 2006 2:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One poster here alluded to one other factor left out of the equation: that ever-lovin', everspendin' Military-Industrial Complex.

Guess who is going to supply all of that heavy equipment to the Maliki death squads...er...Iraqi military. Our defense contractors! Here we go again: the lower class has its welfare turned into "welfare-to-work" without decent jobs and the middle class gets stuffed with a bankruptcy bill guaranteeing indentured servitude, while the insurance, oil, prescription-drug, and now defense industries get to suckle from the enormous teat of the largest corporate welfare program ever seen on this planet. Meanwhile the public, addled by endless brain-numbing pop-culture drivel and misdirected by clever "news" programs, still thinks good and evil have something to do with why their lot in life is threatened even as it is destroyed by its own government. I'm telling you, if it wasn't so unbelievably depressing, our current mess would play as gut-busting lowbrow comedy. Fifteen thousand years of "civilization," and THIS is the best we can do?!

Just keep in mind that we have allowed ourselves to be played for saps – and we continue to enthrone the very people who are playing us.

In the immortal words of Ursula from "The Little Mermaid": "PA-THE-TIC!"

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

red herrings and argumentation--don't make false comparisons, please
Posted by: tlannin on Dec 8, 2006 2:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, I know your intentions are good, and, yes, the Iraq War is a bloody mess we never should have gotten involved in, etc. But PLEASE use some critical judgment and don't make bad comparisons. Comparing the involuntary deaths of 3010 Americans killed from 9/11 to approximately 435,000 Americans who died from tobacco (where's your source data, fella??) is a bad analogy between the horrors or war and the horrors of tobacco. Look, smokers choose to smoke. They get addicted. They can choose to quit and, if they have trouble with that, they can get medical help. The soldiers who have died in Iraq obeyed military commands to confront or kill people they were told were the enemy. If they said, hell, this is insane, I won't fight, they'd be severely disciplined, i.e., courtmartialed or dishonorably discharged. Smokers have no such limitations. No one courtmartials a smoker. So let's not resort to false analogies here. Big Tobacco is a whole other can of worms.

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

Stephen Pizzo -will the REAL MORON please stand up!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Dec 8, 2006 3:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First..some of this article made sense - but “Yes Virginia, George W. Bush is a moron” from a supposedly accomplished writer? This just labeled him a “Bush league” (pun intended) in editorial terms! I expect this from posters, but not from a published author.

Ok, here’s what makes sense.. The Kurds.. they are deeply pro American and have worked with us closely. We need to make sure we do right by them. As for the Sunni’s, well, They killed everyone else in Iraq so I’m sure they are worried.. But to make it work, somehow safeguards need to be set up.

That said, here’s what is wrong with his analysis.. while it is true that the US is wearing out it’s equipment much faster than anticipated, the cost of shipping it all home far outweighs the utility of a lot of the equipment now. We left quite a bit of stuff in Saudi Arabia after Gulf 1 for the same reason.

Additionally, why take it all home when you can equip their military and continue the relationship as we are the only ones that can supply, train and support that equipment!

“We all know now that the Bush administration lied to us about WMD in Iraq.” – seems to be the thing to say on these sites.. but I’v already shown where Ritter complained in 1998 that Clinton and the UN were not doing enough to force Iraq to open up to inspectors and there was a strong possibility that they had some capability to produce WMD. So the author is just spinning popular anti Bush lines! – who is the real moron here.. possibly the author?

“Rather than declare war on tobacco Bush administration lawyers argued the court should reduce the $135 billion fine against Big Tobacco to $10 billion. “ – yes, typical liberal “lets sue the manufacturer of tobacco products because I cannot read the warning on the package” remark!.. makes sense to me.. still wondering who the real moron is..still think it’s the author!
“The same year as terrorist killed 3030 Americans, 17,000 Americans -- more than 5 times as died on 9/11 -- died from illicit drug use” – the real issue is not whats being grown in Afghanistan The real problem is the weak laws in this country and our open borders - close the borders and shut out a significant portion of the drug traffic.. get the gangs with tough laws and let the police do their jobs.. – is there still any question who the real moron is..still think it’s the author!

