ForumGarden

Tell that to the officers in charge.

Two years after President George W. Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" in Iraq, some thoughtful officers are beginning to question who the insurgents actually are.

In a recent interview the head of the US 42nd Infantry Division which covers key trouble spots, including Baquba and Samarra Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some ordinary Iraqis would take up arms against U.S. forces because "they're offended by our presence." Taluto added, "If a good, honest person feels having all these Humvees driving on the road, having us moving people out of the way, having us patrol the streets, having car bombs going off, you can understand how they could (want to fight us).

There is a sense of a good resistance, or an accepted resistance. They say 'okay, if you shoot a coalition soldier, that's okay, it's not a bad thing but you shouldn't kill other Iraqis.'"

Taluto insisted however that the other foreign forces would not be driven out of Iraq by violence, observing, "If the goal is to have the coalition leave, attacking them isn't the way," he said. "The way to make it happen is to enter the political process cooperate and the coalition will be less aggressive and less visible and eventually it'll go away." Taluto's comments are sure to raise hackles at the Pentagon, which insist that all insurgents are either Baathists or al-Qaida. Taluto observed that "99.9 per cent" of those captured fighting the U.S. were Iraqis.

Define "mission" please. He didn't say the war was won. He said that piece of it was accomplished. The troops were in Baghdad. :-5

Clint wrote: Define "mission" please. He didn't say the war was won. He said that piece of it was accomplished. The troops were in Baghdad. :-5Strangely, under his banner of "Mission accomplished", Boy George defined it himself:

"Our mission continues. Al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland ” and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.

"The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory."

spot wrote: Strangely, under his banner of "Mission accomplished", Boy George defined it himself:

"Our mission continues. Al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland ” and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.

"The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory."


Thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself.

It's hard not to look at some of the phrases in that speech and shudder with revulsion.

"When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our servicemen and women, they saw strength, and kindness, and good will." - they did? What balderdash. Go and ask them.

"Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food, and water, and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices." I'm sure it's true. I'm sure it hasn't happened in Iraq. I'm sure it won't have happened, however long the deadlines are extended. Anyone who thinks otherwise has only faith to support their view, they certainly fly into the teeth of all the available evidence.

I don’t know why politicians have to say so much they say too much. He could have simply said: War is ugly and we have successfully taken the first step in a series of difficult steps yet to be taken. Please give these brave men and women your support as we sail these uncharted waters to fight an unpredictable enemy. Instead, he tried to make circling buzzards look like soaring eagles. The interesting thing is that compared to most, he’s a straight talker.

spot wrote: It's hard not to look at some of the phrases in that speech and shudder with revulsion.



"When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our servicemen and women, they saw strength, and kindness, and good will." - they did? What balderdash. Go and ask them.



"Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food, and water, and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices." I'm sure it's true. I'm sure it hasn't happened in Iraq. I'm sure it won't have happened, however long the deadlines are extended. Anyone who thinks otherwise has only faith to support their view, they certainly fly into the teeth of all the available evidence.
funny. yet in your penultimate paragraph, you expressed precisely the same sort of opinion, one based on faith, rather than evidence. otherwise, on what possible basis can you say "what balderdash" ? you've already decided the answer to your query.

anastrophe wrote: funny. yet in your penultimate paragraph, you expressed precisely the same sort of opinion, one based on faith, rather than evidence. otherwise, on what possible basis can you say "what balderdash" ? you've already decided the answer to your query.We have seen, I believe, a tangible lack of kindness on many occasions, and so little goodwill that you couldn't float a toy duck in it. Those are "and"s, not "or"s.

He didn't say the war was won.


How do you "win a war"?

spot wrote: We have seen, I believe, a tangible lack of kindness on many occasions, and so little goodwill that you couldn't float a toy duck in it. Those are "and"s, not "or"s.
my kindness or lack thereof is not at issue, though it makes a good rhetorical turn and a nifty means of derailing as fast as you can from confronting what you wrote.



luckily, the transcript of what you wrote is right there for all to see.



you'll have to forgive my abject ignorance, but since you quoted nothing, and gave specific reference in no manner, i'm afraid i haven't the slightest idea what you mean by your last sentence.



is context really such a burden for you?

Peg wrote: How do you "win a war"? Technically, how you win a war is quite simple. You kill the enemy, soldiers and civilians both, until the remaining leadership of those left alive says stop, you may do with us whatever you please, but we will fight you no more. The term for this is "unconditional surrender". At that point, you take their weaponry, stand guard over them, and consult among yourselves. Either you enslave them, or you free them. You may kill as many of those left alive as you choose to kill. Rather famously, the Spartans and Athenians once took a city on terms of unconditional surrender and proceeded, the following day, to take each of the inhabitants, one by one, through a hut, at the end door of which they cut his or her throat. It took all day to clear the city entirely.

There are other options, but the preference of the USA is invariably to accept only an unconditional surrender.

spot wrote:

There are other options, but the preference of the USA is invariably to accept only an unconditional surrender.
not that it matters, but what is the preference of your own nation? (god forbid you discuss anything other than in terms of the evil USA)

anastrophe wrote: my kindness or lack thereof is not at issue, though it makes a good rhetorical turn and a nifty means of derailing as fast as you can from confronting what you wrote.



luckily, the transcript of what you wrote is right there for all to see.



you'll have to forgive my abject ignorance, but since you quoted nothing, and gave specific reference in no manner, i'm afraid i haven't the slightest idea what you mean by your last sentence.



is context really such a burden for you?I quoted the entire content of your post.

Originally Posted by spot

It's hard not to look at some of the phrases in that speech and shudder with revulsion.

"When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our servicemen and women, they saw strength, and kindness, and good will." - they did? What balderdash. Go and ask them.

"Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food, and water, and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices." I'm sure it's true. I'm sure it hasn't happened in Iraq. I'm sure it won't have happened, however long the deadlines are extended. Anyone who thinks otherwise has only faith to support their view, they certainly fly into the teeth of all the available evidence.

Originally Posted by anastrophe

funny. yet in your penultimate paragraph, you expressed precisely the same sort of opinion, one based on faith, rather than evidence. otherwise, on what possible basis can you say "what balderdash" ? you've already decided the answer to your query.

the penultimate paragraph:

"When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our servicemen and women, they saw strength, and kindness, and good will." - they did? What balderdash. Go and ask them.

The basis, other than faith, on which I can say "what balderdash":

We have seen, I believe, a tangible lack of kindness on many occasions, and so little goodwill that you couldn't float a toy duck in it. Those are "and"s, not "or"s.

anastrophe wrote: not that it matters, but what is the preference of your own nation? (god forbid you discuss anything other than in terms of the evil USA)


The preference of the UK is to pragmatically get what they want, with the least amount of fuss or formality. We might mention unconditional surrender, but it's negotiable. The last time we did it:

"General J. J. Moore flew in to Port Stanley at 2300 hours on 14th June, 1982, where General Moore and General Menendez met outside the conference room. They saluted each other and said that each side had fought well. General Moore said they should get on with things and produced the surrender documents. Genral Menendez struck 'unconditional' out of the documents. He had been promised that the surrender would be with 'dignity and honour' in the psy-ops broadcasts. Menendez also secured the prompt evacuation of his troops as one of the conditions, but the British did not allow him to insert the words 'Islas Malvinas' after 'Falklands'. At 2359 the document was formally signed and witnessed by Colonel Pennicott. General Menendez asked if he might join his men on the airfield where they were to be grouped prior to repatriation. When this was refused, tears formed in his eyes. He was evacuated to HMS Fearless the following morning."

spot wrote: The basis, other than faith, on which I can say "what balderdash":



We have seen, I believe, a tangible lack of kindness on many occasions, and so little goodwill that you couldn't float a toy duck in it. Those are "and"s, not "or"s.
now i understand. its your use of the plural 'you' once again. i took the first sentence as a jab at *me*, rather than our servicemen.



nevertheless, the reason you ('you' plural) don't see the kindness is because it doesn't make for nearly as stirring a breathless a news story as pitched battle or whatnot.



you suggest that the military commander 'go ask them' - funny. the military commander is over there, with them. he's far more likely to have asked them than you, in your ivory tower.

spot wrote: The preference of the UK is to pragmatically get what they want, with the least amount of fuss or formality. We might mention unconditional surrender, but it's negotiable. The last time we did it:



"General J. J. Moore flew in to Port Stanley at 2300 hours on 14th June, 1982, where General Moore and General Menendez met outside the conference room. They saluted each other and said that each side had fought well. General Moore said they should get on with things and produced the surrender documents. Genral Menendez struck 'unconditional' out of the documents. He had been promised that the surrender would be with 'dignity and honour' in the psy-ops broadcasts. Menendez also secured the prompt evacuation of his troops as one of the conditions, but the British did not allow him to insert the words 'Islas Malvinas' after 'Falklands'. At 2359 the document was formally signed and witnessed by Colonel Pennicott. General Menendez asked if he might join his men on the airfield where they were to be grouped prior to repatriation. When this was refused, tears formed in his eyes. He was evacuated to HMS Fearless the following morning."
lovely. those wonderfully pragmatic brits. yes, the falklands certainly were an important chunk of land to defend for the queen. but didn't the sheep get an opportunity to sign as well? seeing as they were the majority population of the island, you'd think the crown's altruism would extend to them as well.



i must say, i enjoyed your juxtaposition of the description of the bloodthirsty 'unconditional surrender' as practiced by the spartans with your comment that the US 'prefers' unconditional surrender. touche. as always, any opportunity for you to impugn the character of my country, you'll take it. at least you're consistent.

anastrophe wrote: you suggest that the military commander 'go ask them' - funny. the military commander is over there, with them. he's far more likely to have asked them than you, in your ivory tower.The words were those of your commander in chief, not the Theater Commander. The idea of Boy George exchanging words with any random unselected Iraqis off the street, in Iraq, is fantasy. The idea of the Theater Commander exchanging words with any random unselected Iraqis off the street, in Iraq, is fantasy, too, but let's play that one.

You think the Theater Commander's asked many Iraqis on the street whether his troops have shown kindness and goodwill? And you think a significant number of them have grinned and nodded and said yes, effendi, it's exactly so, effendi, please don't kill us painfully?

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they. Let's not be naive.

If you want to know what the Iraqis on the street think about their treatment at the hands of the American troops, read a reputable newspaper. Kindness and goodwill play little part in the answer.

anastrophe wrote: the falklands certainly were an important chunk of land to defend for the queen.Bigger than Grenada, dear boy. Bigger than Grenada. How many medals were awarded for that Reagan-inspired invasion? I could look it up, but it would be a bore, don't you think.

spot wrote: The words were those of your commander in chief, not the Theater Commander. The idea of Boy George exchanging words with any random unselected Iraqis off the street, in Iraq, is fantasy. The idea of the Theater Commander exchanging words with any random unselected Iraqis off the street, in Iraq, is fantasy, too, but let's play that one.
my mistake.





You think the Theater Commander's asked many Iraqis on the street whether his troops have shown kindness and goodwill? And you think a significant number of them have grinned and nodded and said yes, effendi, it's exactly so, effendi, please don't kill us painfully?
well that was offensive. 'effendi'? what, you think the iraqis speak turkish? bah, they're all just brown middle easterners, who can tell the difference, eh?





If you want to know what the Iraqis on the street think about their treatment at the hands of the American troops, read a reputable newspaper. Kindness and goodwill play little part in the answer.
mmm, let me guess - reputable newspaper, guiliani sgrena's il manifesto? right.......

spot wrote: Bigger than Grenada, dear boy. Bigger than Grenada. How many medals were awarded for that Reagan-inspired invasion? I could look it up, but it would be a bore, don't you think.
the size of the island is your benchmark for importance? sheesh.



never mind that the US invaded after a bloody coup. never mind that large numbers of US medical students were there. after the war was 'won', we left. there is no US government there. it's not a US protectorate or possession.



the falklands? "it's ours. why? because we say so. and we'll kill you to keep it ours."

it's 8pm here in the US. by my reckoning, it's 4am in the UK. do you not sleep, spot?

anastrophe wrote: well that was offensive. 'effendi'? what, you think the iraqis speak turkish? bah, they're all just brown middle easterners, who can tell the difference, eh?Commonly used throughout those sections of the Arab world which formed part of the Turkish Empire before World War 1. Commonplace in Egypt through the 40s and 50s. Commonplace in Iraq in the 30s. The fact that the title's Turkish has little to do with who would use it obsequeously. Faced with a trooper who speaks nothing but Merkin, in full body armor, on an Iraqi street, I'm not sure what would be more fawning, but as you say I'm not there and not up-to-date on staying alive after Liberation.

anastrophe wrote: the size of the island is your benchmark for importance? sheesh.



never mind that the US invaded after a bloody coup. never mind that large numbers of US medical students were there. after the war was 'won', we left. there is no US government there. it's not a US protectorate or possession.



the falklands? "it's ours. why? because we say so. and we'll kill you to keep it ours."I suspect the drilling, mineral and fishing rights within the internationally-recognised 200 mile continental shelf have a part to play in the decisions of the last few decades round the South Atlantic.

anastrophe wrote: it's 8pm here in the US. by my reckoning, it's 4am in the UK. do you not sleep, spot?In my youth, I could sleep regularly and well. In my declining years, I take what's given with as much gratitude as I can muster, which isn't an awful lot. I wonder whether I get rattier as I get more tired? It upsets me to think that I might.

spot wrote: Commonly used throughout those sections of the Arab world which formed part of the Turkish Empire before World War 1. Commonplace in Egypt through the 40s and 50s. Commonplace in Iraq in the 30s. The fact that the title's Turkish has little to do with who would use it obsequeously. Faced with a trooper who speaks nothing but Merkin, in full body armor, on an Iraqi street, I'm not sure what would be more fawning, but as you say I'm not there and not up-to-date on staying alive after Liberation.
i believe a common term used is "gee eye joe".

anastrophe wrote: i believe a common term used is "gee eye joe".I'll get one of my students to try that on the guard at the airbase outside Abingdon, next time she's home for the weekend. I don't think she'd get away with effendi, not in these parts. The Turks never invaded England. "Hey, GI Joe, got any nylons?" We'll see how he reacts. According to my mom, the typical going rate was two pairs for a weekend. She said it was the first time in her life she ever saw a spare tyre.

MSN posted this picture the day after our local boy was killed - This is his unit..this was the exact same story that appeared in our paper -that had happened to him....His parents will have to mourn "our victory?" - everyday for the rest of their lives... Bring them home - and fight our own war here in America...Feed the starving, cure the sick, take care of our children here first - Maybe send over every dum%a** in prison here to fight that war...No- I have not forgotten the WTC - and no one should - but this war was for fuel/oil, and our self -centered goverment - not our freedom... :-5

Attached files

Thank you, MII, this is the wrong thread for me to be spatting with the sysop. I'll give it a rest. There's too much pain to get as distracted into trivia as we two keep doing.

the iraq war was not about oil. no more so than vietnam was about turtle soup.

anastrophe wrote: the iraq war was not about oil. no more so than vietnam was about turtle soup.Tell me, is Harpers Magazine an acceptable source of first-hand news with a bit of opinion thrown in? Or is that also one of the proliferation of Home-Grown Anti-American Left-Wing Propaganda outlets that prevents the citizenry from absorbing nothing but Truth, Justice, and the American Way?

anastrophe wrote: the iraq war was not about oil. no more so than vietnam was about turtle soup.


To date nobody has been able to give a rational reason for the fiasco in NAM...

At least not that I am aware of.

anastrophe wrote: the iraq war was not about oil.


It was about an old 'used up' U.S. employee that was no longer necessary and refused to be fired.

spot wrote: Tell me, is Harpers Magazine an acceptable source of first-hand news with a bit of opinion thrown in? Or is that also one of the proliferation of Home-Grown Anti-American Left-Wing Propaganda outlets that prevents the citizenry from absorbing nothing but Truth, Justice, and the American Way?uh. are you referencing a specific article? or just asking randomly? i guess we are to assume that harpers has an article that describes why the iraq war was about oil.



well, bravo for them. it's not like half the world (and forumgarden) don't blithely toss that notion about with careless abandon.



yes, all that new oil from iraq has really helped bring down gas prices for americans. we're veritably swimming in benzene! yep, the government spent billions and billions and billions to go to war in iraq to get the oil. it was cheaper than just paying the saudis and venezuelans and turks and russians and mexico for it on the open market like normal.



lets see - two plus years later, and is there but more than a trickle of oil flowing from the country? if all we were after - and apparently it *is* all we were after if you want to instantly presume the worst motives were at work - then why have 'we' been wasting all that time and money restoring clean water, electricity, repairing roads, helping train iraqis to police themselves. if we wanted the oil, wouldn't we just take over and make our forces permanent? who needs those bumbling iraqis anyway. as spot so perceptively noted, the US prefers unconditional surrender, which means slitting the throats of every man, woman, and child living in iraq, it would seem. so why are we bothering with all this nonsense. simple solution to the insurgents and annoying local populace - just pull the US troops back, drop a few atom bombs on baghdad and tikrit and fallujah etc., then when the dust clear, get back to piping that black gold.



yes, simple answers to complex questions always make the most sense.



NO BLOOD FOR OIL! as the protesters love to chant. in unison. while pretending to be dead and lying down in the middle of the street. HEY HEY, HO HO, BUSH-CHENEY-RUMSFELD-ROVE-RICE-WOLFOWITZ-SANTORUM-FRIST HAVE GOT TO GO!





sigh.

anastrophe wrote: uh. are you referencing a specific article? or just asking randomly? i guess we are to assume that harpers has an article that describes why the iraq war was about oil.On a point of information, neither in this thread nor, I believe, in any other, have I said, suggested or implied that the Liberation of Iraq was about oil. Yes, I am going to reference a specific article, no, it is not about oil. Before I do it, I wondered what the status of Harpers Magazine is, in terms of Home-Grown Anti-American Left-Wing Propaganda leanings. You are so prone to rubbishing sources that any respectable person would recognize as a serious publication that I felt we might try to stick to centrist brands. It's why I was looking there in the first place.

Far Rider wrote: OK spotty I'll bite....

Inlighten us, why then are we there?Let's hear from the guy with the attitude first, Far Rider. He'll be along in a few minutes.

Far Rider wrote: I'm wanting to respond now but I'll wait for a while.

The threads not going anywhere.My apology, Far Rider, I'm being impolite. It's just that the guy makes a habit of rubbishing sources he doesn't want to critique by saying they're uninformed and Anti-American (by which he means Anti-Administration).

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html

spot wrote: My apology, Far Rider, I'm being impolite. It's just that the guy makes a habit of rubbishing sources he doesn't want to critique by saying they're uninformed and Anti-American (by which he means Anti-Administration).


before i tell you to blow it out your bunghole, i'll give you an opportunity to back up your trashing of me above, and in the previous post. care to provide an actual citation to prove i have this habit?



nah. why waste time. you won't be able to, nor would it get above the level of personal attack in "You are so prone to rubbishing sources that any respectable person [...]"



i stated quite clearly that there are a number of mainstream publication, and television news sources, that are left-leaning. in their leaning to the left, they often take pains to accentuate anything that casts america in a negative light - thus, anti-american. by anti-american, amazingly enough, i do not mean 'anti-administration'. what i mean by 'anti american', unremarkably, is 'anti american'. that the left's adhesions are anti-administration is self-evident, in that the administration is right-wing, thus, antithetical to the left.



kind of a no-brainer there.

Far Rider wrote:

It sensless to argue these points. My minds been made up for 22 years on terrorist factions, and it's simple. Root them out and kill them. I don't care what country I have to invade to do so. If you harbor a terrorist you are one too.



Good thing I'm not the Prez! :DFR, you are now my hero. 'Nuff said.

anastrophe wrote: before i tell you to blow it out your bunghole, i'll give you an opportunity to back up your trashing of me above, and in the previous post. care to provide an actual citation to prove i have this habit?



nah. why waste time. you won't be able to, nor would it get above the level of personal attack in "You are so prone to rubbishing sources that any respectable person [...]"



i stated quite clearly that there are a number of mainstream publication, and television news sources, that are left-leaning. in their leaning to the left, they often take pains to accentuate anything that casts america in a negative light - thus, anti-american. by anti-american, amazingly enough, i do not mean 'anti-administration'. what i mean by 'anti american', unremarkably, is 'anti american'. that the left's adhesions are anti-administration is self-evident, in that the administration is right-wing, thus, antithetical to the left.



kind of a no-brainer there.


your explanation of what you've "stated quite clearly" seems to contradict your claim to not having this habit. Sorry, anastrophe, I recall that you have criticised sources quite often instead of replying to the content of the articles. Now you criticise the accusation instead of addressing the article. I would really like to know what you think of it. And not some standard "it's a load of crap" comment. If you find flaw with it, why?

I was not going to post in FG anymore but this and other topics regarding US wars and foreign policy have recently become quite important to me. So I really would like to know what kind of proof you require before you start to doubt the motives of the politicians that represent your country.

koan wrote: your explanation of what you've "stated quite clearly" seems to contradict your claim to not having this habit. Sorry, anastrophe, I recall that you have criticised sources quite often instead of replying to the content of the articles. Now you criticise the accusation instead of addressing the article. I would really like to know what you think of it. And not some standard "it's a load of crap" comment. If you find flaw with it, why?



I was not going to post in FG anymore but this and other topics regarding US wars and foreign policy have recently become quite important to me. So I really would like to know what kind of proof you require before you start to doubt the motives of the politicians that represent your country.


may i have a few moments to READ the article before you presume my response? sheesh.

anastrophe wrote: may i have a few moments to READ the article before you presume my response? sheesh.


I don't think it was a presumption as you posted a response with no reference to an intention of reading it. I am glad you are taking the time.

There is another thread about "No WMDs, so what?" That just enraged me but I'll keep my comments to one thread to simplify. Since this one refers to "missions" and the actual mission, I feel, is somewhat undetermined I will post all my thoughts on the subject here as they occur.

Historically, the US has shown support of Hussein during war with Iraq. When Iraqi forces were accumulating at the borders of Kuwait, US embassador Glaspie assured Hussein that the US had "no position" on Arab-Arab conflicts. Hussein was told (by reasonable assumption) that the US would not defend Kuwait if he were to attack. There is a good case made for these statements being made in order to create a justifiable war thereby feeding the business of war. The US spends about half their budget on the military. If there is no war there is no military "industry". The economy benefits from war.

To reinforce my last statement. There's no business like war business

UNITED NATIONS - When the dust finally settles on post-war Iraq, the United States may have unleashed virtually all of its state-of-the-art weaponry on a country already devastated by 13 years of rigid U.N. sanctions.

After 14 days of heavy pounding, U.S. military forces so far have dropped over 8,700 bombs, including more than 3,000 missiles, and also fired millions of rounds of ammunition on military and civilian targets inside the country.

...

The U.S. military will have to replace all of these weapons - worth billions of dollars - giving a tremendous boost to the U.S. military industry, which has been on the skids since the last Gulf War in 1991.

In the latest 'Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations', the U.S. State Department predicts that U.S. arms sales are expected to reach over 14 billion dollars this year, the largest total in almost two decades, compared to 12.5 billion dollars in 2002.
article written in 2003.

please tell me, those who've read the article, that you *do* realize that it is an opinion piece, a polemic, and not a source of "proof" about anything, beyond the authors palpable, stated hostility for 'neocons', corporations, capitalism, and americans?



there's a tremendous thread of vitriol in the article, written in the first person, with no reference to 'facts' - merely the authors beliefs about what the information means.



i'd never read or heard of ms. klein before. now i have. she's quite a celebrity of the elitist socialist left.



she reported a number of interesting things in the article. it took some effort to see through the multilayered commentary intended to instruct us how to think about those things actually reported, rather than to come to ones own conclusions about the evidence presented.



it was an excellent propaganda piece. on par with some of hitchens better defenses of the iraq war.

OK KOAN and PAul, I have major interests in oil. I do not see the political intersts giving me anything special. :yh_rotfl