Bush, Saddam, lies and war, and US troop movements

Armand Diego causebellum at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 17 19:27:32 MDT 2002

Some thoughts.

War on Iraq

I think the whole business of the war on Iraq - if it
wasn't for the price that eventually the Iraqi people
paid in the past and may pay in the future - could be
considered tragic comic.

Bush built up the "case" of Saddam's nuclear and
chemical weapons.  US allies and some Democrats
criticized him for unilateralists.  Big debate.  Then
Bush decides to up the ante and played the
mltilateralist.  He went to the UN, made a number of
nonsese statements, showed no new evidence - or old if
you wish.  Then many former crticis and some leftists
pandered to Bush's "internationalism."


Enter Saddam.  Apparently Scott Ritter - CIA informer,
former Marine, registered GOP, Bush voter and leading
UN inspector quo spent 7 years in Iraq stated that
they dismatled every piece of nuclear program and
most, if not all (95%) of all antiquated delivery
system - does any one remember the fiasco of the Scuds
during the war?  (That WAS the extent and
"sophistication" of Saddam's technology.  A joke.)
Well Saddam said in a letter: "Send them in. No atring

Retreat from the arabs?

The SAME day, the cynical Saudi Foreign Minister said
"if the UN orders an attack, we are obliged to
comply." (referring to the use of Saudi bases by the
US)  Egypt made a similar statement.  So did others.
Retreat?  Obviously not.  As a matter of fact the
Saudis knew about Saddam letter to Kofi Annan before
was even written.  Annan himself stated that the Arab
League - of which both Egypt and the Saudis are the
owners - was instrumental in convincing (drafting?)
the Iraqis to send the letter.

Who is winning, who is having problems?

Oviously, the reading of some is Bush got away with
his threat.  But the real reading, IMO, is that
somebody pulled the rug from udner his feet.  Nos he
is playing the cynic and disbelieving Saddam.  But if
the inspectors end up going and finding nothing, then
it will be embarrasing.  So Bush may decide to go back
to unilateralism - launch a premature attack.

THAT can trigger enourmous repercussions
internationally, specially in the Middle East and
Central Asia, but also would create big troubles for
the British, German, Swedish, Italians and Japanese
among others.

To everyone its own terrorist to deal with.

The Russians and Chinese, who put up some "resistance"
at first to Bush's plans, showed their hands.  Puting
sent a letter to the UN a day after Bush speech,
asking the UN to authorize some kind of military
action against Georgia for allegedly supporting the
"terrorists" in Chechnia.  Couple of resistance groups
to Chinese domination in the Himalayas were recently
included in the US terrorist organizations' list.  Now
China is "justify" to move against them violently if
they so please.

Israel is said to have prepared a complete strategic
plan in case of war against Iraq that included massive
occupations, displacement of Palestinians and
liquidation of power centers of guerrilla
organizations.  Apparently Sharon figured out that
nobody would care about the Palestinians in the midst
of a savage bombardment and fierce battle in Iraq.

US troops spreading too thin?

Meanwhile, was that all what it was at stake?  In the
last two weeks US troops moved or are about to move
into Ecuador, Peru, Argentina in significant numbers
for maneuvers.  Toledo, President of Peru denied that
they are about to building a big base.  The
Argentinean government and Ecuadorean sources
confirmed that the US government is demanding immunity
for their troops in whatever they are involved
(exercises?) and they had been granted such immunity.
In Argentina, Congressman Zamora is suing the
government over this whole affair.

On other related issues, the US moved couple thousands
additional troops into Colombia and apparently an
agreement had been reached - quitely - in the US
Congress to grant all extensions of the right for
those troops to move directly against the FARC (a
substantive political change.)

In Yemen, is reported, US Special troops are
conducting at least 10-15 operations per week in what
appear to be the initial phase of a bigger incursion.
Similar news are coming from other countries.

Apparently the US deployed troops in a dozen or so new
countries and re-inforce its garrisons in another
10-15.  Can they do that, spreading so thin?


Nice government as a result of the US invasion of
Afghanistan.  How many Ministers were murdered by
opposing factions inside the government iself?  Three.
 How many regular officials in the country murdered by
the same opposing factions: 1,100.  How many civilians
killed by "mistakes" of the US/Allied forces since the
new government took power: over 900. How many
terrorist attacks against the government and US/Allies
forces since the country was "pacified"?: 400
Hundreds killed and they almost murdered the

Meanwhile, US special troops are being increasingly
used for secutiry purposes in the country: from
protecting the President and 100 other public figures,
to control the security of roads outside Kabul that
the Afghan Army and police is unable of even traveling
at night, so dangeorus they are.

Yes.  If it wasn't for the pain and suffering the US
is inflicting everywhere, this would be a great tragic
comedy.  Or a piece of  theater of the absurd.

What's next?

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list