|
Whenónot ifóthere is a tipping point in Iraq, that moment, much like the bombing of the Shia shrine in Samarra, will only be appreciated in hindsight.
The status quo, even considering President Bushís new plan for troop escalation and increased economic development in Baghdad, will likely continue unabated over the next ten years.
I say that the status quo will be maintained because the alternatives, a democratic Iraq free of sectarian strife on the one hand, and balkanization on the other, are not very likely.
The first alternative, a constitutionally governed Iraq, is so far-fetched itís almost laughable.
The second, however, requires some explanation. I donít believe that ten years is sufficient for us to see the balkanization of Iraq. For that to occur, especially considering that such a process of devolution would have immediate geo-political consequences in the Middle East, the U.S. would have to entirely wipe its hands of the region. Not likely.
Taking these points into consideration, then, I propose that in ten years we can expect to see one of two political possibilities in Iraq:
1.) There will be a weak central government (not much different than todayís), where the majority Shia and Kurdish parties, through quasi-federal and militia-based efforts, prevent Arab Sunnis from coalescing into a political force. The Iraqi government will justify heavy-handed treatment of the Arab Sunni population as a necessary reaction against the Sunni based insurgencyófunded by Sunni-majority neighboring states to the west; namely Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Needless to say, the Iraqi counterinsurgency will have two donors: Iran will fund the Shia, and the U.S. will fund the Kurds. But it is important to remember that, aside from the Kurds (and even there is internal debate), it is not in any partyís interest for the Iraqi state as we now know it to collapse. Right now, and ten years from now, there is plenty to be gained from the present power dynamic.
2.) The other possibility is that the Iraqi government will choose to move beyond a tribal-based party system, and allow Arab Sunnis a larger voice in the government. This very notion assumes that Shia party members, for the most part, no longer live in fear of reprisals from its own Shia militias. Such a turn of events would require a powerful figure from one of the Shia parties to step forward, and in the name of political stability if not outright Iraqi nationalism, turn his back against excessive sectarian divisions. In addition, a far more important prerequisite is that political competition within tribal groups somehow reaches a political conclusion.
Everything begins with an assumption, however, and the assumption behind these two divergent paths for Iraq is that the U.S. maintains a sufficient number of troops in the country. I realize that there is much disagreement over this point, and that many honorable people believe that ìthe Iraqis have to want democracy for themselves.î Or, they may also believe that we could accelerate stability by pulling our troops out of Baghdad and letting the Iraqi factions turn on each other, establish a victor, and then proceed from there toward stability. These are both possible policy options for the U.S., but they carry great risk, primarily the geopolitical widening of sectarian strife, and at this point I think the political leadership in the U.S. feels it has taken enough risks.
Iraq will continue to exist within the same boundaries as the present due not so much to a national desire to be so but because it will in all porbability be still under some form of occupation by mainly the US military in 2014 even in 2020. UNLESS.
The US to placate Israel and the irrational and vocal neocons in the US it either bombs Tehran and/or Syria or engages in proxy attacks prior to that time. Then the whole Middle East will might in 2014 look as follows:
!. Saudi Arabia might split up into two separate states as a result of Royal family infighting.
2. Israel will either acquire characteristics of a "ghetto" state. Or become one state incorporating both the Gaza strip and the West Bank.
3. The state of Jordan will turn into a Republic.
4. Lebanon and Syria may become federated.
5. The US will have to accomodate itself to the results of its military actions in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia along with the probability of a catastrophic economic depression.
6. Iran in all probability will replace Egypt, Saudi Arabia as the rallying point in the region.
7. US policies in the region will have to be completely overhauled and political accomodation will have to be the order of the day.
Since this post global question is intended to seduce one to a Nostradamus-like prediction it should encourage Mr. Ignatius and his team to analyze and compile a synopsis of responses,
AND TO ENTERTAIN THE NOTION OF PROVIDING THEIR OWN PREDICTIONS/SPECULATION AS TO HOW IRAQ/THE REGION WILL LOOK LIKE 10 YEARS FROM TODAY.
Iraq will survive if and only if the USA/Israel war criminals do not attack Iran. In the latter case there is a strong possibility that the USA will revert to second-third class status, for she is the most dependent on ME imported oil — Europe has its own and russia for a price.
Mr. Reagan forced the economical collapse of the USSR through reckless spending on military. The USA is in 3 wars as of this week, and is looking at another one or two according to some think tanks, The financial empires of the Hedge Funds, and large financial institutions — which do not create wealth, just play a trading game of almost worthless fiat money [THE USA DOLLAR] against each other, mostly denominated in fiat currency. With the ME in flames, the fiat currency will be replaced by another which would be accceptable to EUROPE/CHINA and Russia. the rest is a revisit of 1929 + for the USA.
Even without an attack on Iran, if the present escalation sufficiently inflames the Shias the USA will be gone in less than a year. I foresee that the creditors will get cold-feet after the USA runs with its tail between the legs, and promote an economic collapse of the USA $ hegemony — bad for the USA, but not as bad as the sceniaro where the whole ME is in flames. Probable that in either case Israel will use the NUKEs, and will thereafter be eliminated by the rest of the world as a state.
Great crystal ball question.
1. US will stay for up to 2 more years until they finally realize it's a no win situation for multiple reasons and withdraw.
2. The remaining Sunni's who haven't been killed or run out of the country by then will have very short life expectancies.
3. Iraq will revert to a Muslim Theocracy. (Dah! like who hasn't figured this out?)
4. Iraq and China will sign an agreement whereby China will rebuild the oil fields, pipelines, refineries and distribution centers for the lion's share of the oil. Iraq desperately needs the money to rebuild their infrastructure. This should take around 30 years to accomplish. (Yes, between the bombs we dropped and what the insurgents have blown up it will take 30 years to repair)
5. The government of Iraq will still hate the infidels. The US, Israel, Britian, etc.
6. The Kurd's will realize that complete separation from Iraq will probably spell the end of their existance so they'll stay loosely associated with the Southern part of the country for defense purposes alone.
7. Finally, the new government will pass a law renaming toilet tissue Bush. This law will mandate a likeness of Bush on each sheet of toilet paper and the Iraqi citizens will be able to finally put George to good use for years to come. A fitting aftermath to an otherwise insane conflict.
to BOBL:
your points are well taken. However, you seem to have left out a way for Iraq to make money [point 7]: international patent and copyright on the SH**paper design, than exported to USA at a ridiculously high price, for special use of devastated NEOCONS [they are all rich courtesy of the DECEIVER].
The Shia area will look more like Iran than the US but they won't be that closely allied with Iran. They are Arabs, not Persians. There will be a Kurdish Republic that will look more like Turkey than Iran. The fate of the Sunni area is anybody's guess. They may continue the insurgency or they may decide to stay with the new Iraq, if the Shia give them some oil revenue and treat them fairly. There is has been a lot of family and clan mixing between Shia and Sunni over the centuries that could auger for their remaining in the new Iraq if it is not closely allied with Iran.
