Bush Plays With Fire

[Carrera]

It seems to me Junior is feeling the pressure a lot now as his botched Iraq policy goes from bad to worse. It now seems as if he's staking everything on a bloody urban conflict to try and stamp out the Sunny insurgency by sending in 20,000 more troops.
After Saddam's lynching, it seems Sunnis have dug their heels in and I hear reports of heavy fighting around Baghdad with 150 U.S. troops apparently wounded and also many Sunnis killed or wounded.
The bet is, the Sunnis will disappear for a while when the U.S. troops arrive and then creep back in for targeted guerilla strikes. That will mean, more casualties on all sides.
More serious is the fact Junior now seems to be hoping to bring the conflict to Iran in order to possibly save his politcal legacy. Some Iranian Guard have been arrested within Iraq and Cheney has accused Iran of interference e.t.c.
The fact remains Bush has created a very difficult situation for himself with Iran. After so many casualties in Iraq, a conventional groundwar against Iran would no doubt bring a toll of hundreds of troops killed each day.
Some of the hardliners have been advising tactical nuclear weapons against Iran but this is a very risky business indeed. I think if Bush really does stake the tension up to that point, other countries may well get involved - such as Russia and China who would possibly not tolerate such an escalation near their borders.
There is every chance Bush may find himself the target of a backlash in his own country. I think he's playing with fire at this point.

 

[sogood]

The Bush admin are obviously targeting Iran (part of that Axis of Evil) as the blame target for their failures in Iraq. It takes an idiot to not see that only a few weeks ago they were gesturing to Iran to assist in the turmoil, and now they changed face and placed all the blames on Iran. So the question comes back, does Bush actually know what he is doing? Can he actually differentiate friends from foe?

Pathetic, utterly pathetic!

 

[Carrera]

As is well known, I'm no fan of Iran. Even so, I can't really blame the Iranians for going on the attack and causing problems within Iraq. The Iranians must have known that if Bush's war in Iraq had gone well, there would certainly have been a similar policy of regime change in Iran. No sane Iranian would wish to see their country ruined and bled dry so, sure, it made sense to do all that was possible to sabotage any success in Iraq. This is looking at it from an Iranian's perspective. You have to view things this way - put yourself in that position.
Bush's aim was to try and give an image of prosperity and success in Iraq as a cover for his other objectives. Rebels within Iraq have obviously done all they can to expose Bush's aggression and imperialism using a policy Russia employed against Germany when Germany invaded in WW2. It's called "scorched earth policy". Stalin was pretty determined that when ****** invaded, the land would be burnt dry and scorched to make Germany's presence in the USSR intolerable. That's how the Russian Winter "nailed" German forces in the end.
This is what we see in Iraq. Anyone who takes a good, hard look at the state of the country will surely conclude Blair's speeches about democracy and the so-called battle for freedom is a whole bunch of hot air. The country has been sabotaged from within. I hear this was largely a part of Saddam Hussein's orders prior to the invasion.
The cold reality is these troops are not wanted in the country by the Iraqis. Who can blame them?

The Bush admin are obviously targeting Iran (part of that Axis of Evil) as the blame target for their failures in Iraq. It takes an idiot to not see that only a few weeks ago they were gesturing to Iran to assist in the turmoil, and now they changed face and placed all the blames on Iran. So the question comes back, does Bush actually know what he is doing? Can he actually differentiate friends from foe?

Pathetic, utterly pathetic!

 

[limerickman]

As is well known, I'm no fan of Iran. Even so, I can't really blame the Iranians for going on the attack and causing problems within Iraq. The Iranians must have known that if Bush's war in Iraq had gone well, there would certainly have been a similar policy of regime change in Iran. No sane Iranian would wish to see their country ruined and bled dry so, sure, it made sense to do all that was possible to sabotage any success in Iraq. This is looking at it from an Iranian's perspective. You have to view things this way - put yourself in that position.
Bush's aim was to try and give an image of prosperity and success in Iraq as a cover for his other objectives. Rebels within Iraq have obviously done all they can to expose Bush's aggression and imperialism using a policy Russia employed against Germany when Germany invaded in WW2. It's called "scorched earth policy". Stalin was pretty determined that when ****** invaded, the land would be burnt dry and scorched to make Germany's presence in the USSR intolerable. That's how the Russian Winter "nailed" German forces in the end.
This is what we see in Iraq. Anyone who takes a good, hard look at the state of the country will surely conclude Blair's speeches about democracy and the so-called battle for freedom is a whole bunch of hot air. The country has been sabotaged from within. I hear this was largely a part of Saddam Hussein's orders prior to the invasion.
The cold reality is these troops are not wanted in the country by the Iraqis. Who can blame them?

