Bush wants Civil War in Iraq

[DoYouEverWonder]

Bush and Cheney need a distraction and none of their buddies, even the Israelis will let them do Iran. So it will be Civil War in Iraq instead.

No wonder they're both going to be in the Middle East tomorrow. They wanted to celebrate the first day that the Iraqi Civil War becomes official.

Nov 25, 2006, 14:35 GMT

Cairo - An influential Sunni religious leader accused the US and the Iraqi government Saturday of wanting Iraq to slip into a civil war.

Sheikh Harith al-Dhari, head of the Association of Moslem Scholars (AMS), the highest Sunni authority in Iraq, told reporters in Cairo that the US and the Iraqi administration have fomented tensions between Iraqis in order to bring about civil war and divide the country.

He accused the Shiite-dominated government of Iraqi Premier Nuri al-Maliki of protecting militias and lawbreakers, meaning Sunnis had to take up arms to protect themselves. However, he said the majority of people in Iraq reject violence between Sunnis and Shiites.

Al-Dhari said the US-led occupation has destroyed 'the state, the people and the institutions of Iraq' and he called on the international community to withdraw its recognition of the Iraqi administration.

The Iraqi government has accused Al-Dhari of encouraging terrorism and violence in Iraq's western Anbar province and is seeking to question him. Al-Dhari, currently in Egypt, hasn't said whether he'll be returning to Iraq.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1226027.php/US_and_Iraqi_government_want_civil_war_says_Sunni_leader

[The Magistrate]

1. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Ma'am

What exactly does civil war in Iraq distract from?

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. They are madman

so who can really know?

But it gives them an excuse to continue to kill more people, continue suck this country dry to the last penny, and then live a life of luxury in an undisclosed SA country.

Watch Bush try to be the War Time President again. He loves playing that role. Plus if a terrorist attack results, against American interests even better.

I'm not saying this is a good idea, but guys like Bush and Cheney never go out gracefully.

[The Magistrate]

4. Rating Your Opponent Insane, Ma'am

Is seldom productive. People generally act in a manner that has some reasoned or emotional calculation behind it, if only from their own point of view.

If their desire is to continue killing people, that is a motive, but it is an end and not a distraction from some real end.

Further, most of the people being killed in Iraq today are not being killed by U.S. forces, or in other words, by the agency of the men you name, but by Iraqis moved to violence against one another from various motives. That is, after all, what civil war is, a war between the people of a country.

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. Who created the conditions for Civil War in Iraq?

We are the occupying power after all.

[The Magistrate]

8. The Conditions For That, Ma'am

Were baked in the cake at the founding of the place in the early twenties of the last century. All that was necessary to bring it to a boil was knocking the keystone out of the arch.

What you seem to be saying is that civil war in Iraq was the intention of the present U.S. regime from the start. That strikes me as most unlikely. At the most basic level, it renders commercial looting very difficult. Exploitation is best carried out in peaceful conditions.

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. Read my sig line

There are definitely people in the Bush circle who planned for this outcome.

[The Magistrate]

17. You Mis-Read The Fellow, Ma'am

Stability is, in one sense, something that remains as it is, and no more. There are very sound arguments that the political arrangements of the Middle East in the last decade of the last century were not particularly good from the point of view of U.S. interests, and that therefore "stability", in that sense, was not the best goal for U.S. policy. Similarly, change of any sort is a form of instability, because any change is something different from what existed before. But to desire a change does not mean that the change which occurs was the change that was desired. These people did not think they were going to get a chaotic carnage out of invading Iraq; they thought they were going to get something that would be in essence a stable colony. They grotesquely mis-read what was possible with the tools at their disposal, and unfortunately, a tremendous number of Iraqis are paying the forfeit of the hubris.

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. Yes, Richard Perle

proclaimed that they would throw flowers at us and sing great songs about us later on.

Do you really think they were that stupid? Some of them like Wolfowitz, yes. I think he buys his own bs. But Perle and Ledeen, knew what they were doing and they don't really care as long as they can reduce the population and anyones' claims to the oil fields.