To PG
I really don't believe an increase of 20,000 troops is enough to end sectarian violence and stabilize Baghdad before the 2008 elections. The US will begin bringing the troops home in 2008, but this final gamble will give the Whitehouse to the Democrats.
I do not see much difference in Iraq in 10 years. Iraq will have a weak central government much like Lebanon, with powerful militias dominating the countries population. The US, although completely gone by now, remained around long enough to stabilize the Iraqi government and prevent an all out civil, and regional war which threatened world oil supplies (even the Democrats could understand the ramifications of a quick withdrawal once they assumed power).
There will be an uneasy peace between the Shias and Sunnis. Iraq will be the town hall for the regional Sunni-Shia hatred and a regional war is always a possibilty centered in Iraq. The country will be anti Israel (of course) but not a theocracy. Sadr's Mahdi Army will be a powerful force for Iran in Iraq, and will combine with Hezbollah to harras Israel. The central government, just as today, will not have control over powerful militias.
The Kurds manage to stay out of the fight between Arabs to the south and remain a relatively stable region in Iraq. Part of this is due to promised US help if war comes to the Kurds.
Once the US leaves, however, Iraq becomes a haven for radical Islamic terrorist in the mold of Al Qaeda.
Well Ten Years hence - Iraq will be a 'better place to live in' with due democratic central set-up with sufficient federalism and the tribal areas getting their due degree of 'autonomy'.
Middle-east Royal regimes will also change over to democracies with Aristocrats and Commercial magnets delinking themselves from 'politics' to quite some extent.
Iran and Kuwait - will also trace themselves 'back to the future' - with a good bit of de-westernization [Offensive Nuclear Disaarmament inclusive] but with a definite resistence to a return to Islamic Theocracy as well.
Middle East has a very good political model in their not-too-ancient practice of Kalifat - A good and gracious Fedeeralism that it was
I don't care.
Ten years from now in the United States there will be political science symposia abounding, all asking the question why, for over five years in the first part of the new century, the American government pursued with dogged determination a policy based on the assumption that America's top foreign policy priority was the future of one, mid-sized Arab country. There will be wonderment at the absurd spectacle, grim lamentation of the opportunity cost then and the financial cost later, alarm at the changes elsewhere in the world that proceeded without American influence because of Washington's preoccupation with Iraq.
In Iraq there will most likely be a tense, nervous peace. The civil war will have been fought to a conclusion, leaving Shiites in nominal control of most of the country and Kurds in de facto control of the three northern provinces. Sunni Arabs will have what's left, though their best and brightest will have long since either been killed or left the country. Iraq may be one country, or two or three. It won't matter much by then to Americans, or indeed to the vast majority of the world's people. The long-dreaded terrorist "safe haven" in Anbar will have withered; Iraq, unlike Afghanistan in the Taliban's time, is in easy range of American air power.
There will be some Iraqis seeking the world's attention ten years from now, claiming that their people are at last ready to act on the lessons the Americans sought so clumsily to teach them in 2003 and 2004. Outside Iraq they will get a polite hearing, but nothing more. All the real news in the world will be happening elsewhere.
The name Iraq as a state may or may not exist in the global atlas any more. The Southern and Central parts could be looted by the gluttonous regional powers but not the North. The North (Kurdistan) belongs to the Kurds. And the Kurds have been living there for thousands of years. For centuries, Kurdistan was attacked by strong armies and enemies but never fell into or was ruled by foreign invaders.
Iraq will not exist. In its place, a more advanced and superior country called ìGreat Kurdistanî will come into existence. Once the US forces withdraw from Iraq, Turkey will occupy Kurdistan under the pretext of protecting fictional Turkmen minority and claim the right of possession over the Kurdish city of Kirkuk. Such a move will inflame Kurdish nationalist emotions and lead to the formation of an alarming coalition among the 20-miilion underprivileged Kurds residing in Turkey and the 5 million well-equipped Kurdish forces in Iraq. Both Iran and Syria can not remain uncaring because of their own Kurdish population. Kurds from all 4 parts of Kurdistan will be drawn into conflict involuntarily. The entire regional stability will be in danger of extinction. To destroy Iran and Syria, both Israel and the United States will help and support the Kurds.
To answer the question for a moment we should find some logic based on history.
the blood bath and war is not new for this nation. In last 1000 years history it has seen great wars and distruction of baghdad and killing of the people.
The end result is Iraq or if we say baghdad as central command is still intact and able to govern its region.
Almost all muslim sects were born in Baghdad. Sunnis and Shias and Soofis all find their origion in Baghdad. This is the place where Alif laila is written and this is the place where Abu Hanifa started teaching and then became Imam of Sunnis.
Iraq is the only country in middle east who have 2nd highest oil eserves as well as two rivers flowing across the country.
With last speech of Mr. Bush it appears that the end game plan for Iraq is started. final pull out will be in say 3 years.
Iraq after US and allied exit will be in a state of vietnam we have seen last decade.
All media will forget it and internal rift will be going on with swift changing of governments and occasional blood baths.
But Iraq will not die out. Remember it has water and fertile land.adding oil export which will start bringing construction material.
Iraq have intelligent and educated work force. this is the only country in middle east which is surviving for last 20 years with out foreign workers.
So a new nation will born from the ashes and it will be more stronger.
In 2017 the world will notice that once again iraq is emerging in world map. its presence will be felt at all power corridors.
Iraq in 2017 will be a vibrant and modern nation where the religion will play only a personal role. this is the history of Iraq.
Regrettably Iraq will not be under US or western influence. Instead we can see more chinese and indian influence on the region which will be cooperating with Iraq for reconstruction projects. You can watch Indian movies and songs in the market.
Legasy of Saddam area and memories of tragic war and deaths will be washed away with new nation which is today in teens. And will be avilable only in history books and cofee shop chats of older generations.
2017: Following the untimely death of President McCain, former vice-president, now President Rice announces the continuation of the McCain-Rice Doctrine for yet another surge of troops into wartorn Iraq, pointing out that the 38,000 American lives lost to date in the invasion and occupation of Iraq are significantly less than those lost in Vietnam. "It is a small price to pay for democracy" she intones. Shia and Sunni religiously continue their guerilla civil war, occasionally uniting with their militias to stave off yet another US troop pacification surge. President/Grand Ayatollah Mouqtada al Sadr orders a monument to Manichean Dualiam with the likenesses of George Bush and Osama bin Laden representing the Great Satan and Savior of Islam respectively. Americans go about their day to day business as gasoline prices stabilize at $5 a gallon.
Shiloh
A potentially potent ticket, Rice and McCain, especially if the Baghdad security improves measurably, however, a losing ticket if it doesn't since both are tied to the "surge"...
A creative scenario, by the way.
Thanks for the comment, Tom.
I might add that by 2017 the Chinese manufactured and Walmart distributed "Sunyatsen" automobile overtakes the market in popularity because of its low price and 72 mpg average gasoline rating, driving Daimler/Chrysler, Ford and GM into bankruptcy.
