Iraq Anybody? – Moon of Alabama

February 20, 2005

Iraq Anybody?

The voting is over and the backroom deals for the Prime Minister seat are waiting for the needed absolution by Washington. Nearly 100 people were killed in the last three days through suicide attacks.

"The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or overrun," … "The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure,"

says who?

Iraq expert Senator Hillary Clinton says so, after having been flown into the Green Zone.

The US military stood back a bit during the elections. Now the war is restarted. As Reuters reports:

RAMADI, Iraq (Reuters) – U.S. and Iraqi troops launched a large-scale operation around the rebellious city of Ramadi on Sunday, as part of a nationwide effort to restore order in the wake of last month’s election.

Troops from the 1st Marine expeditionary force, supported by Iraqi soldiers, set up a ring of checkpoints around the city, 70 miles west of Baghdad, and imposed an 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew under Operation River Blitz.

So far the hospitals in Ramadi were not reported to be bombed. But that may change anytime as the Fallujah tested concept is transfered to the bigger city of Ramadi.

"I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well", Clinton said.

Posted by b on February 20, 2005 at 14:48 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Yet ANOTHER reason why Hillary should never even be considered for candidacy in 2008. Is she auditioning for the Republican party or something?
Next thing you know she’ll be up on stage with Chris Cox talking about all the WMDs we’ve found over there.

Posted by: semper fubar | Feb 20 2005 19:28 utc | 1

the butchers of our world are feasting already over their new & corrupt ‘government’ after an ‘election’, that defies imagination – real or surrealist
those sordid satraps who imagine islam’s higher calling is benefited in such an ‘election’ will prove to be so wrong in their calculation – that a ‘moderate’ islam will never get its feet off the ground
the gansters allawi & chalabi all those who were brought on the wings of the eagle will find themselves burned when that bird breaks its wings or has them broken by a resistance that is increasing every day numerically & strategically
thos secular groups whop took part in the elections like the iraqui communist party will destroy whatever they have left as an organisation & as a mythology. these extremely brave patriots will once again be washed against the earth of iraq & their blood will flow into the many rivers of blood that are replacing the historic rivers of this country
& the iranians are laughingt in the americans faces because for all the bellicose & belligerent babble that passes fro diplomacy in washington – the americans have no intention of invading iran – they can not deal with iraq let alone the mighty armed forces of the iranian nation . & the iranian leadership are past masters in usurping the popular will of the people & their absolute victory against secular opposition to the shah proved that it posesses a ruthlessness that wolfowitz only imagines when he has his hardons for power
the iranians win whatever game is being played – they win it in the short run or they win it in the long run. for every crime the american commit – iran comes up clean – & gathers together its forces within the arab nation
& they know that america is completely incapable of coming after them
america in its strategy of the cold war destroyed every democratic or secular leader whehter it was in lebanon, amongst the palestinians, syria, iraq -it pursued a strategy that permitted in egypt & all the other parts of the arab nation to seek solace in the mysteries of a politicised islam & once again the poor are paying the price – as they always do
as i have sd here often – al qaeda was & remains a creation of the united states – both directly & indirectly – the us created it as a political formation – it offered them the greatest schooling in afghanistan & pakistan – where the advanced learning of this formation has allowed itself to multiply into disparate but functioning ‘armies’ of resistance. the existence of al qaeda permits the destabilisation of the arab nation on one level & serves as a bogeyman for the false ‘war on terror’ practiced by u s imperial project co pty ltd –
if such a formation which has a military capacity & has proved that to be so is incapable of actions – real military actions in either north america or europe – then there can only be two reasons that they do not happen – one, that they do not want it to happen & are not interested in it happening which would appear extremely strange to me as a form of ‘resistance’ – doesn’t any army of resistance increase its actions in both number & ferocity & we have not seen that – not in the slightest – the arrest of a crazed imam in detroit or some devotees north of the macon dixon line caught in a conpiracy that are comic to the extreme & do not constitute in any sense not even a local threat
the second reason – would be their lack of capacity – & i think history has shown them to be very efficace indeed
no, it seems to me – as is suggested time & time again – sept 11 in the best of circumstancer was allowed to happen & in the worst was done with the active participation of this current criminal administration. the more our own history progresses – the more that seems the only appropriate analysis. how when & why need to be detailed. & they will be in time
& the only reason for such drastic action is for me a long war against the chinese people & their political representatives. china reporesents the most open threat to american military & industrial power. & for the americans to ‘win’ – they must control the middle east – its control is absolutely imperative to the american imperial project. & as an imperial project they needed to take risks & they needed to accelerate the actions towards that end. sept 11 is then understandable to me. the wars of agresssion against afghanistan & iraq then also become clearer
but i think they began their gambit seriouslly underestimating their external ‘enemy’ & seriouslly overestimating their interior ‘enemy’. they are being defeated in afghanistan & iraq – shamefully – this does not augur well for other actions. the patriot acts can only be seen in the sense of overestimating the resistance that they would face at home. they were expecting something of the order of the anti vietnam movement & the cross fertilisation that happened within american political & legal culture. this time they wanted to smash it before it began to breathe & this they have done
but now they are caught in the double dilemnas of impotence. they have revealed to the world for all their ‘shock & awe’ – they are not impressive militarily, at all thus revealing their military impotence & the necessity to use greater & greater force only revealing more & more their basic impotence. while at home they have rubbed the nose of their own people in their civic impotence – that nop matter how many & in how many ways they oppose these agressive wars, the people can do nothing & are reduced to nothing. to objects. to units. to transformable units that can be exchanged for other units
what we are witnessing as i have sd before is the death of the empire – unfortunately we may all be brought down with it