[The Magistrate]

26. Yes, Ma'am, They Were

People have an astonishing ability to believe what it would suit them to be true is in fact true.

[petgoat]

51. Maybe the point isn't to exploit the oil, but to keep it off the

market.

Iraqi oil has a production cost of $1 a barrel. Iraqi chaos
creates an artificial scarcity, raising oil prices.

Possibly there are other reasons for keeping it off the market, too.
Maybe Peak Oil is for real, and so even higher prices are in the offing.
Thus Iraqi chaos serves to preserve the oil resource for the future.

Meanwhile the US can turn Iraq into a depleted-uranium superfund site,
suitable only for inhabitation by oil-pumping robots and highly-paid
technicians who do six month stints there and take five years off their
lives in exchange for big bucks now.

Another reason for keeping the oil off the market may be that the oil
guys know that global warming is for real and so oil consumption must
be limited as an emergency measure.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. So would you say

Hitler was not a madman?

Doesn't mean that someone isn't also smart and cunning in a very sick way or that you should underestimate them. Just that you can not predict what they will do, because their rational for what they do becomes so whacked out. Especially when they are falling apart at the seams.

[The Magistrate]

15. That Fellow Was Quite Predictable, Ma'am

And along several lines, some including classical lines of state policy.

Generally, opponents are called madmen simply as a propaganda, to suggest there cannot be a real reason for their hostility or their other actions and views. Would you call Col. Chavez a madman, or agree that Hussein, Gaddaffi, and Milosevic were madmen?

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. What is wrong

with associating that propaganda with Bush? It is a very powerful association. Especially if it's true. I mean isn't it obvious Bush is nuts? This is the guy who claims to only listens to those voices in his head ie. god.

[The Magistrate]

20. So Long As One Is Clear It Is Propaganda, Ma'am

There is nothing wrong with it at all. But it is important to keep a bright line between propaganda and analysis, and never to confuse the two. Believing one's own propaganda frequently has disasterous results: indeed, the current situation in Iraq can serve as textbook example of this.

[peacetalksforall]

3. They want the civil war so that they can make friends and do

business with the Kurds and Shiites - those who are from the oil rich parts of Iraq. Believe it won't happen that they will befriend Kurds and Shiites? Could it already be a done deal?

[cali]

6. Civil War in Iraq totally discredits bush

his team, and his foreign policy. It leaves his legacy in tatters, and it's clear that he cares about his legacy. All Presidents do. There is no upside for bush in the civil war raging in Iraq.

[The Magistrate]

9. Quite Right, Ma'am

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. Bush is one of the few

who doesn't give a crap how history sees him. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been caught dead in front of a camera playing guitar and eating cake during Katrina.

[DemonFighterLives]

7. I thought all along that dubco will accept death no matter who dies

Nearly 3,000 dead and he was staying his course until the elections provided a little shock and awe to the pubbies. Finally dubby is pretending to show a little concern, though he now needs to talk to many people to get a clue.

Death thrills the little cowboy.
:dem:

[Jack Rabbit]

11. Joining with my good friend, The Magistrate

A civil war in Iraq highlights Bush's failure. By its very nature, it cannot be a distraction.

What is presented here as evidence of Bush's desire to foment civil war in Iraq is the ranting of a self-interested political leader.

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. Is that why Dick and his Saudi buddies

are all smiles today?



Maybe Dick promised them a big chunk of Iraqi oil, once the Iraqis finish killing each other.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. That does not answer my point

The Sauds don't need Iraq's oil. They have their own.

We seldom see a photo like this where the participants aren't smiling. The fact they are smiling is not justifiable cause to conclude that they've divided Iraq between them.

Now, from what does a civil war in Iraq distract attention? A civil war in Iraq?

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. It gives Bush an excuse

to spend more money and up the troops levels. Even if he changes course once the DEMS take control, his pals got one last big money grab and the DEMS are left with an even bigger mess to clean up. That way for the next two years it can all be the DEMS fault.

In regards to the Saudis, some of their fields are running out and I'm sure they wouldn't mind some share in some those uncovered resources up in Iraq. They've got a lot of princes to support.

[The Magistrate]

28. Iraqis Are Not Going To Stop Killing Each Other Anytime Soon, Ma'am

This is going to go one for years, whether the U.S. remains in the place or not. It is certain, as it continues, to badly de-stabilize Saudi Arabia, which has regions where the population is predominantly Shi'ite, and badly discriminated against by the present government and religious structures.

[petgoat]

50. The Sauds DO need Iraq's oil.

Iraq's oil has a production cost of $1 per barrel.

Some say that the quality of Saudi oil is declining, an
indication that they are beginning to run short.

Another issue with respect to the oil was that since WWII
oil purchases have to be done in dollars--even if Venezuala
wants to sell oil to China it has to be in dollars.

Saddam had started selling oil in Euros. If this change
became widespread, it would devalue the dollar.

Iran has also made this threat. And North Korea had also
announced inentions to quit using the dollar.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoYouEverWonder]

46. 'You demonstrate exactly zero in the critical thinking dept.'

Is it possible to have a discuss without the personal attack?

[The Magistrate]

22. Indeed, My Old Friend

In a circumstance where there is both civil war and an occupying power, all sides in the civil war will find political benefit in blaming the occupier for it, and accusing their opponents of being pawns of the occupier, as this will allow them to tap into the natural patriotism of the people of the country, and identify their faction with that primal urge,

[Jack Rabbit]

35. Not only that, my friend

More to the point as far as we Americans are concerned is that Bush and his partners in crime assumed the role of occupying power in Iraq. To have a civil war break out on their watch is certainly indicative of the failure of their plans and their authority.

That would be true even if there were good reasons to invade Iraq.

It should also be mentioned that even absent a US invasion, civil strife would have characterized Iraq once Saddam had passed the scene whenever or however that would have come about. It would not have played out exactly as it has, but it would have happened. The Shiites would have made their bid for power; the Sunnis would have tried to hold on; and the Kurds may have used the opportunity to opt for independence and take Kirkuk and Mosul with them.

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. Isn't that what they said about Vietnam?

We can't leave because it would all be much worse afterward?

[Jack Rabbit]

43. I am hearing all the same lame excuses now that I heard about Vietnam

years and years ago.

That doesn't prove Bush wants a civil war. He would have much rather have had a harmonious population so happy to be rid of Saddam that they wouldn't have noticed transnational corporations expropriating their natural resources.

A civil war is a disaster to that end. Contrary to what many on the left believe, capitlists do not like wars. What happens when there is a war in the Persian Gulf? Lloyd's of London raises its rates on shipping, that's what. Production gets interrupted, that's what. Even the nastiest capitalist still needs a commodity to sell in order to satisfy his greed. He can't do that if the overhead to produce the product is driving costs up or if the conditions of production are such that the commodity just doesn't even make it to market. Arms manufactuers and merchants may make a killing (no pun intended), but nobody else does.

[The Magistrate]

44. One Small Point, Ma'am

To point out that when the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, it is quite likely there will be a good deal more killing and chaos than there is at the moment, hardly constitutes a call to stay there. What is important to our people and our country is our own interests, and these are not served by remaining in Iraq. Remaining in Iraq costs us prestige and treasure every day: leaving Iraq is going to cost us prestige. But the latter will occur whenever we leave, in about the same degree. There is no point adding greater costs daily to the final bill looming ahead.

[The Magistrate]

40. Absolutely, Sir

The fact of civil war there, now at a pitch even paid shills cannot keep a straight face to deny, is the latest, if not the last peg, in the coffin of failure on the part of the present regime. It is, put bluntly, of great value to have the Republicans tarred with such a catastrophic failure in the fields of foreign policy and military endeavor, as for some years now the people have tended to view them as more competent in those aras than the Democrats. This may level that for some time to come.

[JuniperLea]

37. Which would likely be closer to the truth

And Bush would have to declare which faction he supports. I doubt he knows the difference let alone a reason (excuse) for being on one side against the others.

No, civil war is no place for outsiders. Once the powers-that-be admit there is civil war, they have to pull out. Which would be a good excuse for them to do so in an attempt to save some face, as long as they denied any involvement in the coming of that civil war. That's an easy enough lie to get away with considering all they have gotten away with so far.

[leftofthedial]

23. tactically they need distractions

strategically, they need fear and chaos

[Melynn]

24. Bush doesn't want a civil war in Iraq

God only knows what he wants. I wonder if he really knows what he wants.

Bush and Co. are just incompetent and now they have a civil war in Iraq on their hands. Every intelligent person in the government told Bush that a civil war would happen in Iraq if the U.S. invaded Iraq but Bush went ahead and went to war with Iraq away. So now here we are trying to figure how to get out this out of nightmare.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. They seem to have no intentions

of trying to get out. Rather they are talking about adding more troops and money instead.

[Melynn]

30. When I say, "we" I mean everyone else besides the neo-cons

Everyone else is trying to figure out how we can get out of Iraq. The neo-cons are nuts and incompetent, yeah, they do probably want to stay in Iraq forever.

I think that the Bush administration will pushed in a direction of bi-lateral talks with region powers like Syria and Iran to find a way out of Iraq. Whether Bush goes for that, remains to be seen.

[DoYouEverWonder]

32. Apparently, Cheney's got a cunning plan

that he's working out with the Saudis right now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2629282

[Melynn]

41. God only knows what deal they are cooking up

It won't be good, that is one thing that is for sure.

[DemonFighterLives]

33. Someone has to oversee the mayhem

and have Halliburton, etc, there to rip off the American people and pick up the pieces again and again. Everytime they shit gets blown up, GFY cheney's eyes light up. $$$$!!!!11$

[NNN0LHI]

29. Iraq is no more a civil war than France or Poland was after the Nazis invaded...

...and occupied them and set up puppet governments.

There were French killing French. Poles killing Poles. All while occupied by Nazi Germany.

And no one ever suggested that the Resistance and the puppet governments the Nazis set up were involved in a civil war.

Because they weren't. Just like Iraq isn't.

Don

[cali]

31. That is a spurious comparison.

Please see the Magistrate's post upthread regarding the seeds of the Iraqi civil war. And yes, it damn well is a civil war. While poles did indeed kill Poles and the French did kill fellow countrymen, there was not, to my knowledge, the kind of wholesale slaughter of innocents, based chiefly on their religious affiliation, that is ongoing in Iraq.

[NNN0LHI]

34. I read the entire thread before posting above

More than 2 million Polish civilians died while under Nazi occupation and it was no civil war either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Don

[cali]

36. Yes, and the vast majority of them were killed by

the germans. That hardly proves your case.

[NNN0LHI]

39. I don't have to prove anything to you

Perhaps you will figure that out some day?

You post stuff with no cite because that is what you want to believe.

Nothing I can do to alter that kind of reasoning.

Figured that out long time ago.

Don

[cali]

42. Hmm. You post a ridiculous claim with no cite, and get annoyed

when it's refuted. It has nothing to do with proving anything. You post misinformation, and if I see it, and feel like it, I'll blow you out of the water with facts. Here's a cite regarding Polish deaths in WW2, proving that your claims are indeed erroneous. Oh, and you can always put me on ignore if you can't deal with facts.

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/498/losses.html

[NNN0LHI]

45. I get annoyed when people post disinformation for one reason or another

Yep, that is what annoys me. A lot.

Carry on.

Don

[cali]

47. If you're accusing me of posting disinformation, kindly

put up or shut up.

[Odin2005]

48. The highly dout the Neo-Cunts planned for there to be a civil war.

They invaded Iraq for the oil, an ally to counterbalance Iran, and as a place for millitary bases smack in the center of the Middle East, a civil war is not good for taking advantage of any of those. The Civil war resulted from them not having a proper understanding of the region.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

49. Chaos out of order was his goal, and he won. eom

[tabasco]

52. Not that they want it, they simply don't care.

US forces were sent there to secure oil facilities and a command and control facility (Green Zone).

The neocon plan is to maintain control of Iraqi oil, not prevent an Iraqi civil war.

The only reason they care at all about the ongoing Iraqi civil war is because it is bad PR.

Notice that the oilfields are still secure.