Iraq? Give me a break.The artificial country, cobbled together by the British colonial authorities and held in place by the psychotic Saddam and Sons, will probably be history, having long ago separated into three ethnic entities—though a loose federation is also possible.
Iraq's future hinges on how the United States—and its ally, Israel—respond to the strategic threat posed by Islamist Iran. If the US and Israel do the right thing—utterly destroy and defeat the nuclearizing mullahocracy—the Shiite Islamist militias and death squads of Iraq can be isolated and crushed, along with Islamist Sunni killers led by Al Qaeda (which has ironically been aided by Iran in the past).
If Iran's Hitlerian regime is taken out of the equation, its rocket-happy proxy and ally— Shiite Hezbollah and Sunni Hamas, respectively—can also be effectively eliminated.
Islamism is the new Nazism. Negotiations and wishful thinking are not the answer—there is only a military solution. End the islamist menace, led by Iran and Al Qaeda, before the menace ends civilization. It's up to the US and Israel to act before it is too late. Is it 1938 all over again? We should only be so lucky....
Thus far, the disastrous US intervention in Iraq—an insane invasion and conquest of a contained secular enemy with no meaningful Islamist/Qaeda connections and no WMD—has created a new Iranian ally and helped the cause of the Shiite Crescent. The Iraqi premier is Tehran's stooge; the sooner he is swept aside like the piece of cowardly, duplicitous trash that he is, the better for everyone.
The US has attacked Haifa Street, a Sunni stronghold. Ending the Iranian regimen would pave the way for wiping out the forces of Sadr City.
Installing democracy in Iraq was worse than dumb; it was irrational. The overly bookish neocon concept—a kind of reverse domino theory—was crackpot thinking. Perhaps the Bush administration itself never really believed in it; little wonder the Middle East is rife with rumors that the US all along sought to play the Shiite card to divide and rule....
The newly announced US escalation of the Iraq war can only be defended and justified if it is part and parcel of a larger plan to defeat Iran—and Islamism—at long last. If not, sending more troops to fight and die for the Shiite death squad stooge is beyond disgraceful; it is downright disgusting.
Military history teaches us that successfully occupying and transforming a nation from a barbaric society into a civilized one requires an occupation ratio of 60 civilians to 1 soldier. In the specific case of Iraq, we can omit the Kurds from an occupation plan because they fully support modernizing their society in northern Iraq. and have enthusiastically supported the American forces. The problem is the rest of Iraq. Successfully transforming the rest of Iraq requires 370,000 Western troops controlling the nation for 20+ years, pushing aside the current barbaric Iraqi government in Baghdad.
http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#115853308310007247
Yet, the American people lack the political will for such a multi-decade effort. In the absence of such an effort, what will happen to Iraq?
Iraq will break into 2 or, possibly, 3 pieces. The Kurds will control northern Iraq. Their society will be a prosperous, liberal democracy. The society will probably be an independent nation called Kurdistan. The Kurds will ally with the Israelis. Kurdistan and Israel will be the only true democracies in the Middle East.
The rest of Iraq will either be 1 nation or 2 nations. In the one-nation scenario, the nation will be called Iraq and will be a barbaric society based on Sharia law. Iraq will be allied with Iran. The new Iraq will also have a close economic and military relationship with China. The relationship will fall just short of a full-blown alliance. Iraq has the oil, and most Chinese want the oil and do not care about human rights in Iraq or the rest of the Middle East. The typical Chinese can look directly at a North Korean child being tortured to death by Korean soldiers and walk away with indifference. "Out of mind. Out of sight.", says the Chinese.
http://theclearsky.blogspot.com/#116274437809631696
In the two-nation scenario, the northern part will be dominated by Sunni, forming a Sunni nation. The southern part will be dominated by Shiites, forming a Shiite nation. The Shiite nation will be a barbaric society based on Sharia law, but the Sunni nation will be less barbaric and will be more secular than the Shiite one. The Sunni nation will be allied with Saudi Arabia. The Shiite nation will be allied with Iran. Both the Shiite nation and the Sunni nation will have a close economic and military relationship with China.
reporter (above) implies that Iraq is a "barbaric society," forgetting that prior to the US invasion it was a relatively prosperous, progressive nation that enjoyed the trappings of so-called modern civilization, such as electricity, functioning universities, and a working system of government, albeit a dictatorship.
reporter's characterization reminds me of a remark attributed to George Clemenceau:
"America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilization." -The Saturday Review of Literature, December 1, 1945, p.9.
If Iraq is or reverts to a "barbaric society," as reporter implies, might that not be due to a degenerate invader?
Iraq was an artificial creation made by the British, at a time when nobody questioned this imperial country's actions. A great number of African countries have been formed with boundaries decided by the colonizers, which included different ethnic groups. We can see today the problems which were thus created.
In my opinion, Iraq will be divided into different states, Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni, and will have a chance to survive provided they form a federation and create a cooperation which may work if each religious group (state) accepts to respect the other.
Chaos, killings and foreign interference will be the order of the day until all parties will realize that they have to find a way to live peacefully together, allowing the above scenario to have a chance to succeed. To give Iraq the possibility to find its way and trace its future, all foreign armies have to leave the country as quickly as possible. To argue that staying brings security is a myth. Hundreds of thousands Iraqui civilians have already been killed by the violence of all. The Iraquis have to take their destiny in hands and only then will they be forced to find a solution.
The Americans should accept the fact that they went to war unprepared and without the slightest understanding of the Arab/Moslem mentality. To decide that western values and democracy can be forced on such a divided people - or any other of the region -was just wishful thinking.
Sending more troops will only create new casualties. If there are at present about 3000 deaths which will increase uselessly, there is already tens of thousands wounded soldiers, which very few people talk about.
Iraq was an artificial creation made by the British, at a time when nobody questioned this imperial country's actions. A great number of African countries have been formed with boundaries decided by the colonizers, and included different ethnic groups. We can see today the problems which were thus created.
In my opinion, Iraq will be divided into different states, Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni, and will have a chance to survive provided they form a federation and create a cooperation which may work if each religious group (state) accepts to respect the other.
Chaos, killings and foreign interference will be the order of the day until all parties will realize that they have to find a way to live peacefully together, allowing the above scenario to have a chance to succeed. To give Iraq the possibility to find its way and trace its future, all foreign armies have to leave the country as quickly as possible. To argue that staying brings security is a myth. Hundred of thousands Iraqui civilians have already been killed by the violence of all. The Iraquis have to take their destiny in hands and only then will they be forced to find a solution.
The Americans should accept the fact that they went to war unprepared and without the slightest understanding of the Arab/Moslem mentality. To think that western values and democracy can be forced on such a divided people - or any other of the region -was just wishful thinking.
Sending more troops will only create new casualties. If there are at present about 3000 deaths which will increase uselessly, there is already tens of thousands wounded soldiers, which very few people talk about.
Iraq, rather than an artificial creation, is that area between the Tigris/Euphrates Rivers centered on Baghdad and once known variously as Babylonia and Mesopotamia and considered the birthplace of civilization. Its borders are natural for the most part, from the mountains to the desert to the Persian Gulf. Its religious, tribal and ethnic divisions are the artificiality.
