Bush plans to invade 7 countries

[RainDog]

http://www.thestar.com.my/news/
story.asp?file=/2003/9/25/nation/
6349568&sec=nation

THE United States has devised a five-year plan to attack seven Islamic countries following the Sept 11 terrorist attack in America, Utusan Malaysia reported yesterday. 

It quoted former North Atlantic Treaty Organisation commander General Wesley Clark as saying that US President George W. Bush wanted to attack Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. 

Gen Clark, who recently announced his intention to run as a Democrat presidential candidate, said he learnt of the plan from a senior military officer in Washington in November 2001. 

He said he was against the plan because it neither tackled the real source of terrorism nor use worldwide support for international law. 

http://www.juancole.com/

Iran is a Shiite country that hated the Taliban and al-Qaeda and strongly backed the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan; it almost went to war against the Taliban. Syria is a secular Baath Arab nationalist regime that killed 10,000 Sunni Muslim radicals in 1982 and has attempted to suppress the movement. It has also helped the US interrogate al-Qaeda operatives. Somalia is just a failed state. Sudan isn't much better. The main Islamic militants in Lebanon are the Hizbullah, most of whose energies now go into Lebanese politics, though they also played a key role in expelling the Israelis from Lebanese soil. (Why exactly should the US mind this? Doesn't it support Lebanon's national integrity)? Iraq was likewise a secular Arab nationalist state that attacked religious fundamentalists. Moammar Qadhafi of Libya is a desert messiah with heterodox views and is not related to al-Qaeda; he has been involved in terrorism in the past, but it is not clear he is now. There is not any al-Qaeda-related state on this list.
posted by Juan Cole at 8:15 AM

----

okay, more reason to wonder what the fruck is going on with the Bush junta.

anyone else notice two glaring omissions?

anyone else notice that this list includes everyone EXCEPT the two states we KNOW have supported Al Qaeda --specifically Pakistan and Saudi Arabia???

anyone wonder why we are willing to allow states who actually have sponsored Al Qaeda get a pass while we invade everyone else in the neighborhood?

Isn't that kinda like hearing that there's a robber in your neighbor's house and then going to the next street over and shooting everyone who lives on that street?

This plan obviously has NOTHING to do with protecting America from the threat of terrorism and will, I would be willing to bet lots of $$ if I had it, make the U.S. less safe, make the world a more unstable and much, much more dangerous place, will destroy the U.S. economy and will also destroy the former reputation of the U.S. across the world as a nation which tries to do the right thing.

of course, that perception has been eroded ever since Nixon. Nixon and Reagan should also have been tried as war criminals. Is this the country the people of America want?

Is this the regime the people of America want?

[roguevalley]

1. No one knows because of the press. They all need to go to

prison for treason. <the press>

Bush is totally nuts. I will stick an ice pick in my nephews ears
before they go into a draft, which is what this will require.

[Noordam]

2. I do not understand Somalia and Sudan

The others are mainly to protect Israel and for OIL. What up with Sudan and Somalia??????

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. There was, for a time, a report that Somalia was used to train

AlQueda troops. IT has since been discredited by Foreign Policy in Focus and a couple other orgs but I suspect the same can be said of Sudan.

[cosmicdot]

7. wonder if Somalia's Internet has been turned back on

:shrug:



Friday, 23 November, 2001, 13:02 GMT

US shuts down Somalia internet


Somalia's only internet company and a key telecoms business have been forced to close because the United States suspects them of terrorist links.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1672220.stm

[phaseolus]

9. Sudan oppresses its Christian minority

...which is a horrible thing, of course. But aside from Hussein-era Iraq it's the only other place on the planet where the Xian right's upset about torture and oppression. Bush would be throwing a bone to that crowd by invading Sudan.

[Zuni]

33. Sudan also has chattel slavery

horrible repression and the Islamist Government is a supporter of fanatical Islam.

[rman]

17. old grudges?

-

[oasis]

4. Where's he going to get the troops?

[mhr]

5. The Draft The Draft The Draft

eom

[number6]

8. I suggest he use the Texas NG.

,,,and the turd freepers all volunteers....

[RainDog]

14. the thousand and thousands of JOBLESS EVERY MONTH

or else their kids, who will not be able to pay for college, or find a job.

After reading about this 7 nation invasion, I'm starting to think that the Bush junta is creating this economic crisis in this country with the idea of creating a "desperation draft."

if Diebold is in their corner to rig the election results, or if there is another anthrax (ahem) attack or whatever, then I guess it wouldn't matter what Bush does because he wouldn't have to worry about any accountability to the American people.

...not that he worries now...we're just a focus group.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. This is a "Jihad" for OIL

(Edited to insert link to DieOff.com)

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are our two major bagmen in the Islamic world. The entire "War on Terrorism" and the anti-Muslim sentiment is based on supporting an armed seizure of the few remaining productive oil deposits when the cost of sucking oil out of the ground starts to skyrocket, sometime over the next decade. Controling the Mid-East will give us another five to ten years of "breathing room", when we should have taken the hint after the OPEC price hikes of 1973-1975.

