Is my wish so awful?

[Stoker]

Suppose (hypothtically) a new Iraqi government came to power and decided it wanted U.S. troops out (including permenant bases), nationalized all major industries (including oil) and declared its neutrality in the war on terror. How would you see such a scenario playing out? What would the reaction be from the country that spent $200 billion and thousands of lives if they won the war but lost Iarq?

The Americans have already stated numerous times (Bush said it rather bluntly, on Larry King) that when the sovereign Iraqi government wants the United States to leave, that they will. I believe this stance because I've yet to see any evidence to prove otherwise.

Now with that being said, due to the current instablity in the "Sunni Triangle", I highly doubt the Iraqi's will ask the Americans to leave anytime soon.

[Black Dog]

The Americans have already stated numerous times (Bush said it rather bluntly, on Larry King) that when the sovereign Iraqi government wants the United States to leave, that they will. I believe this stance because I've yet to see any evidence to prove otherwise.

So you're taking it on faith?

I thaink that's where credibilit comes into play. Remember: these were also the people who cooked the intelligence on WMD to justify the invasion in the first place, so we know honesty is not their strong suit.

Secondly, to accept the viewpoint that "frredom and democracy " are the real goals is to ignore the evidence that comes from the architects of Bush's new policy. It's there in the National Security Strategy, which lays out a plan for the Pax Americanan: an aggressive military and foreign policy embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies and ignoring international opinion if it is contrary to U.S. interests.

The same people who helped pen this strategy were also behind the Project for the New American Century, which called for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern and made possible by a expansion of the U.S.'s global military presence. Many of the strategies recommended by this cabal (including ex Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Cheney's Chief of Staff "Scooter" Libby)

So on the one hand: a mountain of circumstantial and material evidence pointing to the invasion of Iraq as part of a broad imperialist strategy; on the other, the word of the same people who developed said strategy.

[Stoker]

So you don't have any evidence that suggests the Bush adminisration would stay in Iraq even if a democratically

elected Iraqi government asked them to leave?

[Black Dog]

So on the one hand: a mountain of circumstantial and material evidence pointing to the invasion of Iraq as part of a broad imperialist strategy; on the other, the word of the same people who developed said strategy.

[Stoker]

Black Dog Posted on Jan 28 2005, 04:04 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE 

So on the one hand: a mountain of circumstantial and material evidence pointing to the invasion of Iraq as part of a broad imperialist strategy; on the other, the word of the same people who developed said strategy. 

So you now claim to have evidence that proves the guilt of the Bush administration in a crime that has not been committed?

[WageSlave]

Only those things will prevent that monster from stiring up more war and spreading more death and suffering.

If we as Canadians were more defiant to wage slavery in Canada, we could build an attitude for awareness that would strangle the American state, and allow us to keep our resources.

[Black Dog]

So you now claim to have evidence that proves the guilt of the Bush administration in a crime that has not been committed

No, I'm saying we can get a more accurate picture of the Bush administratons motivations from their policies and how they put them into effect than we can from their rhetoric on the tee-vee. Dig?

[Stoker]

No, I'm saying we can get a more accurate picture of the Bush administratons motivations from their policies and how they put them into effect than we can from their rhetoric on the tee-vee. Dig?

So based on his past policies and "motivations", you believe that sometime in the future, if the Iraqi government asked the Americans to leave, they wouldn't? Am I close?

[Guest eureka]

Yes! Put on your tinfoil hat then put it and the content in a microwave. It could be a therapeutic experience.

The asking of the Americans to leave is not really much of an issue. What will be important is the terms on which they leave and the degree of economic control they have established by the time.

It took the Americans 5 years in Japan to esrablish something they could leave, and that with a well meaning administration.

Iraq is a very different case and this administration is bent on control. That determination goes back to long before the New American Century project. Kissinger advocated taking control of Middle East oil through military action long ago. It needed only the right disciples to come to power.

