11. Just a question, by Nancy Davies
20th April 2006
Posting 11. to General (no specific category), by Nancy Davies
Just a question—
The popular take on Iraq is that the Bush administration failed to plan properly. That they didn’t know the attack and its subsequent policies would be followed by complete collapse of the Iraq state. That dismantling of the Iraqi police was just poor judgment. That looting the culture and destroying its history was so unexpected. On and on. One “error” after another.
So my question is, does anyone out there think like I do – the Bush administration’s results are exactly what they wanted and planned for. I think, first, it is scarcely possible to be so stupid. Secondly, I think a failed Iraq State is exactly what was sought, and soon a failed Iran State will join it, if the Bushwackers can mount on an attack.
Why? Oh, I think it’s about money. Both Iraq and Iran would have liked to convert from petrodollars to petroeuros. Since neither country supplies oil to the USA, the US’s ability to act as the only middleman in the dollar market in New York represents a nice piece of change coming into the coffers for no purpose other than its own gain. Petrodollars keeps the rest of the world tethered to the US in various economic ways which I don’t claim to understand, but I have a good nose for following the money.
Furthermore, those countries that do depend on Middle East oil will be mightily handicapped if Iranian oil is not available. A ruined Middle East can only benefit the neo-con corporate Bushwackers, not harm them.
Another case in point might be New Orleans. Did the wealthy want the poor and black population to be saved, to resettle, to rebuild, and go on with their lives? I simply don’t believe that, and neither does anybody displaced from New Orleans. So was it incompetence? What, more incompetence? Or was it a deliberate gamble on an outcome in favor of wealthy redevelopers, and an ethnic cleansing by “natural” forces?
Well, what’s going on in Haiti? Did we ruin that country on purpose? You bet your ass we did.
Should we conclude that death and destruction in so many parts of the world is exactly what the Imperium wants? Outcomes are not always accidents of bad management. Often they are outcomes of good management.
I’m just askin’.
April 21st, 2006 at 5:17 am
I agree. The Bush administration wants the breakup of Iraq. There is a method in their madness (not stupidity.)
See
“Inventing the Enemy” by Dave Stratman at newdemocracyworld.org/War/Inventing-enemy.htm and “The US As Fourth Reich” by the same author at newdemocracyworld.org/reich1.htm for related discussion.
April 22nd, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Of course, Nancy Davies is right. They knew damn well what they were up to and they have followed their intended scenario all the way as far as circumstances have made it possible.
What most people fail to understand is that their way of doing things has nothing to do with the geostrategical interests of the USA as a nation, but everithing with the private interests of a neocon clique that has hijacked the sovereighn will of the american nation in order to use its vast resources to secure their private goals. Once that achieved, they do not give a damn how many american soldiers had to die for it o who will pay the bill of the spoils they leave behind once they squeeze the last drop out of the lemon. They will have pocketed all they can grab.
That is the backside of representative democracy, it leaves the conquest of influence and power in the hands of those that are willing to pay the highest price, and it fails to understand that those who pay that price as a way to secure business want the highest ROI (return on investment) possible.
If boiled down american citizens end up in the zombie category and leave politics to capitalist corporations, they get what they deserve and the rest of the world pays the price as collateral damages wherever Imperium plans his next strike.
You should really try to recover control of your country before Home Security abolishes individual voting rights as a threat to the nations stability and you are left without instruments to achieve it.
You are not innocent victims of terrorism, no matter how innocent (or should I say ignorant) any of you are. You are collectively responsible for the beast that spreads collateral damage and surgical interventions throughout the world. Are terrorists terrorists because they spread terror (as the US armed forced do without UN mandate), or are they only terrorists when they blindly react to counter US and other state terror?
Who is to be held accountable when you let them do it in your name?
Here is a link to something I posted earlier:
pwgd.org/gs/2006/03/12/mock-em-mock-their-lies-to-oblivion-james-herod-gets-to-the-core/#comment-4