I agree with some of the previous posters that Iraq in 10 years or maybe
even 10 months,will be divided into 3 entities consisting of Kurdish, Sunni
and Shiite. Perhaps there will be an exclusive American/British zone that will consist of the oil fields and pipelines.
The partition of Iraq into 3 ethnic/religious regions is about as likely as the division of the US into catholic/protestant/people of color regions. Get real.
Tom,
You wrote, "Even the Democrat's could understand....." How trite and condescending is that statement? I don't attack the Republican Party as a whole. I go after GW because of his failures, but not the party. The Republican party and GW are not the same thing and I know the difference. I assume there are many bright, well intentioned people, in the Republican party who should be law makers in our land and I respect them. Until you can come to the point where you understand this basic principle about Democrat's and can see most of them as well informed, intelligent law maker's you might as well be Dick Chiney. (Misspelled on purpose)
Kurdistan was to be given independence, according to Section III Articles 62-64, the kurdish vilayet of Mosul would also be able to join the independent Kurdistan. The creation of an independent Kurdish state dates back to the ìtreaty of Sevresî. There should have been an independent Kurdish state since 1920. This artificial creation was the most important mix-up by the British from its inception. The Treaty of SËvres proposed a division of the Ottoman Empire and its territory that should have included an autonomous homeland for the Kurds. The treaty, however, was ultimately rejected.
The transcript of the treaty in brief:
The Treaty of SËvres of August 10, 1920, was a peace treaty between the Entente and Associated Powers on one hand, and the Ottoman Empire on the other after World War I.
The Entente and the Associated Powers were the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Belgium, Armenia, the Hedjaz (Saudi Arabia), Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Yugoslavia) and Czechoslovakia
The treaty was signed by the Ottoman Government; however, it was rejected by the Turkish republican movement and never came into effect. That movement, under the leadership of Kemal Atat¸rk, used the treaty as the occasion to declare itself the rightful government of Turkey, replacing the monarchy based in Constantinople with a republic based in Ankara.
The Ottoman Empire would have lost a great deal of territory by the terms of this treaty, which followed the outlines of earlier agreements between the Allies at the Conference of San Remo in April 1920. Hejaz (now part of Saudi Arabia) and Armenia were to become independent. Kurdistan was to be given independence, according to Section III Articles 62-64, the kurdish vilayet of Mosul would also be able to join the independent Kurdistan. In accordance with the wartime Sykes-Picot Agreement, Mesopotamia and Palestine were assigned under mandate to the tutelage of the United Kingdom, Lebanon and Syria to that of France. The Dodecanese and Rhodes (already under Italian occupation since 1911), with portions of southern Anatolia, were to pass to Italy, while Thrace and Western Anatolia, including the key port of Smyrna would become part of Greece. The Bosphorus, Dardanelles and Sea of Marmara were to be error demilitarized and internationalized, and the Ottoman army was to be restricted to strength of 50,000 men.
The nationalist government in Ankara rejected the terms of the treaty and resisted the Greek army's advance into the area assigned to Greece in Western Anatolia, and its further unilateral advance towards Ankara. Following the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) and the disastrous defeat of the Greek forces, a peace agreement was signed with the Soviet Union. These events forced the former wartime Allies to return to the negotiating table, and the terms of SËvres were cancelled in Turkey's favor by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.
It is time to rectify those errors and put them into effect as they should be.
I have no idea what Iraq will look like ten years from now. I think a strategy over the world as a whole would be preferable. I do know that perhaps the saddest figure of the war in Iraq is shaping up to be Petraeus...I slammed him in a previous post (when writing a letter to U.N. secretary general Ban Ki-Moon) but after reading a bit through his counterinsurgency manual...I should never have criticized him by going from the David Ignatius article on Wednesday the 10th of January 2007...This is not to say Ignatius did a disservice—one can only do so much in an op-ed...I rather blame myself—I should have known better...In fact I admire Petraeus now and could see immediately from his manual the guy is just top-notch...What a pity such a superb man has to go through the rest of his life disgraced by the utter fools around him—including myself...A complete disaster for the United States...This nation truly seems to ruin its best men...Only a massive link-up by the best men, something of a finding of one another and corresponding can straighten this nation out...An insurgency by the best and brightest against the stupidity of this nation...In this sense Petraeus manual is a manual for insurgents as well...Directly to General Petraeus: I apologize for having wronged you and understand fully if you say "Who cares? Who is this person? Nobody..." How is it exactly there is so much evidence of sense in the U.S. and yet over the whole the impression is complete stupidity? I truly do not understand our nation...What will the U.S. look like ten years from now....
Ten years from now Iraq will be fine, must be fine—it almost seems like a crime to speculate that it will not be fine. But I can understand such speculations. We all have failed here—we truly have. Iraq as something of the shattering of the world's heart—our broken heart at the center of the world...But I doubt anyone will ever see it as anything like that, and I suppose even I mention it simply because of a stupid moment of romanticism to demonstrate I am superior to everyone else...Iraq can be fixed: Just get the whole damn world to stop screwing around and join in and fix the damn thing. The U.S. just admit it screwed up and the world stop being so damn selfish and accept the apology of the U.S. and just fix the damn thing. I find it astonishing no one seems to be wanting to do anything and people are outright speculating we are about to have a Sunni-Shia clash right at the heart of the Middle East. It really is strange with all these news outlets, internet connections, etc. Just watching a major storm arrive and everyone does nothing...Just treating it like a storm of nature on the weather channel, except there we do more,—or rather I guess if you are the U.S. you do nothing and just let places like New Orleans go under...The human race...A piece of work...I think more and more I will dedicate myself to religion and philosophy...I was always good at wanting to be saved...And maybe...I can do a bit of saving...Not that I was ever good at it...What does it really mean to save someone else?
Perhaps that a person has to ask this question is proof of not yet being a citizen...A new kind of test for the United States....
NOBEL PEACE PRIZES ANNOUNCED
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2016, divided into three equal parts, to George W Bush, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for their efforts to promote understanding among all men and for their success in bringing lasting peace to the Middle East.
Ten years ago, they put their leadership and even their lives at risk, by challenging their nations to sincerely seek world peace. They were brave enough to acknowledge that their previous policies had failed to bring peace and prosperities to their people, so they put their differences aside and started to work together for the greater good of human kind. With this radical, revolutionany approach to world problems, these three men achieved more than any other leader in history: they found acceptable solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict; turned chaotic Iraq into a peaceful, democratic nation; built understanding among kurds, shias and sunnis; and established win-win arrangements regarding energy resources.
During the last decade, peace has brought prosperity to the Middle East. The eyes of the world are turning toward Bagdad as the 2020 Summer Olympic games draw near. Mr Bush has agreed to serve on the Bagdad 2020 Olympic Committee board. Last month, Bagdad's voters overwhelmingly passed an initiative to name the new Olympic Stadium of Bagdad "George W Bush".
The Nobel Prize Committee is pleased to announce that its decision was unanimous, being this the only time since the price was first awarded in 1901.
