🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 23:04:23 -0400, "John Gilmer"
<gilmer@crosslink.net> wrote:
><sunshine@texas.com> wrote in message
>news:3D7BC11C.596E48F5@houston.rr.com...
>> totally agree with you !
>>  this whole Iraq thing is realllllly scary ..anyone thought about what
>> the US does if ever we START a preemptive war .. who is going to occupy
>> and run the 'new' Iraq?
>
>To a first approximation we don't care.   

Who doesn't care?  The people who are going to have to be stationed
there for years and years and be nothing but moving targets for any of
a half dozen warring factions?  The people at home, who will lose jobs
as a result of the turmoil in energy pricing?  The businesses who will
have to shutdown or drastically scale back because of failing demand
due to the worlds econimic crunch in the energy aftermath?  The
parents of all those military people who will be the sitting ducks?
Tell us who doesn't care?

>The purpose should be to set back
>the nuke and biological and missile capability back to the stone age.   

No such thing can occur, as there is no major installations in place
to produce such things anyways.  If there were there would be
evidence.  The facts are agreed upon by even former inspectors, what
Iraq has is what it salvaged in the Gulf war.  Read the propaganda
from the chicken hawks the last few days concerning Iraqs sudden new
efforts in acquiring nuclear material.  Either they, the whitehouse,
are lying and Saddam either has nuclear material, in which case why go
public in an effort to buy something he has and is trying hard to
hide, or he hasn't got any, which proves the whitehouse is lying about
that as well, and is desperately trying to put together a last ditch
'make the invaders pay' doomsday machine.  Don't you see the illogic
and contradictions that are flying about?

>The Iraqi Army leaders will face the choice of either standing down or being
>destroyed.   The US had no more interest in completely wiping our the Iraqi
>army in 2002 than it did back in 1991.

Read the original reference in this thread.  It explains quite nicely
just why that decision to let the Iraqi army escape was made.  Note,
that it quotes the actual men who made the decision.

>
>The next step would be to turn over pieces of Iran to our allies, Jordan and
>Turkey.   Among other things, this will also  serve to isolate Syria (a
>non-friend of the US and Israel.)

Now there you have crossed over to pure inanity and fantasmagorical
irrationality. ;)   Turkey has absolutely and unequivically made it
plain that it would almost go to war to PREVENT such a thing.  For it
that happened Turkeys Kurdish problem would be the only thing going
nuclear.  The very LAST thing Turkey wants is more Kurds. 

Further along those lines is the absurdity that Jordon would accept
such a plan.  One, the southern portion that Jordon might be offered
is very much Shiite, and Jordon ain't!  Just what a shakey monarch
wants is a bunch of religious fanatics that will try at the first
opportunity to kill the monarch and put in place yet another wonderful
example of an Isalmic state.

Now as to the concept of unilateral parcelling you seem to forget
somehow that the several factions within Iraq, the citizens if you
will, might just take umbrage at that happenstance, not to mention any
other nation which might insanely liked to have had a pice of the oil,
on the off chance they could hold on to it.  

>
>The "power" would be turned over to the first Iraqi politician willing to
>work with the Americans.

Yeah, like Kharzai in Afghanistan?  The Leader who has to be guarded
night and day by american troops because his own troops try to kill
him every so often?  Or like say the old Shah?  You know the despot
that created Ayatollah Khoumeini?  Whoa, you certainly grasp the
reality of that proffer, not!  Not even Russia could prop up a puppet
in that region.

>
>If we are smart (ha, ha) we will pump enough oil to pay our expenses and
>then leave.

Now there you might just have touched on an unspoken, but very real
possible closed door argument being made by President Dick 'Oily'
Cheney. 
>
>No matter what noises Iran says about backing Iraq against the US, as soon
>as the US leaves, Iran and Iraq will end up fighting.   Since Iran is
>another non-friend of the US, we have no interest in Iran winning and this
>is why (again) we will not destroy the Iraqi army unless they force us to.

Well, I have to agree, and history backs that, it most assuredly would
come to an Iranian involvement.  The public et al seem to have
forgotten the shiite-suuni war, but it is assuredly so that they
haven't.

>
>Frankly, I believe that the "next" invasion will not be Iraq but will be
>Somolia and Sudan.   There are reports than the bad guys have shipped LOTS
>of GOLD there.    Troops and planes left in place there would provide a
>guarantee that Saudi Arabia would not pull a fast one when we invade Iraq.
>The African invasion will be easier to justify in world opinion than Iraq.
>Among other things, the US Army will end up freeing many SLAVES.
>
>>
>
That would undoubtedly go down in history as the most successful and
brilliantly carried out world deception ever.  To completely hide all
evidence of intent, preparation or need, and then at dawn on some
fateful day send hundreds of planes and many divisions of troops.  All
without having made any noticable change in deployments prior to that.
I say, you are one very imaginative fellow...imaginative, but totally
lacking in any knowledge of the subject whatsoever.



 

"Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important than they all. It is not a figure of speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal fact, .... Printing, which comes necessarily out of Writing, I say often, is equivalent to Democracy: invent Writing, Democracy is inevitable. ..... Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority. It matters not what rank he has, what revenues or garnitures: the requisite thing is that he have a tongue which others will listen to; this and nothing more is requisite." - Carlyle