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 20 2005 19:34 utc | 2

I tell you what’d help Sen. Clinton: if she could be kidnapped by ansar al islam and endure long, horrible detention, then manage to escape. Nothing short of a Sgt. York-like makeover will realistically position her for the 2008 whitehouse.
Only a republican woman, like Rice, could ever entertain possible run for presidency.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 20 2005 19:36 utc | 3

Pols like Kerry or Hillary are just paid stooges. They will follow.
Of course they want the money, the perks, the prestige, the recognition, but they also believe the are doing the best for Amerika. They get self esteem from being in the system but nevertheless ‘opponents.’ It is an easy position to hold, arguments are easy to field, there is no danger, they cannot see they are being used. Pride!

Posted by: Blackie | Feb 20 2005 19:40 utc | 4

rgiap
iran comes up clean – & gathers together its forces within the arab nation
As you know, persians are not arabs. I know this is a minor oversight by you. I bring it up only to emphasize the complicated ways that intrareligious, ethnic and class conflicts detain a panarab, let alone a panshia, pansunni, confrontation against the most effective military ever. But, yeah, you’re right as usual: everyone fucked.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 20 2005 19:48 utc | 5

I personally tend to disagree with r’giap on the reasons for not invading Iran. I do believe the US is quite capable of forcing Iran to submit to its will. It can be done with a bombing campaign as it was in Serbia. But then what?
I am guessing that there is not a suitable group in all of Persia that could run that country for the US. Other than the clerics just who are the elites of Iran? The Shah’s son would not have much of a chance.
It seems to me that the one thing the US wants from Iran is that they do not build the bomb. It also seems to me that Iran has said that it will not build a bomb. So why all the bluster and saber rattling? It is most likely another act in the war on terra, presented to keep everyone afraid of all those bad brown people.

Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 20 2005 20:50 utc | 6

dan
can you iamgine a bombing campaign – even a proxy one done by the israelis. can you imagine 30 or 50 division or the iranian armed forces doing its calisthenics in the iraqui hinterland
the u s fears force as it applies it coninually against others; do you think made kim jon il would be sitting pretty if he wasn’ti n possession of a few nuclear devices
no, the american made an error of collosal proportions in irak – thinkiing that any substantial forms of resistance would have been destroyed both by saddam hussein & 10 years of sanctions; they thought it would be like granada or panama & because they believed the myth of arab imbecility in the armed arts. they are now learning the terrible lesson of that error
to put it bluntly – they are frightened of the iranians – more firghtened by the possibility of the iranians but it seems to me the iranian are gaining influence throughout the arab world in lebanon in the occupied territories, evidently inside iraq & within elements ofg the syrian leadership & large sections of the syrian people
the bombing of hanoi haiphong – the horrendous bombing after & during the paris peace talks marked the end of the vietnam war in real terms
& i am reminded of the pentiti tomas buscetta who sd that the assasinations of the judges borsellino & falcone marked the beginning of the end for the corleonean leadership of the sicilian mafia rather than a pure expression of its brute power. buscetta was proved correct. the bombing of hanoi haiphong proved that us imperialism is a paper tiger & they ran from the embassy roof of saigon – not long after – droping helicopters, intelligence, allies & excess monies into the gulf of tonkin
in my reading of military history – it seems america has been incapable of producing an independant & capable instrument of its power – the leadership of that armed force from the 2nd world war till today are marginally less funny than a bad joke
id suggest their basic incapacity to fight is being proved daily where they are sacrificing their children to a goal less operation