Oslo, 13 October 2016
PS: Ecuadorian writer "Berry" has been awarded the Nobel Literature Price for his fiction work summarized above.
21, march, 2017, suburbs of former "Bagdad":
the 2-headed, 10-pound rats come out of their winter sleep, and snif the air. Hum, more dead meat. The forgotten Geiger counter on the left beeps violently as always. Well, at least since that september 11, 2008, when atomic bombs flew like there was no tomorrow. As a matter of fact, there was no tomorrow.
Nobody remembers how it begun. Actually, nobody cares remembering, not those few million humans that survived the nuclear winter. They are too busy trying to find something to eat that is not glowing orange or blue.
So how did it start ? Was is the Americans that launched a nuclear attack on Iran's first home-grown reactor ? Or was it Osamma Bin-Laden, the newly elected president of Pakistan that sent them on Israel ? Or were it the Russians who retaliated on Europe for the raid on their oil fields ? Or was it Raoul Castro, in his last days, that fired those North-Korean made nuclear warheads on Florida, to prevent a coup against his dying regime ?
Any-way, who cares: 99% of earth surface is now radioactive, the few humans remaining barely coming out of their rats-holes.
Speaking of rats, the 2-headed, 10-pound beats have found a whole bunch of corpses; Thank's for them, Mr Saddam Hussein.
After the US leaves in 2 years, Iraq will come to the sensible conclusion that it should work to divide itself into the three provences. There will be two main problems with this approach. First, it will require that a fair deal is worked out between the three with respect to oil money. Second, the three will need to bury the hatchet, determine and respect borders and choose peace over war. Unfortunately, neither of these will happen because there is no such concept as "bury the hatchet" in Iraq (or the middle east for that matter). The Kurds will try to form their own separate country which will ruin the oil money sharing agreement. The Sunnis and Shias will not be able to coexists next to each other because on their list of enemys, they respectively rank number 3 after Israel and the US. Think Iran and the old Iraq. Chaos will ensue, the UN will do nothing because "its still the Americans fault", the Arab league will do even less because, well, i don't know why but if it does not include attacking Israel, the Arab league seems to practice inactivity in regional issues. In 2017, Iraq will look a lot like what Somalia looks like today - chaos and a haven for terrorists. The democratic US President (the democrats have been in control since 2008) will continue to send a few cruise missles over at opportunistic times trying to hit Al Qaeda targets to demonstrate that they still have a plan but will mostly ignore Iraq because they are focused on trying to solve the real issue - the Palestinian problem. And they certainly will not send any American troops back to Iraq.
In his classic, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, the political scientist Benedict Anderson of Cornell University, himself an old hand in Indonesia, argued that a nation is an "imagined community." By his definition, a community has members who are aware of each other's existence although they never meet one another. The media helps to create such a collective imagination.
Iraq, just like most post-colonial states, is an imagined community. Iraq is a single state ñ but not yet a single nation. Most Shiites have no idea what the Kurds or the Sunnis look like. They live together but they don't understand each other. If today the Iraq citizens still live in a single state, it is because of Saddam Hussein's repressive legacy as well as the intervention of the international superpowers.
It now depends on the international superpowers whether they would like to see a single Iraq or three separate countries. It is rather similar to what we have in many other parts of the post-colonial world. If Washington, London, Paris, Beijing, Moscow as well as Tehran, Riyadh and others believe that it is politically and economically better to split Iraq, perhaps, we will not have a country called Iraq again in the future.
This is my blog: http://www.andreasharsono.blogspot.com/
Bob
When you are the majority party in Congress and you hold the Presidency (which I believe the Dems will in 2008), then actually making the decisions that have regional, or world-wide implications is much more difficult than criticizing those decisions like the Democrats have been doing for the last four years. That is exactly what I meant. When I criticize the Democrats, it's directed at their platform, voting or political stategy on an issue, not individuals.
But while we are on the topic of "condescending", the quote below is from Rep. Rahm Emanuel in an article by David Ignacius ("An Opening for the Democrats", Friday, January 12, 2007;). Mr. Emanuel is a Democratic strategist.
"...With House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel plans to use Bush's Iraq speech to pose what amounts to a vote of "no confidence" in Bush's leadership — framing the new strategy as a congressional motion and voting it up or down. Emanuel is certain that Bush's strategy will be voted down and that a sizable number of Republicans will join the Democrats in rejecting the military escalation. Rather than try to restrict funds for the troops (which he sees as a political blunder that would delight Republicans), Emanuel instead favors a proposal by Rep. John Murtha to set strict standards for readiness — which would make it hard to finance the troop surge in Iraq without beefing up the military as a whole. The idea is to position the Democrats as friends of the military, even as they denounce Bush's Iraq policy..."
My guess is that a majority of Americans oppose a troop increase (which I favor), yet Mr. Emanuel is playing politics with that important decision which goes back to what I said awhile back: the Democratic strategy, which completely absolves them of any decisions concerning this issue, is to let the Republicans hang themselves. Why would you guess I was being a little cynical?
PS It is a very effective political strategy, however.
Iraq 10 years from now? Well, a farfetched question and to answer this foresight is required. . . Just pray the US gets out of Iraq soon before Iraq becomes a country in hindsight.
If you study French experience in North Africa, you can say that Iraq
is not going to be normal state in 10 years. In addition, sending 22000 troops in Iraq is not going to fix problems in a long run.
In other words, US needs plan B to solve political problems in Iraq.
I think bush administration should split Iraq to 3 different parts. Kurds, shia and Sunni, i don't think Iraq will unite ever, shia, are supported by Iranian regime and Sunni supported by Saudi and other Arab countries. i am Kurdish from east of Kurdistan which has been occupied by Iranian for long time. i do know many thinks about Iranian society and thier point of view towards America, the only think i could say do not trust them. destroy moqtada sader and nori maleki, ayad alawi is better he is secular he is not racist as others.
freedom for Kurdistan and victory for American, i am very proud of bush administration and i hope one day he will attack iranian regime. i will be a soldier to fight against dictators all over the world.
thanks
khalid khedri
Sirs,
Obviously it will look worse than before Bush started his depredations.
In 10 yrs time weíll see a triumphant Sadr in power with a humiliated and persecuted Sunni underclass. The Kurds will remain de facto independent all the while poised against the Shia designs on their oil. Of course Iran will come out of it with more regional influence, while the Sunni nations of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt etc.will be worried to death at the change in their fortunes. Israel will have built stronger relations with India and China, or have made every effort to do so.
However the sine qua non of oil will make their inroads very tentative. Iran will be more successful.
As for the US I canít picture where weíll be, hopefully a little wiser in choosing wars .What will have to take place will be our getting back on good terms with those we have alienated. In the process we will have to accept a non unilateral stance on foreign issues and listen more closely to our allies. Our shadow will have shrunk vis a vis India and China, albeit fortune might play a hand in their rise. We will still be the most powerful nation , older but wiser.
