On 07 May 2007 20:03:24 GMT, Chris wrote:

(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote in
:

In article ,
Clark F Morris wrote:

The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.

Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
indefinitely.


I think that is the US governmaents intent

That was unclear. Do you think the intent is to have a group hostile
to US interests come out on top, or to have a permanent occupation. I
can make a case for either.

The permanent occupation is a likely goal, because we are, after all,
building 14 permanent bases including the "US Embassy", actually one
huge base. This will give the US control of the oil.

However a hostile government is also a plus, depending on how one
defines US interests. If the interests are those of the average
American, this is a bad thing. But if you're talking about corporate
interests, then an enemy is great. After the collapse of the Soviet
Union, it was looking like we could actually get a reduction in
military spending, I think we were hoping for something called a
"peace dividend".

That, however, was a threat to the corporations that make their
obscene profits from the war industries; that's what Eisenhower was
referring to with his "military-industrial complex" speech. So, we
needed another enemy. They tried using Gadaffi but even they couldn't
blow him up into a real threat.

Of course, we managed to blow Iran into a huge threat now, so perhaps
we can just take Iraq and still have Iran as a boogyman. Yes, that's a
good plan. Something that Republicans and Democrats can agree on,
since they both feed off the GE-NBC-Etc corporate teat. Hmm, let's
see, yes, combining large "defense" industries with the dominant media
companies! What a great idea.