🚀 go-pugleaf

basskisser wrote:

> He's no damned better than Saddam, it seems:
>
> From Democracy Underground.
>
> Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Our appointed Saddam
> replacement, Iyad Allawi, seems to be picking up where his predecessor
> left off, apparently executing six Iraqi insurgents in cold blood
> while Iraqi policemen and American security guards watched in "stunned
> silence." According to the Sydney Morning Herald, "the prisoners -
> handcuffed and blindfolded - were lined up against a wall in a
> courtyard adjacent to the maximum-security cell block in which they
> were held at the Al-Amariyah security center," before Dr. Allawi -
> allegedly a former Mukhabarat agent - put a bullet in each of their
> heads. The executed men were suspected terrorists - although whether
> or not there was any evidence to prove that is not clear - but don't
> worry, because apparently "One witness justified the shootings as an
> unintended act of mercy: "They were happy to die because they had
> already been beaten by the police for two to eight hours a day to make
> them talk." So that's okay then. Hey - who wants to bet that in twenty
> years time President George P. Bush invades Iraq to free the people
> from the tyrannical grip of the mad dictator Iyad Allawi? That's one
> scenario - but let's face it, it's more likely that in twenty years
> time our troops will still be there propping him up.


It was and is naive to think that any of these desert tribal
city-state-nations were going to adopt any sort of "western-style"
democracy.

The only difference between the old Iraq and the new Iraq will be one of
scale. The new rulers will simply kill less people than Saddam.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:55:05 +0000, NOYB wrote:


> We don't need a western-style democracy.  We just need a US-friendly
> governmentthat will sell us oil and allow us to station troops right in
> the heart of the Middle East.  You still don't get it.

No, you still don't get it.  Our CIA has installed several US friendly
governments in that area.  Do a search on Iraq Kassim CIA or Iran
Mossadegh CIA.  The problem is our puppet governments are quite brutal and
don't seem to be able to last.  It isn't any wonder many Arabs hate us.
Imposing another puppet regime will only continue the violence to the
Arabs and to us.  We never seem to learn.

thunder wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:55:05 +0000, NOYB wrote:
>
>
>> We don't need a western-style democracy.  We just need a US-friendly
>> governmentthat will sell us oil and allow us to station troops right in
>> the heart of the Middle East.  You still don't get it.
>
> No, you still don't get it.  Our CIA has installed several US friendly
> governments in that area.  Do a search on Iraq Kassim CIA or Iran
> Mossadegh CIA.  The problem is our puppet governments are quite brutal and
> don't seem to be able to last.  It isn't any wonder many Arabs hate us.
> Imposing another puppet regime will only continue the violence to the
> Arabs and to us.  We never seem to learn.


What's probably going to happen in Iraq is that the Shiites in the
southern part of the country will, with the help of the Shiite majority
in Iran, gravitate more and more towards that country, and there will,
in the end be a bifurcation of Iraq.

We're already far worse off, terrorism-wise, than we were before Bush
initiated his war of choice against Iraq. Just wait until Iran's sphere
of influence emcompasses much of southern Iraq.

"basskisser" <atl_man2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c74f111.0407191013.53289310@posting.google.com...
> He's no damned better than Saddam, it seems:
>
> From Democracy Underground.
>
> Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Our appointed Saddam
> replacement, Iyad Allawi, seems to be picking up where his predecessor
> left off, apparently executing six Iraqi insurgents in cold blood


Good for him.  It's about time the insurgents faced someone with the
conviction to bestow on them what they're so willing to bestow on us.

"Harry Krause" <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2m2hkjFhmvq0U1@uni-berlin.de...
> basskisser wrote:
>
> > He's no damned better than Saddam, it seems:
> >
> > From Democracy Underground.
> >
> > Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Our appointed Saddam
> > replacement, Iyad Allawi, seems to be picking up where his predecessor
> > left off, apparently executing six Iraqi insurgents in cold blood
> > while Iraqi policemen and American security guards watched in "stunned
> > silence." According to the Sydney Morning Herald, "the prisoners -
> > handcuffed and blindfolded - were lined up against a wall in a
> > courtyard adjacent to the maximum-security cell block in which they
> > were held at the Al-Amariyah security center," before Dr. Allawi -
> > allegedly a former Mukhabarat agent - put a bullet in each of their
> > heads. The executed men were suspected terrorists - although whether
> > or not there was any evidence to prove that is not clear - but don't
> > worry, because apparently "One witness justified the shootings as an
> > unintended act of mercy: "They were happy to die because they had
> > already been beaten by the police for two to eight hours a day to make
> > them talk." So that's okay then. Hey - who wants to bet that in twenty
> > years time President George P. Bush invades Iraq to free the people
> > from the tyrannical grip of the mad dictator Iyad Allawi? That's one
> > scenario - but let's face it, it's more likely that in twenty years
> > time our troops will still be there propping him up.
>
>
> It was and is naive to think that any of these desert tribal
> city-state-nations were going to adopt any sort of "western-style"
> democracy.