To understand Iraq we need to understand the rest of the world. In 2017, the worldwide number of automobiles will be about 20% higher. World oil production will be about 10% lower and the US dollar will have fallen by a further 50%. Oil prices will be about $300 per barrel which will be very difficult for the US, but rising currency prices will cushion the blow elsewhere. Futhermore In China and India, cars will still be selling well because they will use tiny engines that will be slow by NA standards but affordible to buy and fuel. Thus there will be pressure on Asia, Europe, and NA to cooperate to stabilize the Middle East. Iraq will have been divided into thirds. Two thirds will be divided between Iran and Syria. The Kurdish region will all that remains. Having a Christian heritage, this region will become a special protectorate of either the Europeans or the Americans.
Iraq in ten years will depend less on than this continuing ,pointless war in Iraq proper and more on skillful diplomatic efforts involving all the regional countries and a spirit of willingness to listen to the concerns of everyone, including the US, and comprimise which would include transparency and follow up and continuing deplomacy. Even the most radical groups have issues and would like to be heard. History, even recent history has witnessed honest efforts in hot spots around the world result in de escalation of tensions, ex. Egypt/Israel, religious fighting in Ireland, even No. Korea which had begun to open up to the west and their Sunshine policy with South Korea until they were banished back to part of the "axis of evil" . Being a bully on a school playground has not proven to be long successful and, likewise, being a bully in foreign affairs has brought us to this very low point in our history. Will we never learn?
The content herein is largely paraphrased from Ahmadinejad's UN speech this past September in which he so eloquently expressed my exact sentiments, although I have "secularized" it":
The greatest threats to World Peace remain with us: the prevalence of military domination, increasing poverty, the growing gap between rich and poor countries, violence as a means to solve crises, spread of terrorism, especially state terrorism, existence and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the pervasive lack of honesty in interstate relations, and disregard for the equal rights of peoples and nations in international relations.
We are not predestined to experience them. Our common will can change the present course to Armageddon.
A sustainable order, nurturing and flourishing peace and tranquility, can only be realized on the two pillars of justice and humanity. The more human society departs from these imperatives, the greater insecurity it will face. Unfortunately, the world is rife with discrimination and poverty.
Discrimination produces hatred, war and terrorism. They all share the common root of lack of humanity and injustice. Justice is about equal rights for all, equitable distribution of resources, and the equality of all before the law and respect for international agreements.
Justice rejects intimidation and double standards. If the prevailing discourse of global relations becomes one of justice and humanity a durable peace will be guaranteed.
Some nations, relying upon their superior military and economic might arrogate to themselves rights and privileges that are am imminent danger to the very existence of mankind. They have done so by means of monstrous deceptions upon their own populations, spreading insecurity and fear.
Thousands of nuclear warheads that are stockpiled in various locations coupled with programs to further develop these inhuman weapons have created a new atmosphere of repression and the rule of the machines of war, threatening the international community and even the citizens of the countries that possess them.
For justice and humanity all nations, without exception, must commit to disarmament and nonproliferation.
Today, the most serious threat to world peace is that one nation has set itself as judge, jury and executioner to the World, relying upon its power and wealth to impose its will, while through its huge media resources it portrays itself as the defender of freedom, democracy and human rights. It has usurped the role of the United Nations and the International Criminal Court and violated International Law, and indeed the laws of its own country. This country and its allies have committed outrageous atrocities making them a pariah in the of the World.
The rest of the World hungers for justice to be done and there will be no peace until it is seen to be done. The United Nations is the Worldsí only hope. To function independently it must move it headquarters to a neutral nation. It must seek increased funding from the nonwestern world and become more representative of the common goals of all nations to live in peace.
Unless a sort of cooperation between the various Islamic sects is arrived at, which is extremely doubtful, the country will be in the same turmoil as it is now and the United States will bear the brunt of all the faults that every person on the planet can come up with. There will never be an agreement between Sects of Islam. All want to Rule and no one wishes to follow.
The best bet is to equip each sect with an equal amount of weaponry and let them fight it out amongst themselves until there is a winner and just one Mullah of whatever Sect cleanses up the rest of them first. Make peace with the winner and offer them nothing monetarily. Require them to finish paying for all of the weapons that we afforded them and allow them that under no circumstances shall we allow their Religion to take preference over any other and if they persist on attacking any other(s) through terroristic tactics then we retaliate with utter annihilation or their nation. But be human and give them a few minutes notice to put their carpets down neatly before they die.
It will never end.
The best bet would be to turn the entire area of the world into a vast parking lot. It would generate income and jobs for the rest of the Free World. People are always looking for somewhere to park.
John E. Kershaw, Ex Warrior. (Kill Them All and let GOD sort them out). I am not a bleeding heart Liberal nor am I Democrat nor Republican. I am an Independent Libertarian.
Keep the Faith Folks.
I think that Iraq will be an absolute cesspool of carnage.
Thank you for the fascinating questions.
To John P. Peddicord
"...The content herein is largely paraphrased from Ahmadinejad's UN speech this past September in which he so eloquently expressed my exact sentiments, although I have "secularized" it":..."
I am sure that Hitler mesmerized people with his eloquent speeches also. What follows elequently expresses my exact sentiments about Ahmadinejad's holocaust conference.
The conservative daily Die Welt (German press) writes:
"...The mass murder of the Jews during Nazi rule is and remains a singular crime, not to be compared or relativized. The Holocaust is a historical fact that up to today still has a traumatic effect not only on Jews. Whoever uses the cover of academic freedom to disavow it, mocks the millions of victims and their descendents..."
John P Peddicord, thank you for this, that UN speech reflects my exact sentiments too.
John P Peddicord,
Thanks for detailing and spreading the propaganda of an Islamic extremist who cares very little about fairness, freedom and liberty. The demise in power and influence of the US allows for an increase in power and influence for Iran and their ideas on how the world should be. Life in Iran today is their idea of how the world should be. Life in the US today is America's idea of how the world should be. While you could easily find fault with any view, ask yourself, where would you rather live and more importantly, why? Lenin said "It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be rationed." Is that really what we are wishing on the world?
The only way that Iraq will last 10 years is for it to transform its government. I think that we should acknowledge that the current government is a failure and scrap it, just as we did with our first government under the Articles of Confederation. To pull all parties into the government, the Iraqis should create a bi-cameral government like ours. In it, each group would have equal representation—Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds—in one house of the government. In the other house, the government would have representation according to population. I think that this transformation is necessary to get the Sunnis to participate in Iraq's governance and give them an equitable voice in it, as they deserve.
Tom Wonacott, Boise, Idaho -
Another thing that distinguished Hitler, was is ruthless pursuit of power and his unwillingness to liasten to others, his subversion of democratic institutions, his spying on and imprisoning citizens. All of these are thing that George W. Bush is actively engaged in. He has now gone from being the worst President ever, a joke, to being a very frightening lunatic. Pray that Congress comes to their senses and remves this dangerous and deluded fool.
Dear friends,
My country, Ecuador, does not receive lots of coverage by mainstrean U.S. media. Well, today, the U.S. should be paying attention to what is happening in Ecuador.