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

Iraq: Just WHO does the USA support anyway?
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 8, 2006 6:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The USA has supported different groups at different times in Iraq. The USA, for example, has classified as terrorists some Kurd leaders even though the Kurds are thought of as generally pro-American. The USA has also supported the Iraqi government and the Sunnis. So, do not think for one minute that this thing is not a "gigantic mess." Therefore, for the USA to contemplate leaving weapons or sending in weapons makes about as much as sense as Bushes pretext for the Iraq war to begin with, the imaginary WMD's. One thing we cannot count on is for Bush and company to use good judgement. The neocons and conservatives are in a rage at the report on Iraq, but, this is the reality they have created and they don't like the truth being pointed out.

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

History Doth Repeat
Posted by: Sparks56 on Dec 8, 2006 7:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
American soldiers pullout. A "strong man" emmerges, capable of holding the country together and keeping peace, but only with an iron fist. (Hey, we tried democracy. It didn't work.) The iron fist is happily supplied by American arms manufacturers. The infrastructure is rebuilt by Bechtel. The oil infrastructure is rebuilt by guess who.
The oil flows. There is peace in the kingdom.
There is an eternal but weak insurgency that requires eternal but forceful military resupply and training.
The oil flows.
The Shah of Iran. Augusto Pinochet. Samoza. Ferdinand Marcos. Two or three presidents of Viet Nam whose names I can't recall. "Pineapple Face" Noriega. Even, for a while, a man named Saddam Hussein.
The long list of dictators aided, abetted, and armed by the United States of America, so that the exploitation of natural and human resources could be carried out in a peaceful, orderly fashion.
There will be a new dictator of Iraq. Aided, abetted, and armed by the United States of America.
The oil will flow.

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

It's about MONEY
Posted by: Gregor on Dec 8, 2006 7:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really, to think that the "Pigs at the Trough" want anything but MORE billions is patently naive of anyone assuming we plan on helping any Iraqi's. It is all about money.

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

No, they don't need bigger weapons but it isn't anything personal
Posted by: jbello on Dec 8, 2006 8:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you have a destabilized situation like the one in Iraq, the last thing you need to add to the situation is bigger better badder weapons. That said, I think the author of this article is advocating the right policy for the wrong reason. Mukta Al Sadr is a representative of a large group of poor, underpriveleged people in Iraq. His organization doesn't only support resistance among the poor in his domain, but it provides them with basic necessities of life that the American occupation, and, to a lesser extent, the Baathish/Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein denied them.
To compare the Shia, or even Muhkta Al Sadr, to racist Americans is a travesty. The Shia are the majority in Iraq, and our chosen dictator, Sadam Hussein, treated them very badly for many years. Now they have a majority in government, and they would like to see some positive results from their democratic takeover of the country. However, due to the American intervention, they are still at the bottom of the barrel, and they are still without the basic necessities of life, except insofar as Muhkta Al Sadr can provide them.
If they could just get enough to eat and some utilities and a decent water supply, perhaps they would share it with the Sunnis, but we can't know for sure because the Americans have given up on reconstruction. So, if it weren't for Mukta Al Sadr, they would have nothing at all.
Blaming the Iraqis for their own problems at this point is hypocrytical and mean spirited. We have destroyed their country and now we want to blame them for for their inability to handle the devastated hell we have left for them. In a democratic society, the majority rules. In Iraq, the Shia are the majority, and they are getting along just fine with the Kurds, I might add. Unfortunately, the occupiers have problems with letting anyone rule Iraq, so there is endless dissent. Even as racial quotas are being struck down as unconstitutional by us courts, they are being mandated by our government in Iraq. If the Shia really had power, I imagine they would put down any insurgency pretty ruthlessly, and the fighting would end, and life would go on. And the people, the people, Shia, Sunni and Kurd would go back to living their lives and would have the opportunity to gain resources to reconstruct thier neighborhoods, and the nation of Iraq would once aqain have a future.

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

HEAVIER WEAPONS
Posted by: Melvin on Dec 8, 2006 8:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Heavier & ever heavier weapons & when all else fails give them Weapons of mass destruction! It's win win for Georgie & friends.

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

» RE: HEAVIER WEAPONS Posted by: riley