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 20 2005 21:21 utc | 7

US or Israel will bomb Iran. Rice basically said so in Europe.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 20 2005 21:29 utc | 8

I’m afraid there is a lot of thinking in the White House “if Clinton did it then I can do it too”. Plus, their need to keep the fear level in the USA high. However, there are several crucial differences between bombing Serbia and Iran:
1) Competent leadership,
2) Oil,
3) Gulf of Hormuz,
4) Religious enmity,
5) No Allies,
6) Promise to the Serbs of joining European prosperity and peace, and
7) USA troops next door are tied down in a never ending insurgency.

Posted by: Jim S | Feb 20 2005 21:33 utc | 9

Quote:
“Pols like Kerry or Hillary are just paid stooges. They will follow.”
***
So how can you see your self voting for Democrat’s candidate next election?
Are you going to vote Democrats no matter what? Who are you going to vote for?
Quote:
“they cannot see they are being used.”
***
Hahaha…they KNOW very well for what they are being “used” and how USEFUL what they are doing is for them personally…do not worry about them. You can bet they would never get where they are if they are stupid and naïve enough not to “see” those things.
Naïve obviously are Democrats voters…or if some of them are even not naïve they are left without choice.

Posted by: vbo | Feb 20 2005 22:20 utc | 10

Hillary Clinton concerned by ‘democratic’ behavior of Iraqis

Posted by: They’re all the same | Feb 20 2005 22:33 utc | 11

Quote:
However, there are several crucial differences between bombing Serbia and Iran:
1) Competent leadership,
***
Do not fool your self that Milosevic (and his people) was not competent in a war situation. Serbs were wining that civil war everywhere. Serbia is a small nation of 7 million people with no nuclear capabilities and Iran is…well a “little” bit bigger and puzzling… Serbia is in the middle of Europe and “enjoyed “ something like 50 years of peace and well yes prosperity. When bombing campaign ,devastating infrastructure without single NATO boot on the ground, took place there was no way to fight it . USA & NATO obviously had enough bombs to waste all Serbian infrastructure (that generations had to sacrifice to build : bridges, buildings. railways etc) and were without any conscience and did through tones of depleted uranium (and who knows what else)…People (and children) are dieing, now 6 years later, from cancer, like a flys. And how many MILLIONS of years it will stay there? Milosevic should think about all those things prior to bombardment. But I guess he couldn’t believe that USA and NATO are unscrupulous JUST AS HE WAS. If Americans (and NATO) came by ground force you can bet war in Serbia would still go on. They weren’t that stupid.
2) Oil,
***
Yap…if you want oil you need to put quite some boots on the ground.
3) Gulf of Hormuz,
4) Religious enmity,
Yes…there was not religious animosity basically in this conflict with NATO. But it’s much more complex. All tho Serbs are Orthodox Christians and (false in my opinion) pretext for civil war in ex-YU was religious animosity between them and Bosnian Muslims and Croatian Catholics. But…with Americans and NATO Serbs didn’t fool them selves with religious reasons for bombardment etc. They KNEW it was done for very PRACTICAL reasons (Military bases for USA and a chance to try weaponry and train their units in a war situation plus all paid by Europeans and economic interest-influence for Europeans among other stuff). So unfortunately USA and NATO Europeans found “common interest” in committing such a horrible CRIME.
5) No Allies,
Yes. This is important one. Without allies it’s pretty hard to find justification for those horrific crimes (bombardment of a country) let alone to still be so popular like Clinton was. Or to even persuade your nation (and others) that what you have done is GOOD THING.
6) Promise to the Serbs of joining European prosperity and peace, and
Do not fool your self that this promise has anything to do with what happened. All tho Serbian politicians are pretty much easily corrupted this time it wasn’t that important. If (part of) Serbs ( like I used to) had any dreams about how wonderful it would be to join EU that dream is dead and actually well “ decomposed” by now. At the time it was a “carrot” but I wouldn’t say it was the reason for Milosevic to surrender. Devastation of the country and death of his illusion that Russians and others will join him in anti – NATO campaign.
7) USA troops next door are tied down in a never ending insurgency.
This for sure was not case in Serbia. USA managed to have it’s puppets in Serbia (Albanian criminals – politicians and mafia) and friends in crime all around Europe (NATO countries). And yap it helped a lot to have bogy man in Serbia…at least for propaganda purpose.

Posted by: vbo | Feb 20 2005 23:44 utc | 12

in relation to yugoslavia
i imagine that in concrete & metaphysical terms the bill has not arrived from that particular campaign & the obscene use of force
something was unleashed in that historical moment that will not be resolved for a long time to come – the savagery of the conflict & the savagery of its ‘resolution’

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Feb 21 2005 0:26 utc | 13

Hillary Clinton nixes idea of setting pull-out date for Iraq
You’d think Bill would have taught her something about the importance of a timely pull-out.

Posted by: They’re all the same | Feb 21 2005 0:41 utc | 14

@They’re all the same…..You forgot to mention that exc. picture of HClinton standing next to McCain in article you linked. She looks almost as twisted & ugly as he is – a sure sign she’s been hideously deformed w/lust for power. That’s one of the fun things about watching women ascend – it’s clearly visible in the photographs how power destroys everything of value in the beholder.
Also, recall that for a female to be allowed anywhere near a position of power, she MUST first show that she’ll let the boys engage in ritual slaughter. Did anyone listen to the first press conference when the first woman was nominated as VP. The male reporters were almost hysterical w/fear that Geraldine Ferraro wouldn’t allow ritual bloodlettings. She assured the boys that she would. (It was curious. I don’t now remember the precise question, but even at the time, it made no sense on the face of it. Only later did I realize it was the fears of the male unconscious clumsily surfacing.) Until women are in power in sufficient numbers to tip the balance – which the Patriarchs will be sure they won’t – they have to rule on the Militarists Terms, which means being even more bloodthirsty.
So, HClinton has now sent out two clear signals that she’s ready to assume the mantle of male power. This is the 2nd – that she’s supports warfare. The first was her Fuck You to Women on Abortion. (Mythically it represents the Death of herself as a woman & now the rebirth of herself as a(n honorary) man.

Posted by: jj | Feb 21 2005 1:18 utc | 15

jj: That’s one of the fun things about watching women ascend – it’s clearly visible in the photographs how power destroys everything of value in the beholder.
Kudos to you jj. Nice to have it laid out so clearly. “Ugly-with-power” Ah such an accurate image.
Remember that Hillary latched on to Bill because he could do some of the things she could not, like get elected president (with her help of course) For them both it was a power game and still is. I hope she is smart enough to know that she doesn’t want to run for prez. On top of selling out to the neocons in a much bigger way than she has already, it would put her in a position of kissing all the wrong asses and, judging from her first two terms, relying on many of the more savvy but much less honorable players to call the shots. (Not calling Hillary honorable here.)
Whereas frat boy is the perfect guy to play this role, Hillary-the-bitch would inevitably rile some of these players to the point of pain. This is all just blab anyway – I hope and expect the govt to collapse before she has an opportunity.

Posted by: rapt | Feb 21 2005 3:26 utc | 16

If we pull the lens out to look at the bigger picture, from the perspective of the neoconservative worldview, China is the big strategic issue, as rememberinggiap touches upon. The middle-east is where these two superpowers are likely to clash over. China uses more oil than the US now, and most of it comes from here. The problem is, from the geo-strategic perspective is that China no longer looks at the world through a Stalinist or Maoist ideology. Their economy is so intractably connected to the rest of the world, that it could not easily ‘make trouble’ without suffering drastic economic consequences. The neoconservatives, however, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, are cold warriors and still have a Kissinger view of how politics works. We’re in a different world from the 1960s or 1970s. By trying to secure their sphere of influence in the Middle-East, the US is only stirring the pot of discontent amongst these people. Ironically, the theocratic regime of Iran, unlike the Caligula regime in Saddamist Iraq, will soon shrivel and surrender to a generation that is oriented to the west, to consumption and secularism. The only benefit of the war in Iraq is that Saddam and his sons no longer traumatize their people.
By picking a fight with Iran so as to strengthen their position with China, the neoconservatives undermine their position with regards to both countries. The Iranian youth could have been ‘secularised’ and wooed to the American way relatively easily–Hollywood is already doing it for the government; same applies to the Chinese who want, like most people, simply to make money and be left alone.
By trying to project old-style power, and projecting it ineptly and catastrophically, neoconservativism provokes resistance and the weakening of the secular liberal democratic system they say they want.

Posted by: theodor | Feb 21 2005 5:43 utc | 17

Scott Ritter is at it again. Hope he is wrong at least about Iran, but would not bet on it. SCOTT RITTER SAYS U.S. PLANS JUNE ATTACK ON IRAN, ‘COOKED’ JAN. 30 IRAQI ELECTION RESULTS

Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail yesterday in Washington State, dropped two shocking bombshells in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that George W. Bush has “signed off” on plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, and claimed the U.S. manipulated the results of the recent Jan. 30 elections in Iraq.
…
On Iran, Ritter said that President George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons, but Ritter said neoconservatives in the administration also expected that the attack would set in motion a chain of events leading to regime change in the oil-rich nation of 70 million — a possibility Ritter regards with the greatest skepticism.
The former Marine also said that the Jan. 30 elections, which George W. Bush has called “a turning point in the history of Iraq, a milestone in the advance of freedom,” were not so free after all. Ritter said that U.S. authorities in Iraq had manipulated the results in order to reduce the percentage of the vote received by the United Iraqi Alliance from 56% to 48%.
Asked by UFPPC’s Ted Nation about this shocker, Ritter said an official involved in the manipulation was the source, and that this would soon be reported by a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist in a major metropolitan magazine — an obvious allusion to New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh.

Posted by: Fran | Feb 21 2005 5:52 utc | 18

Hunter S. Thompson
We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the
whole world–a nation of bullies and bastards who
would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not
just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with
hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and
that is how history will judge us…No redeeming
social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or
we’ll kill you.
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who
among us can be happy and proud of having this
innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine?
These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and
fooled by stupid rich kids like George Bush?
They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali
locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for
all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the
American character. They are the racists and hate
mongers among us–they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss
down the throats of these Nazis.
And I am too old to worry about whether they like it
or not. Fuck them.
-Hunter S. Thompson
is dead.
R.I.P

Posted by: fauxreal | Feb 21 2005 6:10 utc | 19

Diddling that election was easy…..Just did the reverse of what we did in Nov. in Elsewhereland.

Posted by: Source | Feb 21 2005 6:44 utc | 20

@fauxreal,
ahh, synchronicity…
remembrances and rants encouraged.
(fuck, I hate this. Novak lives, and…. FUCK.)

Posted by: OkieByAccident | Feb 21 2005 7:07 utc | 21

Insurgents Wage Precise Attacks on Baghdad Fuel

Insurgent attacks to disrupt Baghdad’s supplies of crude oil, gasoline, heating oil, water and electricity have reached a degree of coordination and sophistication not seen before, Iraqi and American officials say.
The new pattern, they say, shows that the insurgents have a deep understanding of the complex network of pipelines, power cables and reservoirs feeding Baghdad, the Iraqi capital.
…
A new analysis by some of those officials shows that the choice of targets and the timing of sabotage attacks has evolved over the past several months, shifting from economic targets to become what amounts to a siege of the capital.
In a stark illustration of the change, of more than 30 sabotage attacks on the oil infrastructure this year, no reported incident has involved the southern crude oil pipelines that are Iraq’s main source of revenue. Instead, the attacks have aimed at gas and oil lines feeding power plants and refineries and providing fuel for transportation around Baghdad and in the north.
In an indication of how carefully chosen the targets are and how knowledgeable the insurgency is about the workings of the infrastructure, the sabotage often disrupts the lives of Iraqis, leaving them dependent on chugging, street-corner generators to stave off the darkness and power televisions or radios, robbing them of fuel for stoves and heaters, and even halting the flow of their drinking water.

Typical guerilla tactic. Kill the infrastructure and the population will turn against the uncapable rulers.

Posted by: b | Feb 21 2005 7:56 utc | 22

Nice find Fran
Anybody who believes that it really takes 10 days to count the votes can only be a kool-aid drinking neocon. Of course the results were cooked. How on earth could the Shias get less than 50% of the votes in a country where they are the majority by 60% and the Sunnis did not vote?
All that time between the vote and the official results was for deal making.
I wonder what role Ritter is playing now. He was a very willing player to the game in Iraq before. Now he is the left’s hero???

Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 21 2005 8:25 utc | 23

Anybody for an online poll – Which would you prefer: 1) Invasion of Iran 2) Domestic Military Coup to stave it off 3) Impeachment of all Repugs. Rank in order of yr.preference.

Posted by: jj | Feb 21 2005 8:46 utc | 24

jj, do need to ask, of course – 3, 2, 0!
Dan, I don’t care what role Ritter plays as long as he is effectiv, and it helps to help the Neo-cons in check – which, however, I doubt he will be able to do.

Posted by: Fran | Feb 21 2005 8:53 utc | 25

help = keep, no way I want him to help the Neo-cons.

Posted by: Fran | Feb 21 2005 8:55 utc | 26

jj
there has already been a military coup in the US. look at the powers Rumsfeld has now with special ops and no congressional accountability.
Your poll gives no real choices.

Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 21 2005 9:04 utc | 27

Dan, name yr. preference? I’m game.
Could someone set up website, on which people could vote? Let’s try to delineate options.
But I don’t agree that you can infer there has been a military coup from Rumbo’s actions. Doubtless you’ve been reading Kwiatkowski. Even Pat, I think, has written about the fuy of the uniformed military @the NeoCons, who are actually destroying the Army. I expect the fissures are many & deep. Boykin in charge of Intel. I also recall Sid Blumenthal writing in Guardian last spring/summer (I think) that all the military brass were reading that award winning paper from Military College (Army War College?) – ~ US Military Coup of 2010(?).
Anybody else find it interesting, and probably not coincidental that Ritter released info. that Bu$h has already approved Iran invastion for June just as he’s arriving in Europe?

Posted by: jj | Feb 21 2005 9:54 utc | 28

I am trying to be pragmatic, a military coup would achieve nothing. The military is full of bornagains and evangelicals so what would be the benefit? To impeach the repugs would require a party that is not complicit in what is going on. We do not have that so it would be just another “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”. That leaves invading Iran. It is the best option as that would bring about change due to the eventual destruction of the US economy. It is not a choice I would vote for….there needs to be more choices.
We need more focused activism in the US. There are plenty of people who are completely disgusted by the whole farce. We need to come up with a way to fight the bastards before it is too late. The liberals tend to cloud the issues by wanting or not wanting too many things at the same time. The fight needs to be narrowed down and pursued relentlessly. I suggest somehow forcing mainstream media to do its job and stop being stenographers to Rove. I do believe the blogs have had a small impact on this and we certainly can continue. More letters to the editor and people calling in to talk radio with clearly reasoned and dispassionate opinions are needed to slowly break the hold that the reptiles have on all this.
so how about;
1) do nothing and wait for self destruction?
2) enter the fray and attempt to make the changes from inside?
3) find a champion and sponsor him/her?
4) civil disobedience, by far the most costly personally.
I did not include handwringing or pissing and moaning.

Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 21 2005 11:36 utc | 29

Dan,
2 and 3 sound good but they haven’t worked so far. 4 requires too much pain and doesn’t work so well here in the USofA.
Give us more options.

Posted by: rapt | Feb 21 2005 14:58 utc | 30

John Robb on Baghdad under Siege – interesting thoughts.

Posted by: b | Feb 21 2005 15:36 utc | 31

I do believe the US is quite capable of forcing Iran to submit to its will. It can be done with a bombing campaign as it was in Serbia.
‘Scuse me? All that war managed to accomplish was killing tens of thousands of innocent people (of all ethnic backgrounds in that region). The 2 terms that the Serbian government could not agree to in the Rambouillet ultimatum were (1) Kosovo independence and (2) access to ALL of Serbia for NATO troops. Those conditions were dropped from the final ceasefire by the so-called winners. NATO plus Russian troops (friends of Serbia) gained access to Kosovo province only and it’s been six years and still no independent Kosovo. So tell me, who capitulated to whom?

Posted by: kat | Feb 21 2005 16:18 utc | 32

And Bush is in Brussels (Belgium)…2500 policeman are guarding him from demonstrators…
“Hiroshima- Belgrade- Baghdad”
is displayed by the crowd.
Let’s face it. It’s NOT about Bush ONLY…He is just an obvious and brutal personification of USA politic after WWII. And people around world HATE IT.
Hollywood managed to show for decades that Americans are humans so generally people around the world do not hate Americans …but their politicians…that they vote for.Lately even Hollywood changed and there is not much movies worthy to waste one’s time even watching it…There is only particular amount of claptrap that people around the world can handle…

Posted by: vbo | Feb 21 2005 23:59 utc | 33

Back to Main