[Stoker]

Yes! Put on your tinfoil hat then put it and the content in a microwave. It could be a therapeutic experience.

I did about two pages ago..........

The asking of the Americans to leave is not really much of an issue. What will be important is the terms on which they leave and the degree of economic control they have established by the time.

Why is it not much of an issue? Do you suspect some sort of " scorched-earth policy" when the Americans leave? And/Or to do expect that even when the Americans do leave, they will still maintain control of the Iraqi economy reguardless?

It took the Americans 5 years in Japan to esrablish something they could leave, and that with a well meaning administration.

Define left...........They still have a Division of Marines and one of the world's largest naval bases in Japan........But they remain at the request of the Japenese Diet.......you see, there are benifits to having a friendly, large American military presence in ones nation.

(The same can be said with Germany also)

Iraq is a very different case and this administration is bent on control. That determination goes back to long before the New American Century project. Kissinger advocated taking control of Middle East oil through military action long ago. It needed only the right disciples to come to power.

So do you have some sort of evidence that would suggest that the Americans won't give up "control" to the Iraqis via their soon to be elected government?

[Guest eureka]

It should not be too challenging to consider that the terms on which the Americans leave are what matters. Where does scorched earth enter into that - though they have already done a fair job of singing even the water supplies.

They left Japan in 1950 as an ocupying force. The remaining bases have nothing to do with control of the country. What they do represent is an unwritten agreement between America nad Japan to allow American dominance in S.E. Asia with Japan as a junior partner: a scenario that is more than likely to play our in Iraq.

Do you have evidence that America Will give up control of Iraq? The economic aims are all the evidence needed to the contrary.

[Stoker]

It should not be too challenging to consider that the terms on which the Americans leave are what matters. Where does scorched earth enter into that - though they have already done a fair job of singing even the water supplies.

I agree, WRT the importance of the terms that the Americans leave on........so you don't doubt that when asked, they will infact leave?

They left Japan in 1950 as an ocupying force. The remaining bases have nothing to do with control of the country. What they do represent is an unwritten agreement between America nad Japan to allow American dominance in S.E. Asia with Japan as a junior partner: a scenario that is more than likely to play our in Iraq.

And whats to suggest that any remaining American forces in Iraq, after the election of a Iraqi government, can't be on the same sort of terms? IOW, do you doubt the likelihood that a sovereign Iraq may also seek the same type of arangment with the United States, that the Japanese have?

Do you have evidence that America Will give up control of Iraq? The economic aims are all the evidence needed to the contrary.

IMHO, this is where your argument (and that of Black Dogs and company) delves into Tin-Hat territory.....

I'm of the adage that one is innocent until proven guilty, as I'm sure most other posters of this site are. With that said, I even admit, that from time to time, I (like others here and in society) don't live-up to these moral standards and in turn, are quick to lay guilt on one that hasn't had the chance on proving his or her innocence.

Nobodies perfect.

But where your argument turns (IMHO) into complete and utter lunacy is when you start to place guilt on a person (in this case the United States) well not only disallowing them the benifit of the doubt, but when you charge them guilty of a crime that has not even occured.........

[Guest eureka]

"Do you doubt/" "You don't doubt." Aren't you twisting a bit in attempts to turn argument around. Your "doubt" questions are about imponderables and do not further understanding.

America has already established the that it is determined to have economic control. That goes back to the early stages of the assault on Free Iraq when they began the carving up of contracts for the rebuilding of what they had destroyed.

It looks like the rebuilding will be going on for a long time since destruction is proceding at a faster pace than reconstruction.

[Stoker]

America has already established the that it is determined to have economic control. That goes back to the early stages of the assault on Free Iraq when they began the carving up of contracts for the rebuilding of what they had destroyed.

It looks like the rebuilding will be going on for a long time since destruction is proceding at a faster pace than reconstruction.

So you have evidence to suggest that once the Iraqis elect a government, the United States will refuse to turn over total control of Iraq to the Iraqis?

Or is this just a "hunch"?