A radical leftist, Rafael Correa, has just been sworn as President. In his inaugural speech he renewed his campaign pledge to join Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua in forming a Latin-american "nation" that will embrace socialism and will fight against "american imperialism".
Among the delegates to the inauguration ceremony was Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a truly unsual guest to this part of the world.
Mr Ahmadinejad came to Ecuador after signing oil and defense agreements with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, and after attending Daniel Ortega's inauguration in Nicaragua. News that Mr Ahmadinejad was coming to Ecuador caused Argentina's President Nestor Kirchner to cancel his plan to attend Correa's inauguration, because Argentina-Iran relations are extremely tense since Iranian terrorists set a bomb in Buenos Aires more than a decade ago.
Today, Ecuador has joined not only Cuba and Venezuela in pursuing communism, but also Iran in pursuing the destruction of the international world order led by the United States of America.
A few weeks ago, the WashPost printed a very accurate article by Dick Clarke: "While you were at war", where he describes how the Bush Administration's obsesion with Iraq has caused the U.S. to lose sight of other critical issues around the globe.
It is time for the U.S. to begin paying attention to what happens around the globe, before it is too late.
Berry,
I hat to tell you this, but it IS TO LATE. The United State is toast, history, a dream killed by greedy, incompetence, and criminal acts. There is flat out no possibility of our recovering from the damage done by corporate outsourcing of our key technologies, our bloated national and personal debts, our non-existent energy and other planning, and the mindless polarization of our society, and our politician's all performing as hucksters. Now, the international bond market now has the Euro supplanting the dollar. Soon to follow is the OPEC peg on oil prices. Look for foreign investment to flee the U.S. over the nexrt 18 months and for the total collapse of our economy. The mmigration and outsourcing and illegals debates will all get wrapped together and you are going to witness racial violence and draconian "solutions" that will foster violence and misery and war unseen since the Great Depression. I cannot see our lasting through this. My greatest worry is another Bush, keen on economic liebenstraum, engaging in wars of conquest that will spark the end of civilization itself. We have become the nightmare that the whole world needs to be concerned of. The U.S. is far more dangerous than Al Qaida and Iran and Israel and Iraq and Russia or all of these together.
Mike
If you can hold on for just two more years, GW will be just a fond memory. In the mean time, the economy is good, unemployment is low, interest rates are low, the outlook is good (unless I jinxed it) and, more importantly, we have not seen a terrorist attack on our soil since 911.
It is a bit of a stretch to compare Bush to Hitler, but, then again, maybe Bush poisoned the ex Russian spy? Personally, I would prefer that Bush stretch the legal limits of surveillance programs to prevent another 911. What frightens me more are the individuals that leak the information (if it is classified) and the newspapers that publish it - especially for political reasons or to sell more newspapers (but always in the name of protecting our fundamental rights). The New York Times comes to mind.
This is a really interesting issue for the Democrats, because if they turn up the heat on the Bush administration, they will be perceived as weak on terrorism, so don't expect many changes to the Patriot Act, surveillance programs etc., although there will be pressure from the usual suspects to end or severly limit these programs.
Tom,
Under your logic, "and, more importantly, we have not seen a terrorist act on our soil since 9/11," we should be singing the praises of Bill Clinton. We never had a terrorist attack on US soil with him in office. Or maybe I missed the numerous terrorist acts against this country in the past and Bush finally put a stop to the epidemic of terrorists doing us harm on our soil.
I'm 56 years old and my recollection is we have had 3 terrorist acts committed against this country on our soil in may life time. I have to admit I was in diapers when the 6 Puerto Rican Extremists stormed the Capital only to be shot before doing any harm. Since then we've had the first ill-fated attempt at the world trade center and then over 20 years later 9/11. Now there's a pattern for Bush to be proud of. He has been able to stop something that rarely took place. Make no mistake about it. This country is as vulernable to a terrorists act on our soil today as it was the day Bishy took office. Our borders are porous and we all know it. The only thing Bessie's policies have done is made it a pain for the average American to fly in this country, get a driver's license, passport or any other form of ID and wasted billions of dollars under the guise, "The Terrorists are going to get us beause there's one behind every tree."
Having said that I don't believe Bust is prone to goose stepping. I think he's just dumb. Chooney on the other hand I could see in tall black leather boots high stepping it around squeaking something about the Aryian Race while muttering, "Kill'em all and let God sort it out."
Here's the issue Liberals, Democrat's, Independent's and some Republicans are now having in this country. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest we are safer today then when Bush first took office. There is a ton of evidence to suggest the opposite. We live in a more dangerous world today because of this administrations policies. People are dying at unprecedented rates today. There isn't a single shred of evidence to suggest more people would be dying if we weren't doing what we're doing. That's the problem. Iraq and Bosh's war has been a religion. It's been fought solely on faith based logic. GW wants everyone in this country to believe the terrorists are out to get us without a single solitary bit of proof that's the case. In the past 4 years if you don't believe the gospel according to Bist you're a traitor and emboldening the enemy. Believe in Bust or go to hell (literally). And die hard Republicans wonder why about 70 percent of the American people are laughing and crying at the same time over this administration. They're laughing because this administration is a farce and they're crying because this farce has long lasting and dangerous consequences.
Historically, there are only two options in the region, the product of many failings: Arab (or Persian) Strongman or Islamic (Judicial) Tyranny.
There are still three options:
1. Iraqis will regain their civil society, fully and before Iranians do, and look something like the precarious balance of power that obtains in Lebanon, perhaps.
2. Some strongman will emerge and bring order, like another Saddam, perhaps after some other one burns out, like Moqtada, murderer of Kohei at the Shrine of Ali.
3. Some form of Islamic judicial tyranny will be imposed, with collective support.
I suspect in 10 years time that Iraq will muddle through as a 'limited' democracy, with a series of compromises that devolve power just enough so that its hard for any one party to do anything unilaterally.
Iran will have developed nuclear weapons by that time and will be continuing their agression, making partners with budding thugs like Chavez and inviting Holocaust deniers to their places of honor and learning...
Soon enough, someone will sit on a Qu'ran (figuratively speaking) and Iran will send their missles and thier army - for "defense", of course.
Accordingly, there is a good chance that Iraq, which will have ties to many more countries than Iran, will be looked to as the staging ground for the next Iran-Iraq war, in which Iran will lose and lose another million of its citizens to "wave" attacks in the name of Allah ...
A possible situation in Irak in 2017 would be similar to what is Europe today. Or at least beginning to walk that way:
There are several great - by size, history, culture, population - nations in the region: Egypt, Iran (= Persia), Turkey (= Ottoman), Saudi Arabia, ... They have fought a lots of wars, have hated each other, but finally have more or less the same religion (= Islam) and people look more or less similar (do not underestimate this point !!!):
This is similar to what Europe was at the beginning of the 20th century. England, France, Spain, Prussia (= Germany), the Austro-Hungarian empire, Italy, ... had similar (bad and changing) relations, even religious wars (catholocs vs. calvinists vs. orthodox vs. ...) similar to those between shia and sunni.