We don't need a western-style democracy.  We just need a US-friendly
governmentthat will sell us oil and allow us to station troops right in the
heart of the Middle East.  You still don't get it.

"NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message news:<qxWKc.4960$f4.1785@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "basskisser" <atl_man2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3c74f111.0407191013.53289310@posting.google.com...
> > He's no damned better than Saddam, it seems:
> >
> > From Democracy Underground.
> >
> > Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Our appointed Saddam
> > replacement, Iyad Allawi, seems to be picking up where his predecessor
> > left off, apparently executing six Iraqi insurgents in cold blood
>
>
> Good for him.  It's about time the insurgents faced someone with the
> conviction to bestow on them what they're so willing to bestow on us.

So you agree that Iraq should have another Saddam in power? Why did we
go there then, just to spend $100 billion?

basskisser wrote:

> "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message news:<qxWKc.4960$f4.1785@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>> "basskisser" <atl_man2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:3c74f111.0407191013.53289310@posting.google.com...
>> > He's no damned better than Saddam, it seems:
>> >
>> > From Democracy Underground.
>> >
>> > Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Our appointed Saddam
>> > replacement, Iyad Allawi, seems to be picking up where his predecessor
>> > left off, apparently executing six Iraqi insurgents in cold blood
>>
>>
>> Good for him.  It's about time the insurgents faced someone with the
>> conviction to bestow on them what they're so willing to bestow on us.
>
> So you agree that Iraq should have another Saddam in power? Why did we
> go there then, just to spend $100 billion?


I believe we've passed the $100 billion mark...

Harry Krause <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2m4ehcFi4ud2U5@uni-berlin.de>...
> basskisser wrote:
>
> > "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message news:<qxWKc.4960$f4.1785@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> >> "basskisser" <atl_man2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3c74f111.0407191013.53289310@posting.google.com...
> >> > He's no damned better than Saddam, it seems:
> >> >
> >> > From Democracy Underground.
> >> >
> >> > Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Our appointed Saddam
> >> > replacement, Iyad Allawi, seems to be picking up where his predecessor
> >> > left off, apparently executing six Iraqi insurgents in cold blood
> >>
> >>
> >> Good for him.  It's about time the insurgents faced someone with the
> >> conviction to bestow on them what they're so willing to bestow on us.
> >
> > So you agree that Iraq should have another Saddam in power? Why did we
> > go there then, just to spend $100 billion?
>
>
> I believe we've passed the $100 billion mark...

Had to keep it down, if I happened to go over, the righties here would
be all over it like maggots on shit, saying it's a complete
fabrication, blah, blah.

>>So you agree that Iraq should have another Saddam in power? Why did we
>>go there then, just to spend $100 billion?
>

NOYB wrote:
> To put someone else in power that would allow us to station troops there,
> dummy.

In other words, another Bush foreign policy failure.

DSK

> "thunder" wrote
>>No, you still don't get it.  Our CIA has installed several US friendly
>>governments in that area.
>

NOYB wrote:
> None that have allowed us to station 150,000 troops in their country.
> That's a big difference.

Is the Iraqi gov't, or more importantly, the people, going to allow us
to do that? It sure doesn't look like it.

Another foreign policy failure for Bush & Cheney... which leaves their
success rate at 0%

Oh wait, make that 0% for everything *except* driving trainloads of
money into Halliburton's coffers. They've done quite well at that.

DSK

"basskisser" <atl_man2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c74f111.0407200336.377681d4@posting.google.com...
> "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:<qxWKc.4960$f4.1785@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > "basskisser" <atl_man2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c74f111.0407191013.53289310@posting.google.com...
> > > He's no damned better than Saddam, it seems:
> > >
> > > From Democracy Underground.
> > >
> > > Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Our appointed Saddam
> > > replacement, Iyad Allawi, seems to be picking up where his predecessor
> > > left off, apparently executing six Iraqi insurgents in cold blood
> >
> >
> > Good for him.  It's about time the insurgents faced someone with the
> > conviction to bestow on them what they're so willing to bestow on us.
>
> So you agree that Iraq should have another Saddam in power? Why did we
> go there then, just to spend $100 billion?

To put someone else in power that would allow us to station troops there,
dummy.

"Harry Krause" <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2m4ehcFi4ud2U5@uni-berlin.de...
> basskisser wrote:
>
> > "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:<qxWKc.4960$f4.1785@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> >> "basskisser" <atl_man2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3c74f111.0407191013.53289310@posting.google.com...
> >> > He's no damned better than Saddam, it seems:
> >> >
> >> > From Democracy Underground.
> >> >
> >> > Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Our appointed Saddam
> >> > replacement, Iyad Allawi, seems to be picking up where his
predecessor
> >> > left off, apparently executing six Iraqi insurgents in cold blood
> >>
> >>
> >> Good for him.  It's about time the insurgents faced someone with the
> >> conviction to bestow on them what they're so willing to bestow on us.
> >
> > So you agree that Iraq should have another Saddam in power? Why did we
> > go there then, just to spend $100 billion?
>
>
> I believe we've passed the $100 billion mark...

For access to a new oil source?  And for access to a new geographically
strategic location in which to station our troops who are fighting
terrorists in the region?

Sounds like a reasonable amount...

"DSK" <dsk@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message
news:FYcLc.1217$QO.131@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >>So you agree that Iraq should have another Saddam in power? Why did we
> >>go there then, just to spend $100 billion?
> >
>
> NOYB wrote:
> > To put someone else in power that would allow us to station troops
there,
> > dummy.
>
> In other words, another Bush foreign policy failure.
>
> DSK
>

The real problem is that these things don't blow up in our faces until
5-10-15 years later, when the current POTUS is a doddering old fool and his
supporters all say "Awww....come on. That policy's not connected with what's
going on today".

"Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WDdLc.419$EQ4.178@news01.roc.ny...
>
> "DSK" <dsk@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message
> news:FYcLc.1217$QO.131@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > >>So you agree that Iraq should have another Saddam in power? Why did we
> > >>go there then, just to spend $100 billion?
> > >
> >
> > NOYB wrote:
> > > To put someone else in power that would allow us to station troops
> there,
> > > dummy.
> >
> > In other words, another Bush foreign policy failure.
> >
> > DSK
> >
>
> The real problem is that these things don't blow up in our faces until
> 5-10-15 years later, when the current POTUS is a doddering old fool and
his
> supporters all say "Awww....come on. That policy's not connected with
what's
> going on today".
>

Unless the elections are postponed until then.  ;-)

"NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:qMdLc.6956$f4.4552@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:WDdLc.419$EQ4.178@news01.roc.ny...
> >
> > "DSK" <dsk@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message
> > news:FYcLc.1217$QO.131@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> > > >>So you agree that Iraq should have another Saddam in power? Why did
we
> > > >>go there then, just to spend $100 billion?
> > > >
> > >
> > > NOYB wrote:
> > > > To put someone else in power that would allow us to station troops
> > there,
> > > > dummy.
> > >
> > > In other words, another Bush foreign policy failure.
> > >
> > > DSK
> > >
> >
> > The real problem is that these things don't blow up in our faces until
> > 5-10-15 years later, when the current POTUS is a doddering old fool and
> his
> > supporters all say "Awww....come on. That policy's not connected with
> what's
> > going on today".
> >
>
> Unless the elections are postponed until then.  ;-)
>
>

Speaking of doddering fools.....

"thunder" <thunderTAKEOUT@gti.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.07.20.00.03.25.132920@gti.net...

> No, you still don't get it.  Our CIA has installed several US friendly
> governments in that area.

None that have allowed us to station 150,000 troops in their country.
That's a big difference.