I have no doubt that "we" will turn on Arabia and Pakistan, too. They are each ripe for insurrection, and a few Juntabux will nudge history in the direction Bush & Co. want it to go.

The spanner in the works is that SA, Iran, and Iraq have all dramatically overestimated the amount of oil they are sitting on. These overestimates started in 1988, and may have inflated the figures for total planetary oil reserves by as much as 50%. The oil industry has been well aware of this, but you have to dig to find out about it.

Our need for oil is far greater than most people realize. Jay Hanson, author of DieOff.com, estimates that for every calorie of food value our agriculture produces, between four and ten calories' worth of petroleum are required (for powered irrigation, petrochemical fertilizer, etc.) Even with a multi-billion-dollar "Manhattan Project" for energy development, there will still be a tremendous resource gap at some point in our lifetimes, probably in the next 20 years.

As a result, getting and controlling oil will be an epic, life-and-death struggle.

None of this makes me feel better at all about our future.

If I was General Clark, I'd keep my helmet on.

--bkl

[Sterling]

10. Kick

:kick:

[Sterling]

11. So why isn't Clark screeming this.

At the top of his lungs?

[RainDog]

16. supposedly he has a book coming out

which is exerpted in Newsweek. but, yes, if Clark knew this in Nov. of 2001, it sure is nice of him to tell everyone now.

[Trek234]

22. So pathetic

Everytime something is asked of Clark one of the responses you can be guranteed to get is "read his book".

Can't wait to see his campaign after primary time. I can see his TV commercials now "Read my book. <end>"

[realFedUp]

12. Maybe Georgie played too much "Risk" when he was young

Bet Jeb beat him at the game....

[BlackVelvetElvis]

13. A possible answer

QUOTE: "anyone wonder why we are willing to allow states who actually have sponsored Al Qaeda get a pass while we invade everyone else in the neighborhood? "

Because the US has a dirty history of getting into bed with despots and lunatics (particularly of the 3rd world variety) and later, it coming around to bite us on the ass.
What kind of moral high ground do we have THEN in front of the world community?

[RainDog]

15. obviously this post is less important than

a realization that Rush Limbaugh mentioned DU on his radio show today.

so let me kick it before it falls off the front page.

[RainDog]

18. LBN has two articles

the first is about Bush asking opec not to harm our economy

the second is an announcement that the UN is going to pull out lots of their people.

Bush went to the UN and said I want you to give me whatever I want and let me do what I want. It's the American way, after all, if you're the son of a rich crook.

The UN says no thanks.

Bush, it is revealed, says he plans to invade 7 countries, then asks countries on that list to give him all the oil he wants at whatever price he wants it.

Not to mention Chavez's claim that the CIA planned to kill him if he'd flown to the U.S.

You know, I just had a great image in my head...Bush on a plane, seeking exile in Saudi Arabia...

[ixion]

19. yeah, according to PNAC, that's their plan

but if Iraq and Afghanistan are any indication, their not going to be in power long enough to see it through, unless the (s)election fix is in, then we're screwed.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

20. Wow, only seven countries?

Bush must be sleepy!

[karlschneider]

21. Bullshit. Bunnypants can't NAME 7 countries!

:eyes:

[Iris]

29. well, let's see. There's Texas, yeah. Texas. That's one . . .

(But we're not gonna attack Texas)

[cliss]

23. An invasion requires 2 things:

1) troops

2) bombs, weapons, military arsenal

and plans too, but let's ignore that for now. We know the PNAC is finally getting its day in the sun. Its dreams of dominating the world are at long last becoming a reality.

Many people here at DU have been aware of the dangers and the rhetoric about Iran immediately after Iraq was conquered. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief when we ran out of troops (and money). At least, this meant the US couldn't continue its rampage of mad folly.

Or could it?

The way the Bush's have been acting these last few weeks, tells me there's something amiss. They don't seem overly concerned about the cost of this war. It doesn't seem to upset them that we're short handed.

They know something we don't. Try to read between the lines when they talk. Filter out the bullshit rhetoric. They WILL tell us, because of their arrogance.

[RainDog]

26. from their recent past actions

I would be inclined to think they DON'T know something we do, and did, which is that the invasion of Iraq was a poorly planned and executed idea which came from delusional ideological b.s. and willful tampering with intelligence.

so the only thing they know that we don't is how deeply disturbed they are...although I think we're all getting a pretty good idea.

[ninkasi]

24. I have a soon-to-be 17 year old grandson...

actually, my stepdaughter's son, but no less precious to me regardless of blood relationship. If a draft is enacted, I will spend whatever I have, willingly, to keep him safe. If I had the money, I would keep safe as many as I could. There are no words to convey the loathing I feel for these sub-human creatures, who so casually doom others to death and maiming.

[Arugula Latte]

25. Well, it looks like we'll need the draft

Jen and Barbara, can you put down those beers long enough to learn how to hold a rifle?

[Aidoneus]

27. a phrase worth repeating:--him and what army?