The History Channel did an excellent programme yesterday "Babylon to Baghdad" - charting the history of Iraq from Persian/Greek wars, the taking hold of Islam in the wider region from 600Ad to 21st century, the invasion of Genghis Khan and the Mogols, to the establishment of the Ottoman Empire, through to WW1, France/British mandate in the Middle East, through to WW11
and to the imposition of King Feisal in 1948 (by the Brits/USA), through to the assasination of various leaders in the late 1950/60's, through to Saddam gaining power in 1979.

The fact of the matter is that any foreign troops in any country, unless they've been asked to be there, are invaders.
The lunacy of the invasion of Iraq is that like every other imperial power in history, the US (mistakenly) assumed that they (US troops) would be welcomed as "liberators" in March 2003.
Throw in the fact that the "liberation" was premised on a lie, which have followed on the lies told to the Iraqi's after Gulf War 1 by the West - this only convinced any Iraq moderates, that the US presence is an invasion and not
about liberation.

The situation is componded now by the fact that, although Bush wants to get out of Iraq asap, he can't!
Throw in the fact that Afghanistan is slipping back to the Taliban - he has managed to not win wars in two countries.

 

[Carrera]

"The lunacy of the invasion of Iraq is that like every other imperial power in history, the US (mistakenly) assumed that they (US troops) would be welcomed as "liberators" in March 2003."

They obviously did enough homework to know an invasion would split the country right down the middle since the Shia Moslems were reasonably happy to see the back of the Bathist Regime. Likewise the Kurds were probably even more supportive.
Even Iran has been glaoting over Saddam's downfall.
If a country is so divided, it's always easy to make the claim you are wanted as an occupying force which was the plan all along. We all know the Bathists and Sunnis were totally opposed to Bush's imperialistic ambitions but the Shia were only too happy to take advantage of the situation and form a majority Government.
I hear Bush has plans to take on the Shia militias which, I must confess, sounds like suicide to me. True, the Shia militias aren't particularly that good and only have small arms but they number some 90,000. The U.S. is sending in a mere 20,000 troops more which isn't enough men to control the Sunnis as well as the Shia militias.
The truth is Bush has totally lost control of the situation. The U.S. can defeat these Shia militias only if they use heavy arms or maybe WMD but this isn't practical and will still fall short of actually controlling Iraq.
"The situation is componded now by the fact that, although Bush wants to get out of Iraq asap, he can't!"
This is the catch 22 - where it gets very tricky. If Bush pull out he will suffer catastrophic defeat and he knows it only too well. The danger is Iran will consolidate its hold over Iraq with the added danger the Pakistanis and Saudis will move in to protect the minority Sunnis. Iraq could either become a terrorist breeding ground or an extension of Iran.
After all the blood spilled, I haven't the foggiest idea what Bush is suppoosed to have accomplished and what Blair is rambling on about lately, saying Iraq is better off.
These idiots have turned a once stable country into a catastrophic mess. The last footage I saw 2 days ago was of more burning oil pipes.

The History Channel did an excellent programme yesterday "Babylon to Baghdad" - charting the history of Iraq from Persian/Greek wars, the taking hold of Islam in the wider region from 600Ad to 21st century, the invasion of Genghis Khan and the Mogols, to the establishment of the Ottoman Empire, through to WW1, France/British mandate in the Middle East, through to WW11
and to the imposition of King Feisal in 1948 (by the Brits/USA), through to the assasination of various leaders in the late 1950/60's, through to Saddam gaining power in 1979.

The fact of the matter is that any foreign troops in any country, unless they've been asked to be there, are invaders.
The lunacy of the invasion of Iraq is that like every other imperial power in history, the US (mistakenly) assumed that they (US troops) would be welcomed as "liberators" in March 2003.
Throw in the fact that the "liberation" was premised on a lie, which have followed on the lies told to the Iraqi's after Gulf War 1 by the West - this only convinced any Iraq moderates, that the US presence is an invasion and not
about liberation.

The situation is componded now by the fact that, although Bush wants to get out of Iraq asap, he can't!
Throw in the fact that Afghanistan is slipping back to the Taliban - he has managed to not win wars in two countries.