"Harry Krause" <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2m366gFifde7U1@uni-berlin.de...
> thunder wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:55:05 +0000, NOYB wrote:
> >
> >
> >> We don't need a western-style democracy.  We just need a US-friendly
> >> governmentthat will sell us oil and allow us to station troops right in
> >> the heart of the Middle East.  You still don't get it.
> >
> > No, you still don't get it.  Our CIA has installed several US friendly
> > governments in that area.  Do a search on Iraq Kassim CIA or Iran
> > Mossadegh CIA.  The problem is our puppet governments are quite brutal
and
> > don't seem to be able to last.  It isn't any wonder many Arabs hate us.
> > Imposing another puppet regime will only continue the violence to the
> > Arabs and to us.  We never seem to learn.
>
>
> What's probably going to happen in Iraq is that the Shiites in the
> southern part of the country will, with the help of the Shiite majority
> in Iran, gravitate more and more towards that country, and there will,
> in the end be a bifurcation of Iraq.

You're assuming that Iran remains under the current leadership.  I think
that there's a high probability that that won't be the case.  Just today,
Allawi said that Iraq was ready to "strike back" at the country's that are
supporting terrorists in Iraq.  How do you suppose a country with no
military of its own "strikes back" at its neighbor?  Perhaps with the troops
that are there to act on Iraq's behalf?

>
> We're already far worse off, terrorism-wise, than we were before Bush
> initiated his war of choice against Iraq. Just wait until Iran's sphere
> of influence emcompasses much of southern Iraq.

Which is precisely why Iran is next in our sites.

"DSK" <dsk@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message
news:ttfLc.11057$GT3.10253@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > "thunder" wrote
> >>No, you still don't get it.  Our CIA has installed several US friendly
> >>governments in that area.
> >
>
> NOYB wrote:
> > None that have allowed us to station 150,000 troops in their country.
> > That's a big difference.
>
> Is the Iraqi gov't, or more importantly, the people, going to allow us
> to do that?


Which people?  The Iranian insurgents?

"He's no damned better than Saddam, it seems:

From Democracy Underground.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Our appointed Saddam
replacement, Iyad Allawi, seems to be picking up where his predecessor
left off, apparently executing six Iraqi insurgents in cold blood
while Iraqi policemen................"

900 dead American's won't cause 25,000,000 savages to walk upright.  Did
anyone notice that every sink-hole country in that area is run by a
dictator? That's what it takes!  Anything else is like inviting
fight-trained pitbulls to an opera.

.....but we'll bring them "democracy." If it could work there, it might even
work HERE!  But, THAT will never happen with the two criminal gangs called
"political parties" in the US.

Voting R = stooge
Voting D = stooge

...........WHERE'S ALL MY FREE
STUFF????????????????...........George??????...........Lurch????????????

>>Is the Iraqi gov't, or more importantly, the people, going to allow us
>>to do that?



NOYB wrote:
> Which people?  The Iranian insurgents?

All Iraqi people. The one thing they agree on is that U.S. troops have
to *go*. It will be an interesting test of Iraqi sovereignty.

In any event, even Wolfowitz seems to have given up on the idea of
long-term strategic basing of troops in Iraq. And I don't think the Army
is too keen on the idea of staying there either. Maybe if we spilt off
an independent Kurdistan, like we promised we wouldn't, they'd let us
have a major permanent base there... but it would really piss off our
staunch & long standing allies, the Turks... par for the course for
Bush/Cheney foreign policy tho...

DSK

DSK wrote:

>>>Is the Iraqi gov't, or more importantly, the people, going to allow us
>>>to do that?
>
>
>
> NOYB wrote:
>> Which people?  The Iranian insurgents?
>
> All Iraqi people. The one thing they agree on is that U.S. troops have
> to *go*. It will be an interesting test of Iraqi sovereignty.
>
> In any event, even Wolfowitz seems to have given up on the idea of
> long-term strategic basing of troops in Iraq. And I don't think the Army
> is too keen on the idea of staying there either. Maybe if we spilt off
> an independent Kurdistan, like we promised we wouldn't, they'd let us
> have a major permanent base there... but it would really piss off our
> staunch & long standing allies, the Turks... par for the course for
> Bush/Cheney foreign policy tho...
>
> DSK
>

I don't see Iraq surviving as anything other than a loose confederation
of areas contained in an outline map, with "alignments" outside the
outline.

A long-term impact of Bush's war? Destabilization of that part of the
Middle East, and windows of opportunity for Iran, along, of course, with
emboldened terrorist.



--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.