I figure they can use the Israeli army to bully around Syria & Lebanon once the apartheid wall is built and West Bank IDF soldiers freed up, but such a conflict would inevitably draw in Iran, both for Iran to defend its friends and allies in the region but also to liberate Iraq from US occupation--it would take nuclear bombs to keep that from being a massacre of US occupation forces and has way too much room for failure (ie, Syria/Iran/Lebanon can actually defend themselves, they haven't been starved, bombed, and tied down for a decade previously to where it would be a "cakewalk") for even the current dominant crop of Likudists, corporate sluts, and war profiteers to consider seriously (this does not stop them from talking about it anyway, AEI and related thinktanks frequently bring themselves to orgasms just thinking about the bombs falling on countries filled with brown people properly demonized, in their speeches and circular backpatting).

The Sudan seems to be playing along with their own respective version of a phony "peace process", or at least making the visible motions to like Israel.. and they have oil, with no Sudanese version of Chalabi ready to take over to start quickly churning out profits so it's doubtful they'll be attacked. There's nobody in Somalia to attack except the mini-states and factions left of the resistance fighters that overthrew the old US-backed dictator Siad Barre--but there is reportedly oil, so I can see the interest that our current criminals could see in it. There has been low-level Western/US naval piracy against the Somalian people since 2001, though nothing serious yet and I can't really see the criminal cabal pulling off a new campaign of distraction leading up to a new invasion of Somalia with the next fake election coming up. Maybe later.. Somalians themselves have not forgotten the rape and pillage that went alongside the last UN/US/Western intervention (to say nothing of the rape and plunder of past European empires in the lands), any new invasion would likely be resisted (there's lots and lots of weapons lying around the place) and that's just bad for approval ratings.

al-Qaddafi may have been part of the rotating Enemy Of The Month Club for the despicable Reagan cliq (who needed some new bogeyman since the Soviets weren't playing along anymore), but lately he's made a desperate sight of himself prostrating before the western imperialist powers in a sort of rapproachment, buying himself and Libya's oil supplies back into the good graces of the illegitimate hypocrite states who dominate the world.

As for the reason why Saudi Arabia & Pakistan aren't on the hitlist, that's because they're already faithful puppet regimes that have taken decades to cultivate and defend--a good pack of loyal quislings is a terrible thing for an imperialist state to waste. Saudi-occupied Arabia has their own problem with "al-Qai'dah" now, lately every month there's been armed shootouts and they're only growing in frequency as time goes by, and will only continue to do so until the decadent hypocrite Western-puppet state is gone--and that's the last thing Western politicians and corporations want to see. Pakistan has a similar position, but not as shaky as the ibn Saud family has it.

The fact that they've supported "al-Qai'dah" did not matter for many years, for in doing so they were advancing US interests in their regions--namely, originally as a reactionary social-political force to prevent revolutionary and leftist ideas from gaining any foothold, more recently to keep Russia & Iran from dominating Central Asia. That there was a little blowback on the side is forgiven by the policy makers, for the gain they brought outweights the wrong kind of damage done (ie, to us directly instead of some rival)--that means that Saudi Arabia & Pakistan (previously established as useful client regimes in their regions) will be coddled endlessly, that doesn't however mean that the same hypocrites who make US policy won't exploit to the fullest such 'blowback' to carry out other goals that have nothing to do with "al-Qai'dah" itself (for example, the Iraq conquest, using "9/11" to justify all manners of elite class warfare, etc..).

As things stand, the operation to make W domestically bullet proof politically ("Iraq invasion", patriotism means cheering blindly and not asking questions) was dangerously underestimated and not going at all as was planned--I don't really see them embarking on any further aggressive adventurism unless some giant event happens.

[Aidoneus]

28. bump

:kick:

[LunaC]

30. Pakistan was complicit in 911 MIHOP

In July 2001, American, Russian, German and Pakistani officials secretly met in Berlin to finalize the strategy for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm">military strikes against the Taliban, scheduled to begin before mid-October 2001

The chief of Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence agency was later http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=1454238160">linked to a 911 hijacker after wiring him $100,00 just days before the WTC fell.

As long as Pakistan remains a henchman for the PNAC, they'll be safe as part of the International Mafia Coalition.

[leesa]

32. That's right...and who's their Daddy...

[leesa]

31. They forget Egypt, the PNAC prize.

[Zuni]

34. I do not believe they will be able to do this even if they wanted to

1. We don't have enough troops---we have 100,000 in Iraq.
2. We don't have enough money
3. The Public would not support it
4. Iraq is drawing enormous resources, is a major blunder and an international embarrassment.
5. the International Community would oppose it 100%, far more seriously than they did over Iraq.
6. North korea has upped the ante and concentrated major attention towards that area.
7. Quite frankly, I do not think the Bush admin has the stomach for more conquests right now. the fallout over Iraq must have weakened their resolve.

Quite frankly, i do not think the Bushies wanted that whole package at all. They should be sensible enough to realize that we do not have the resources to deal with all of those countries.