and a blatant move by Bush to effectively create an Imperial Presidency, ensure the continuation of a State of War for the foreseeable future, regardless of who wins the 2008 election, and to re-impose American Imperialism - especially in the Middle East by imposing essentially puppet regimes in Iraq, and potentially Iran.
Everyone is blithely assuming that we can 'take back' the country next year in 2008. Who wants to bet?
My bet is that Bush is going to launch (another) preemptive attack (on Iran), or have Israel do so; this will virtually ensure retaliation and a broader war in the Middle East - a national emergency, whereupon Bush could suspend civil law and possibly elections..., or, even if elections were to be held, this ploy may ensure a Republican victory - or at the very least, that IF a Democrat were to get elected, he or she will have no choice but to continue the war footing and state of emergency.
This broadened war could also provide the basis for him to (try to) overthrow the Iranian government, and re-install a puppet regime, as the United States first did when we overthrew the democratically elected government in 1953.
Think we really wanted a 'democracy' in Iraq? No. Bush wanted a government beholden to U.S. interests - regardless of what the people might have wanted (or not).
Look at the energy contracts, the private security contracts, and the trail of money to Bush/Cheney cohorts in the oil and defense industries, and you will see a picture of the government of the future, unless we speak - LOUDLY.
It's all about the money, and the power; theirs.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 20
And we are not going to go to war with Iran. The Dems almost gave him authorization, but recalled it at the last moment. While defeating Iran would not be a problem, we are not going to go to war. We cannot afford another Iraq.
That's it TY , you are certifiable .
Don, there is no military power that can challenge the US. The military of Iran would be crushed in about a week against us.
Yep, that about sums it up.
Then what the hell difference does it make if there are radical this or that from someplace else? Why would such a fact not indicate that it is NOT assumable that all is well with our trigger happy leaders?
We should get completely out of the middle east starting tomorrow .
Is this next ???
Back to Iran, they do have a good military, were they fighting a war 30 years ago. They would not be a problem. But as we are not going to go to war with them, we dont have to worry about them.
John, the difference is that radicals in this country dont advocate sending car bombs into churches or mosques or funerals or schools or markets. There is no comparison to radicals in this country or anywhere else. There are ruthless people in this country, but not on the level of what happens over there.
It seems a bit ludicrous to suggest that if the radicals anywhere had a super-power military they would be preoccupied with car bombs. The fact that we have no clear cut convictions for that particular tactic (though US operatives have been arrested a few times driving around in cars filled with explosives), is hardly a real good indicator our warmongers are pure and noble. Is "shock and awe" only "civilized" when we unleash it?
This 'us' and 'them' simplification is non-sense. Were the folks tormenting people at Abu Garib "us"? Well, no, one might say, just some of us. OK, so are the folks planting bombs in mosques "them"? Again, NO, that is just some of "them". When one insists that only the good "us" count, and only the bad "them" count, everything looks black and white, but that is a given, and there are plenty of people on "their side" that do this same silliness, to justify atrocious behaviour.
What does not seem to occur to you is that ALL of "us" are not little carbon copies of the brave and noble warriors who make us proud. There are nasty brutes in our society, and this ought to be quite obvious by now. What Peter is essentially saying, I believe, is that it appears to him that some of those nasty brutes have lied and manipulated their way into position to control foreign policy, and are using that position to promote their own radical agenda of world domination.
You may insist forever that such a thing is impossible, but history tells us quite plainly that it is more than possible, it happens in virtually every society at some point, and often many points. Believing in America is one thing, believing in America's immunity from corrupt and malicious radicals is simply childish dreaming.
And what do you disagree with? Are you disagreeing that "we" are not just the good and noble? Are you disagreeing that "they" are not just the most violent and irrational? Are you disagreeing that we must be vigilant to insure that liars and manipulators must be guarded against, lest they use their ruthless tactics to deceive the people into doing their bidding?
The founding fathers made it abundantly clear that they feared the destruction of our republic from within, far more than it's conquest from any foreign power. They were not fools. If we assume we cannot be betrayed by the ruthless radicals amongst us, we invite that very fate. I believe you are making that assumption, and calling it love of your country. It would be hero worship at best, to dismiss the incongruities and horrible consequences of the current Administrations behaviour, based on the notion that those you have supported cannot be corrupt. Nobody bats a thousand.
However - my initial premise is that 9/11 probably would NOT have happened, IF the United States did not have a long history of meddling in, initiating coups in, and ravishing third world countries for the better part of our history. It was our previous imperialistic policies which resulted in 9/11, and it is our current imperialistic policies which will cause much worse. As we sow, so shall we reap.
DON - i Luv your voting thing - but the pooooor kitten!!!!!
Have you ever listened to Bin laden or Ahmadman of Iran. They say it very clear: It is a global war they both are leading; Islam versus the Crusaders.
I would rather take my chances, having America go in and clean out any nukes in Iran, rather than hoping that Iran will behave as a nuclear power.
Thats why Bush is the best man we could hope for in the White House right now.
All of the Jihadists presumed grievances against the "Imperialist" West, makes it even more likely that they will use a nuke against us. We must act first.
BUT: This is America, Home of Freedom, Justice, Liberty, Democracy, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseum. WE are supposed to be different. We ARE NOT different, when we use the same strategies and tactics.
We are killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians ... and though Bush may insist that this is an act of altruism - BS. This is pure Imperialism. Follow the Oil, follow the contracts. We have become Fascist.
Thats why we MUST bomb all the Iranian nuclear installations. We must unso the mess that the most evil, incompetent human being that ever lived, Jimmi Carter, got us into.