And yet, today, nobody in Europe would think about making war with another european nation.
What has been done once could be done again, no ?
What if "someone" would tell Turkish, Egyptian, Iranian, ... in short, all leaders of the region, to meet and tell them that, in the end, they will have no choice but to live in the same region, and share their burden, culture, history, immigration, environment, ...
I know, it took us 2 World Wars to come to our senses "over here". Will they have to fight to the bitter end until they decide that there is no way out, that there will be no winners and no losers ? I have a theory why they fight each others, instead of cooperating and investing on the long term in their own society, but that theory will not please many readers here (as a hint, it contains the words USA, petro-dollars, 1973 oil-shock, support-to-Israel, divide and reign)
So, in 2017, Iraq could be a sovereign country in the MEC (Middle-Eastern Community), playing nicely and peacefully along with it's neighbors. Wouldn't need too much to happen.
Bob
We are the exact same age, so I am glad that someone else is having trouble with their memory. The "ill-fated" first world trade center bombing was in 1993 - during the Clinton administration.
First of all, I agree with you that the porous borders need to be secured, and Bush as well as the Republican Congress failed to address that problem adequately. There are other areas that need to be secured, as well, for example, shipping, but many areas of our security have improved considerably under President Bush.
Bush removed a terrorist sanctuary in Afghanistan and chased Bin Laden underground where he remains today. In addition, the US has killed many of his top aids. The Department of Homeland Security was formed under Bush. The Patriot Act, surveillance programs to monitor suspected terrorist activities in the US and abroad, stopping the sources of financining of terrorist activities, such as charities and working with our allies have all contributed to a successful (to date) deterrance to more attacks on our soil. To be sure, any President, Republican or Democrat, with that kind of responsibility would take the same steps. The economic cost to the US, alone, is enormous if an attack is successful.
You say:
"...There is absolutely no evidence to suggest we are safer today then when Bush first took office. There is a ton of evidence to suggest the opposite. We live in a more dangerous world today because of this administrations policies..."
If the world is so much more dangerous today, why do you believe there have been no attacks since 911 on our soil? And, in what way is the world more dangerous due to Bush policies? Should we blame the attacks of 911 on the policies of Clinton since Bush had been in office only eight months? Maybe you want to blame the Bush policies for the terrorism in India, Thailand, Indonesia and Chechnya?
You say:
"...GW wants everyone in this country to believe the terrorists are out to get us without a single solitary bit of proof that's the case..."
That you suggest there is no proof that terrorist are out to get us is kind of ridiculous. Do you think that Timothy McVeigh was behind 911, or maybe it was planned by the CIA? What about the USS Cole bombing, the 1993 WTC bombing, the bombing of the American embassy in Kenya, the bombing of the US compound in Lebanon (while on a peace keeping mission) and others. The recent attacks in Britain by homegrown terrorist, the attack against Spain before their elections and the foiling of the potentially disastrous attack over the Atlantic ocean, which could have killed thousands, indicates the terrorist are trying very hard to kill us and disrupt the economies of western society.
Give credit where credit is due.
Tom,
I agree with you when you say: "terrorists are trying very hard to kill us and disrupt the economies of western society."
Being far away from the M.E. and from the U.S., I see those islamic extremists winning hearts and minds all over the world a lot faster than the U.S. can even imagine.
Yesterday, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke to the Ecuadorian press. Let's take a look at what he said:
- "Iran is a friend of Ecuador. That is the reason I am here, to show respect and appreciation for your country."
- "I have been to several Latin American countries, and everywhere I received a warm welcome".
- "Iran will support Ecuador's return to OPEC".
- "We [Iran and Ecuador] have lots of business to do, as good friends do".
- "[George W] Bush is not a friend of Latin America. He doesn't even have time to come and visit you".
Do people believe him? You bet.
Tom Wonnacut is right when he challenges "in what way is the world more dangerous due to Bush policies? Should we blame the attacks of 911 on the policies of Clinton since Bush had been in office only eight months?"
Indeed, we shouldn't put all the blame on the current president for the situation that America is in today. It was already formenting
when George W. took office. Remember Iran Commercial Air Flight 655, shot down by the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes in July 1988, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard? The airliner was inside Iranian territorial waters. George H.W. Bush, at the time Vice President of the United States in the Reagan Administration, defended his country at the United Nations by declaring that the shootdown had been a wartime incident and that the crew of the Vincennes had acted appropriately to the situation. He refused to apologize for the shootdown on behalf of the United States.Now how would America have reacted if Iran had shot down a commercial aircraft and refused to apologize?
AIPAC control of the Republican and Democratic Parties, and therefore US foreign policy, must end.
Tom, all - One of today's headlines is that Iran has been ourchasing surplus military hardware from a Pakistani arms dealer. As usual, our lazy press hasn't done thier homework. That "Pakistani arms dealer" has been purchasing those surplus arms, actually custom ordering them, froma U.S. firm who full well knows that those arms are destined for Iran. Now, I know a bit about this sort of thing because I worked for a very large (and lawsuit happy) Amercian firm that sold electronic test equipment through it's Indian subsidiary to Saddam's Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Serbia, and a few other unsavory places. Now, I went so far as to TAPE several meetings where these sales were being discussed and how they were going about exporting them. I tried, repeatedly, to give those tapes to the FBI, but they wouldn't touch them. Turns out the CEO is a golfing buddy of Dick Cheney. Oh, it gets worse. A shipment of test equipment destined for China's nuc;lear weapons program was stopped by Customs at an airport. A U.S. Senator, a still serving Republican U.S. Senator, and a board memeber of the company with Pentagon ties, made several telephone calls and within 30 minutes a Chinese jet landed at the airport and packed up the instruments and took off.
Now, I don't know about you, but I pretty much figured about then that this whole "war on terror" thing was a load of crap. If
Iraq will not exist. The Southern portion will become a part of Iran. The central part will be shared between Syria and (likely) Saudi Arabia. And the North will be portioned between Turkey and Iran. The Middle East will have changed, too. Saudi Arabia will be under the control of radical Islamists and will have cut all ties with the U.S., impossing periodic oil blockaids. Iran, of course, after the attack on them by Israel and the U.S., will become our worst enemy. Syria will simply be a client state of Iran. Lebannon will exist but in a state of complete anarchy. Since the price of oil had been pegged to the Euro back in 2008, the U.S. has declined into third world status, with widespread hunger, unemployment, crime, social unrest, and violence. This has been made worse by the Bush and Democratic Congress' granting amnesty to the believed 18 million illegal workers. At the time, everyone was surprised when the actual number turned out to be closer to 50 million. This led to widespread white unemployment, bankrupted social services and schools and health care and sparked racial violence, racial warfare, between hispanics and whites and other racial minorities. The U.S. is now called the Iraq of the West, due to it's steady downward spiral into chaos and poverty, interracial and regional warfare and hopelessness. Most of the former CEO's and other wealthy classes have moved to Europe or Asia after transferring their wealth into Caribbean and other tax free accounts.
January 12, 2007 4:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments