What They Said Couldn't Be Done

Posted by John Matel
June 30, 2008
Sunrise in Iraq

The accomplishment of the United States, Coalition Forces and Iraqis is astonishing, especially when you consider the near-death experiences of 2006. The Middle East is more secure without the murderous Saddam Hussein in power, and it is immensely better off than it would have been had we failed in 2006. I believe this will be seen by future historians as a paradigm shifting event. For awhile many people feared that the initiative had passed to the bad guys or at least to the forces of chaos. The apparent disintegration of our position in 2005-06 seemed to confirm that impression. It was never as bad as it seemed or as bad as it was portrayed in the media, but the trend was unmistakable.

Today we have come out of the darkness into a new morning. It is still a little too dark to see clearly all the features, and it is still full of challenge and fraught with dangers but also full of opportunities. For the last generation and arguably since the end of World War I or the Sykes-Picot accord, this region has been unstable and dangerous. Maybe we can help make the future better than the past.

Our long suffering Iraqi friends deserve it.

Comments

Comments

Zharkov
|
United States
July 1, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

Articles about seeing a new dawn or light at the end of the tunnel are a bit premature while the Israelis are contemplating a war with Iran. Let's read what you think will happen to Iraq if Israel attacks Iran?

I think Iraq seems destined to fall out of the frying pan into the fire.

Syrian P.
|
Syria
July 1, 2008

SNP in Syria writes:

...And everyone lived happily ever after, the prince married his blond blue eyed bride and flew on a winged white unicorn into the sunset, just as said on T.V. by CNN, FOX and Emperor Bush of Washingtonia Paradise.

Meanwhile, I am watching videos of American Soldiers using Iraqi children as target practice, killing them for real, and keeping score for competition.

John
|
Wisconsin, USA
July 2, 2008

John in Wisconsin writes:

"The Middle East is more secure without the murderous Saddam Hussein in power..."

Nothing like a self-aggrandizing pat on the back to celebrate our meager accomplishments after 6 years, $500,000,000,000 USD, roughly 85,000 dead Iraqi civilians and 4,113 US Servicemen deaths. We're holding back AQ in Iraq (a group that didn't even exist under Saddam), suicide bombings have become relatively infrequent and the threat of civil war has become less imminent than it was 24 months ago- HOORAY!

When the intelligence (and I use the term in the loosest possible manner) regarding WMDs didn't pan out, those tasked with defending the war suddenly found themselves clinging to Saddam Hussein and his atrocities ("He gassed his own people!") like a man holding deathly-tight to a rope as he dangles above a chasm. Let go of that, and we come crashing down to the harsh realization that the enormous cost of the war (in dollars, blood and respect) has accomplished little to nothing benefiting of the United States but has caused irrevocable damage to our international standing, security and the people of Iraq.

"I believe this will be seen by future historians as a paradigm shifting event."

This is exactly what I'm afraid of. As Zakaria and others have noted, the parallels between Iraq and the British Empire's Boer War are unsettling and do not bode well for the future of our nation.

Praise our military men and women, praise our diplomats struggling to bring cohesion to a fledgling government and unity to a fractured nation, praise our Iraqi counterparts risking everything to secure a better future for their country, but do not praise our choice in invading Iraq (nor use the Saddam boogeyman as justification) in the first place. To do so renders a disservice upon the readers of this blog, who come here to gain a deeper understanding of U.S. Foreign Policy behind the scenes, not digest stale 'mission accomplished' party lines.

Zharkov
|
United States
July 2, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

There was never any need to claim WMD or Iraqi freedom as the primary reason to invade. The truth was enough.

The choice of events to use to justify the Iraq invasion was terribly bad. The US had a perfectly sound, truthful reason to invade Iraq -- Saddam's violation of the cease fire agreement - and no additional justification was necessary. If any additional reason was required, Saddam's failure to comply with inspectionr requests might have truthfully been added to the main reason.

America has been "at war" in Iraq since 1990, about 18 years so far, with no end in sight, no declaration of war voted upon by Congress, and false intelligence given to justify it all.

When our government was faced with two choices, tell the truth or fabricate a reason, it chose to fabricate, even to the point of Mr. Cheney saying on national t.v. that Saddam was involved with 9/11.

The question nobody wants to answer is, what are we going to do with Iraq, stay or leave?

Do we keep the land for which our national treasury has been demolished and our soldiers killed, or do we give it back to Islam in order to make our sacrifice entirely on behalf of a foreign government?

Sure, we did miraculous things in Iraq, but what is the point if Iraq evolves into another Shia theocracy like Iran, and it is halfway there now?

Exactly what is in place to stop Iraq from becoming a clone of Iran once we exit the country, if we ever do?

Will the Shia majority in Iraq choose not to vote for an entirely Islamic government run by Shia politicians? If they do, shall we invade again or wait until they decide to begin a nuclear weapons program?

John M.
|
Iraq
July 2, 2008

DipNote Blogger John Matel writes:

@ SNP in Syria -- You go too far with that. Our Marines protect civilians. They risk their own lives so as not to put civilians in danger. If you saw a video as you say, it was made by some lying purveyor of pernicious propaganda. If you actually believe it, there is no point in casting any more pearls before you.

@ John in Wisconsin -- We cannot change the past; we can only make choices today about the future. Historians can sort out the reasons for the war. What I am concerned about is what we have now and what we do next.

We learn from experience, but if you mire yourself in the mistakes you believe were made in the past, you probably will make mistakes about the future.

John
|
Greece
July 2, 2008

John in Greece writes:

@ SNP in Syria and John in Wisconsin -- Mr Matel is right.

You cannot write history today. History is something that is written after many decades. Sometimes even after centuries.

Probably we won't, but I would be very interested in making with you two guys the same conversation after 50 years. Are you so sure that you would had the same arguments?

Syrian P.
|
Syria
July 2, 2008

SNP in Syria writes:

@ John in Greece -- That is what they said when they first invaded the Middle East in 1916 and the Franco-Brits ruled it for nearly 40 years under Sykes-Picot / UN mandate. 90 years later, we still hear the same and will continue to hear it until the last drop of oil is out of the ground.

Ronald B.
|
New York, USA
July 2, 2008

RB in New York writes:

Gobble-de-gook

The banner should read:

"MISSION CREEP"

How will ordinary Iraquis remember the Bush Years?

History will not buy this last-minute effort to re-define the intent and outcome of this failed Middle-East paradigm.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
July 2, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

I don't suppose SNP ever thought to do a frame by frame forensic analysis of the video he claims to have seen.

@ John in Greece -- That's an interesting concept....who knows, maybe DoS will hold an annual Dipnote Contributor Conference and invite the lot of us for dinner and a guided tour of the State Dept???

(wink, wink...)...(chuckle).

John
|
Greece
July 3, 2008

John in Greece writes:

Not a bad idea Eric (dinner in). Not at all!

As long as there is no caviar on the menu...

Otherwise SNP will claim that "bad Americans" stole it from Iran, while Zharkov from the Russians.

Zharkov
|
United States
July 3, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

"They said it couldn't be done" could be a thread about bankrupting General Motors because of the high cost of fuel.

It seems we are trading our industrial base for victory in Iraq. I hope it's worth it. I am sure the U.S. and Iraq governments think so, but how about the unemployed in Detroit?

Liran
|
Israel
July 3, 2008

Liran in Israel writes:

I must say that from what I have seen people who are far away from place where chaos reigns sometimes say to themselves "it far away - we are safe" but as we see here in Israel if you don't deal with something while it is small enough to deal with, what you'll have is a full scale war with possibly many casualties.

Of course there will always be those who will say "sure an Israeli talking..." but I assure you what the U.S. did in my eyes in Iraq (twice) saved the world and kept peace for at least a couple of more years, I really do hope the Iranian story will end up the same and we will know that that side is quiet too.

The thing is some people around the world have too much power uncontrolled and available for them at any minute, even the threats they make belong to a century long gone, not once the Iranian "president" threatened to annihilate the "zionist entity" or - Israel, someone talking like that should not lead a country let alone posses the power to lunch nuclear weapons.

As today the only country who can deal with such situations in the U.S., and gladly it is doing so, and I can tell you this, if ever a situation will arise that Israeli troops will have to fight for the US they will do so with the same passion they would fight for their own.

I have written an article about it (though in hebrew but... :) ) so you are most welcome to visit (I am also willing to translate it should someone be interested, the site is http://www.theog.org.

John M.
|
Iraq
July 4, 2008

DipNote Blogger John Matel writes:

@ Zharkov

Iraq is producing about as much oil as it did before the war, maybe a little more. The rest of the world is producing more oil. The problem is that demand has increased faster than that supply. We can all regret the high price of oil. To address that, we can either increase supply or reduce demand. That is a subject different from the one we are discussing here.

Our success in Iraq will help the world economy prosper, but economics is a dismal science and many people will remain unsatisfied.

Your argument is shifting. You concede that we are achieving success in Iraq and now you want to discuss economics. I am sure that - given lots of time - we could set you straight about that too, but the subjects of this post are Iraq and our success there.

Zharkov
|
United States
July 4, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

Whether Iraq is better off or worse off, and I expressed no opinion on that point yet, nobody with any intellectual honesty can argue that America is better off in any respect for having invaded Iraq. Iran, Saudi, Israeli, and Kuwaiti security may have improved from that, maybe, but not us.

I do not like to see our military strength blown away doing welfare programs. It is a misuse of resources. Next time, use the Peace Corps.

I am not proud that my country's currency value has been devalued from the cost of an astonishingly expensive war. Next time, get OPEC to pay for it.

I am not proud that our President tried to sell off our port management to the government of Dubai. Next time, try America first.

I am not proud that the next generation of soldiers comes home with mental problems from tours in Iraq. Next time, make the general staff lead the charge into battle.

I am not proud that our federal government is now considered bankrupt by most European central bankers. Next time, read what our constitution said about declaring war and printing money.

I wonder, when President Bush said "they hate us for our freedom" was he referring to the State Department? Is there nobody left with any respect for our constitution?

Is there some reason why we must agree with DoS groupthink and mention nothing except the good fortune of Iraqi people to be conquered by a country with deep pockets?

Are we supposed to gloat over a dying insurgency in Iraq when we know the Shia are waiting to take over after we leave?

Is there some reason why that obvious outcome is taboo for debate?

Do you honestly have no clue about what happens next when Iraq's Shiite government waives goodbye to the last U.S. soldier?

John M.
|
Iraq
July 5, 2008

John in Iraq writes:

@ Zharkov in U.S.A. -- I would be interested in seeing what you think our constitution says about printing money and how you define bankruptcy (or think European central banks do). Maybe you want to check into what % of our GDP the deficit accounts for and how that compares to various European countries and to our own country historically. A lot of people see things that are not really there.

These subjects, however, are beyond the scope of this article.

I see there are lots of thing you are not proud of. Just for the record, what about your country ARE you proud of?

The serious objection I have to your statement is where you seem to think that our military comes back with mental problems. Some individuals are injured mentally and or physically, but to imply that this is a general case is untrue. Why do you believe this? I assume you have some basis.

Zharkov
|
United States
July 5, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

@ John in Iraq -- John in Iraq, I realize you must be young and have not completed your formal education yet, so I assume you do not know the answers to your questions. When you return home, if you ever do, please read two documents, the Declaration of Independence and compare it with the situation today, and then read the U.S. Constitution. You will be shocked at the secrets both documents reveal. They show an America you obviously do not recognize or understand.

You will be surprised to discover that America was not founded in order to liberate unfriendly nations; that only Congress has the power declare war and to create money; and that treason is a crime. This is news to most people who are just fine with Spain leasing Texas highways, or Dubai running our ports, or China operating the Panama Canal, or our government shipping C-47 planeloads of freshly printed currency to buy peace. Perhaps next we will have Russia operating our defense industries because Russia has just created a sovereign fund for buying up U.S. companies.

Do you think a high oil price benefits America, John?

In a way, it does. Look what at the economic power it gives weaker nations. We no longer have to support them! So why are we still doing that, John?

Bankruptcy has two legal definitions, John. Bankruptcy occurs when (1) one is unable to pay debts as they fall due, or, (2) whenever liabilities exceed assets. A former US Comptroller General said the federal government is bankrupt under both tests and has been touring America to warn our citizens of the mess we are in. In fact, there are a great number of people trying to warn us, John, but they are not in Iraq.

Cities and states can file for bankruptcy protection in federal court, but the federal government need never do so because it can cover up insolvency by either issuing more paper or "cooking the books".

If our government kept honest books (it doesn't and both Rumsfeld and numerous Congressmen have said so), it would be declared bankrupt under either or both tests. Not only does spending exceed all tax revenues combined, but spending exceeds all borrowing as well.

We are borrowing money from the rest of the world to pay for Iraq, and we are printing money to cover the shortage of funds because the rest of the world no longer trusts the dollar to maintain any value.

As they rebuild Iraq, John, they are tearing down America, and you won't know that until you return and see it for yourself. You might notice that towns without sewer treatment systems still don't have them. Cities with broken freeways, streets, and sidewalks still have them and are not repairing them. A bridge in Minnesota collapsed from old age and neglect, killing people. Latino gangs control parts of major cities across the country because our immigration system has failed. How this or our GDP, compares to any European country is completely irrelevant.

You know what I am most proud of, John? I am intensely proud that there are so many former government officials willing to risk speaking out against this crazy empire-building obsession we have in this government and are patriotically protesting the incremental destruction of America. I am proud that American citizens are beginning to push back against what is obviously an attempt to expand the federal government far beyond its constitutional limits, and I am most disappointed that so many in our government are unaware of or totally disregard those limits.

Zharkov
|
United States
July 5, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

Here is what other Americans are saying in various Blogs, John:

"So, both the nation and its populace are burning the furniture to keep the house warm.""The Contract on America, was a Soprano-styled hit.""Excuse me, but you seem to have forgotten this little monkey we have on our backs called THE IRAQ WAR which just might have something to do with our economy being in the tank. Sending billions and billions of dollars to Iraq thereby allowing Iraqi politicians and usa government-approved mercenaries to steal our money might also be a problem. And throwing more money at them to be stolen is just plain stupid. That"s Economics 101 for you, o learned one.""We have left a massive debt to our young people and their children to pay off. States like Pennsylvania have even sold their toll roads to foreign companies.""The lunatic republicans have run up about 85% of out total national debt. Now they are trying to sell the idea that we can borrow our way out of this. It"s insane.""They ought to sieze all Bush and Cheney assets and attach their pensions for the rest of their sorry ass lives. It won"t do the economy any good but at least they"ll be forced to feel some of the pain.""The solutions are not easy but they are simple:
- Reduce taxes
- Reduce the size and scope of government
- Let the private sector put the money to productive use."

Bush borrowed and created this debt so as to undermined the safety net crush the middle class..
He expanded government and also government intrusion..
It"s hopeless - we just have to throw every Republican we can out of government forever..crush them and expose them for the liars and frauds that they are..

"Both individuals and businesses have their hand in the public till. This trend will eventually kill us and our economy. This is essentially socialism....a proven failed system of social organization.""Here are the national debt increases for the recent 8 year presidential terms, Republican and Democratic: Clinton 8 year increase: 30%; Reagan 8 year increase: 160% (nearly tripled); Bush(W) 8 year increase: 68% (nearly doubled)

"You are correct, it"s the system, and it is a systemic problem. Both parties are destroying our country."

John
|
Greece
July 6, 2008

John in Greece writes:

@ Zharkov in U.S.A. -- Z,

Even if you loved U.S.A. just a little, your "pen" wouldn't be able to write what you always write. Your heart would stop the pen and your scenarios would not always cross the line.

-Nothing personal, but I think that you are a professional anti-American propagandist.

John asked you something important: what do you love in this country?

And you came up with nothing!

If he had asked you "what are the things that you do not like in this country" you would have come up with a thousand "ideas".

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
July 6, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

Apparently Zharkov places mistaken pride in distorting the truth and calling it dissent.

I find it disingenous to say the least for someone who manifests such ignorance of the facts to accuse anyone of being "uneducated".

Especially anyone serving in Iraq.

I for one think it's time Zharkov stopped his adolecent behavior towards other contributors to this blog.

Any point he tries to make becomes less credible as a result.

Not that revisionist history gets any respect from me to begin with. But he's not doing himself any sevice in that regard either.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
July 6, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ John in Greece -- John in Greece,

I'm not exactly fond of fish eggs anyway...(chuckle).

But yeah, caviar on the menue might be problematic...

Someone might get the idea we're diplomats or something...ROTFLMAO! So much for THAT urban myth...

So here's an undiplomatic truth I'm going to toss in the face of defeatism in general:

---
Troops Re-enlist on Independence Day
Friday, 04 July 2008

BAGHDAD -- Servicemembers from all over Iraq gathered here today in the Al Faw Palace rotunda on Camp Victory, to re-enlist and celebrate America's Independence Day.

All 1,215 servicemembers celebrated by raising their right hand and pledging to continue defending the "land of the free" in what is the largest re-enlistment ceremony since the all-volunteer force began in 1973, according to the Multi-National Force -- Iraq Command Sergeant Major, Command Sgt, Maj. Marvin L. Hill.

"Volunteering to continue to serve our nation, while deployed -- is both noble and inspiring," said Gen. David Petraeus, commanding general, Multi-National Force -- Iraq. "It is, as award citations often state, in keeping with the finest traditions of our military services."

Petraeus presided over the ceremony and led the airmen, Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers in their oath to defend their country against all enemies both foreign and domestic on this day of celebration of America winning its independence.

"We recognize the sacrifices they make and the sacrifices their families and communities make as they serve in Iraq," Hill said. "These servicemembers know the cost of war and they are still re-enlisting."

All together, the servicemembers pledged more than 5,500 years of additional service to their country.

"It makes me feel proud to serve this great nation," said Spc. Zackary Cunningham, mechanic, 602nd Maintenance Battalion, Tactical Base Balad, who plans on making the Army a career.

The re-enlistees have every right to feel proud, according to Petraeus.

"You and your comrades here have been described as America's new greatest generation, and, in my view, you have more than earned that description," Petraeus said. "It is the greatest of honors to soldier here with you."

(MNF-I Press Release)

John
|
Greece
July 7, 2008

John in Greece writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico -- This is very common everywhere Eric.

It happens anywhere around the globe. Here in Greece too (various circles). They have invest in this propagandistic illusion. They are trying to present America as uneducated. Also, a country without history. They are trying to present anyone that loves U.S.A. as... uneducated, fool and traitor.

Ok!

When they do not like American views they call us uneducated. Other times, they say we (people who love U.S.A.) do not know history (this is another anti-American tool).

And when you are high-educated and the most important intelligent ...you use your brain -- they say that your education was not the one that was supposed to be. The books were not the proper ones and your teachers were not the best.

Ok!

I am glad, I'm a cook and not a scientist!

P.S. Z, we do not know who you are and the studies of yours, but you also do not know the CV of Mr. (to you) Matel. I mean, as long as you do not know, you should call him a Sir.

You should do it anyway because he serves his country.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
July 7, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ John in Greece,

Doesn't seem to be much return on the investment.

What has been built, when the illusion is designed only to tear down credibility and good will among nations?

Castles made of sand drift into the sea, eventually...

And so this is also the fate concerning misperception of reality.

I wonder sometimes if the "Flat Earth Society" still exists.

Zharkov
|
United States
July 7, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

I know you are not being paid to actually know something about national issues or how governments operate, but you might think about this while you praise the expansion of the empire and its conversion to global government, because it can only get worse:

$1.1 Trillion Dollars missing from DoD
http://www.whereisthemoney.org/1.1trillion.htm

$2.3 Trillion Dollars missing from DoD, Rumsfeld cites "cooked books"; "we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

$59 Billion Dollars missing from HUD
http://www.whereisthemoney.org/59billion.htm

$3.3 Trillion Dollars missing from US Treasury
http://www.rense.com/general70/trill.htm

Auditor Quits With NASA Finances in Chaos

Zharkov
|
United States
July 7, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

Governments never admit a war was a mistake no matter the outcome.

Wars, even those that are decisively won, can still be a mistake.

Once you understand this principle, you will have advanced your education.

Until then, I am quite certain you would consider any dissent to an "anti-American" act. Fortunately, the personal views of federal employees do not yet overrule the constitution.

John
|
Greece
July 7, 2008

John in Greece writes:

@ Zharkov

Thanks a lot Z for advancing our education level by sharing with us your "theory", and not "principle" as you characterize your thesis, since there are no principles when the conversation has to do with politics, strategy, diplomacy and military missions -- not war though.

I am sure you know that all these decision making steps and choices someone has to make are not part of a scientific orientation, since the same experiment rarely has the same result.

However, let's test your theory. You write that "Wars, even those that are decisively won, can still be a mistake. Once you understand this principle, you will have advanced your education".

Now, let's analyze your theory: You take the "good guy" role in your theory. The public relations path that can touch feelings and persuade easy-thinking people. You are anti-war, because it's catchy and everybody will say "I agree with him", "nice guy". Nobody loves wars. Nobody likes to see war victims. Then, you add a little economy and some oil in your theory and you think that you have the perfect anti-American propaganda Z.

Nevertheless, things "downtown" are not a walk in the park.

Suppose we have the intel that Iran or N. Korea or Syria (examples) have a nuclear capability and they are willing to hit us. What would you advice us to do? Stay back, relax, and not fight? in order to advance our education?

How much useful is an advanced education? when you are dead?

Zharkov
|
United States
July 8, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

@ John in Greece, I think it is anti-American to sit back and watch our government bankrupt the treasury while telling us we are a big success in every respect. In case you haven't noticed, former federal officials are telling us plainly that official government economic statistics are complete lies.

You seem to think bankruptcy either is not happening (despite billion-dollar bailouts by the Fed) or if it was, that it does not matter. If you want to see America in financial ruins, you are on the right track.

America cannot attack every nation that wants to nuke us, if there are any. Iran does not seem to want to do that, and neither does North Korea. The reality is that they would disappear in a nuclear exchange and they know it.

My point is that a real American does not want his country and his liberty lost in muddled treaties, stupid alliances, "feel-good" samaritanism, and ultimately national bankruptcy, that the present and past administrations have indulged themselves in doing.

Secretary Rice began her career with the right ideas. I think she ends her career with some wrong ideas, more specifically, the idea that prolonged occupation in an undeclared war is somehow consistent with "American Values".

Congress had been given the sole, non-delegable duty of declaring war. Nobody else has this power, only Congress, and it was given to Congress because citizens expect a long national debate before committing our armed forces to defeat another nation.

In preparation to attack Afghanistan, there was little public debate - we are all for it, based on what we were told at the time, and no debate for Iraq. Both wars are fully justified for other reasons, however, and I am definitely not anti-war as you suggest, but Congress must begin reasserting its power to declare war and end the limited authorizations which have got us into these messy occupations. It is a constitutional and legal issue that we were not allowed to debate because we were literally told by the Administration what we would be doing. Congress voted on the Patriot Act without time to even read it. What kind of democracy is that?

The emphasis on being "the good guy" focuses on the wrong side of the problem. There is no doubt that America was attacked and had to respond. The emphasis should be placed on the financial survival of America. With a declining industrial base, declining competence in government, and declining respect for our founding principles, America is declining and in danger. It is anti-American to pretend everything is fine when it is so obviously not. In effect, our government has given Islamic revolutionaries everything they had hoped to get - loss of liberty, loss of financial stability, loss of military manpower, and loss of world esteem.

It is true that America is still the leader of the free world but just barely and that cannot continue if America is no longer free or solvent. As long as we cheer this course of action, things will not change and America will inevitably follow the Roman Empire into the history books of former superpowers.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
July 8, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ John in Greece,

Believe it or not, you post inspired the following hypothetical:

Let's start with some known facts first.

A) Israel is a "one bomb state" IE: one nuke could ruin their day.

B) The Iranian President has declared the Palestinians as "brothers in arms" in common cause, as well as threatening to "wipe Israel off the map".

C) One nuke would ruin the Palestinian's day as well.

Now for the hypothetical:

What if the Palestinian people caught on to the reality that they've just been declared martyrs for Iran's agenda?

I gotta ask the State Dept. if anyone has offered them that considered assesment of their expendability as yet?

I'm sure the Iraqis have already figured out just how expendable Iran considers the Iraqi people to be.

John
|
Greece
July 8, 2008

John in Greece writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico

Please allow me to combine your hypothesis to my hypothesis in order to reach a Thesis Statement, especially if we "add" some Lebanon. (I hope I'm not abusing your ideas)

Thesis:
"Middle East: The most complicated, dangerous and difficult human puzzle on earth."

@ Zharkov
I know Z. I know.
Your statement to this thesis will be:
- Where the money is.
- We can not afford helping others.
- Show me the money!

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
July 9, 2008

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ John in Greece,

A hypothetical is not exactly a hypothisis, however the theory behind my question to DoS is based upon a certain element of the human condition that just maybe the Palestinians love their children as much as Israelis do.

Sure we can add Lebanon...you're a cook...how would you prepare flaming Hezbollai bob on a stick?

Would you flash scorch it on a white hot flame or would you slow cook it in microwave?

One thing's for sure...it will be a little hard for Hezbollah to slip across borders when they glow in the dark thanks to their Iranian buddies.

I don't know about you, but given the choice between bankruptcy and seeing a nuke go off at terrorist hands in my country, I'd be ok with bankruptcy.

But we're a long ways off from the poor house. All the natural disasters, hurricanes, wildfires, floods, tornados , a direct hit on the financial sector during 9/11 and a million jobs lost the next day...

Enron, other problems including housing speculation that damaged the credit industry...what is the raw truth?

America is like a Timex watch..."takes a lickin' and keeps on ticking"

Our resident Soviet specialist, - Mr. "I'm here to educate the dimwits of America" Zharkov - should take a lesson from Soviet history.

For decades the demise of Capitalist America was predicted by every Soviet Premier, and a host of so called "experts on America".

Our friend is following in the footsteps of a dead empire...no suprise there. No suprise why the Soviet empire is in the dustbin of history either....it was based on a flawed socio/economic model.

Would he be suprised though to realize the only winner of the cold war was humanity itself? And we aren't out of the woods yet.

I'm not sure he would willingly accept even the blindingly obvious.

500 tons of "Yellow cake" uranium ore just shipped out of Iraq ought to cause open his eyes a bit....

Not like Saddam was going to use it for fertilizer, if you know what I mean?

.

Latest Stories

October 17, 2014

The Importance of Giving Back

Yesterday evening, Secretary of State John Kerry hosted an Eid al-Adha reception with members of the Diplomatic Corps, government officials,… more

Pages