Cut and Run

I refer to #3, the article posted by behram1, written by Wesley Clark:

The Wesley Clark article is useless. We don`t expect peace-talk from a warlord like Wesley Clark. All he knows is war. His whole life has been war. He is a damn warlord. That is how the power elite in the US come to be of a single world view- the military metaphysic, Mills called it. Clark started off in command of the military institution, wanted to become president (command of the political institution), and will probably end up as CEO or board member of one of the corporations of the Military Industries, like Raytheon, Northup Grumann or Lockheed Martin etc. Yes, they want to perpetuate war, and suffering. Iran emerging as winner, so what, they play one side against the other anyway there is nothing new in this; in Afghanistan the group Iran was siding with was supported by the US, so also in Iraq, because the Sunnis are challenging the American imperialism at present. Tomorrow, it might be some ohter group that they support and benefit (once they supported Osama`s people, remember Afghanistan in the 1980s?).

The fact is the US might go along with one group or the other in the short run, but in the long run they ensure their own benefits and hegemony. Clark`s article just tries to confuse using short run analysis even as his main goal is to perpetuate the conflict that feeds the US permanent war economy and ``footprint`` (an official US term) in an oil rich region and as well the protection of Israel from a God forbid developed Arab world! This they want to avoid at all cost. They do not even hide these reasons, the Project for the New American Century (they now populate the Bush Cabinet, or other high ranks in his Admn) wrote all these reasons to Clinton in their 1998 letter asking him to take military action against Iraq, back in 1998 same reasons and same excuses that were resurrected after 9/11 by Bush and co to lie to the American people to invade Iraq. Their 1998 letter to Clinton can be read on their website at
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Eventually, the truth always ruins falsehood. That is what is going to happen. The US will be forced out of Iraq, with its tail between its legs. And if Israel doesnt make a just peace with the Palestinians, it will lose big time. Mark these words, it is going to happen eventually.

I recommend this presentation to get a good background of the Iraq war, http://war.asadi.org

And I would like to end by stating, the US is not the world`s policeman, neither does it have any moral superiority or authority (given its track record of won ton killings post World War 2), to talk about human rights.

# 17 masadi: And now you are posting the same rubbish on this site as well, eh!

Since your logic works backwards, I will answer your last para first.
[...to talk about human rights.] Oh yeah! And you with your kind in Sudan would know about human rights. Yeah right! You must have your upper chamber examined. But, the indoctrination you got from the liars, tricksters, and deceivers would be hard to be removed from your hard disk drive.

Which Islamic society would say has any appreciable human rights? For that they have to consider their people that they rule over as humans first.

[...the US is not the world`s policeman,] No, and the US does not want to be one. But the US is the last hope for humanity. Just look at what happened after World War I when the US entrenched and all hell broke lose in the world. Today, God forbid, if the US entrenches then all the leftists and commies will have a field day.

[.... neither does it have any moral superiority] You are absolutely incorrect. If any country has any moral authority in today`s world it is the US...Or do you want to say that Iran has the moral authority? Or, that stupid idiot Hugo Chavez has the moral authority?

The rest of your post is so rubbish that it does not deserve a response at this time.

#18, unlike behram1, who is busy kissing his American master`s behind, when I post items, I give historical references for sources you can check up. He, on the other hand, just as he has been doing on the other posts about Israel/Palestine, makes claims that are illogical and ahistorical and as usual lack any documentation whatsoever. Regarding the US entry in World War 2, let us see the hypocrisy of the US elite:

The United States’ entry into World War 2 against Germany was marketed to the public as a move to defend helpless countries against an evil foe that had violated the principles of nonintervention into the affairs of other countries. Considering the track record of the U.S. at the time of entry, this appeal to “liberation and freedom” was hypocritical to the extreme. The historian Howard Zinn in his, “A People’s History of the United States: 1492 –Present” (1995), summarizes U.S. military intervention in the affairs of other countries prior to World War 2:


The U.S. had instigated a war with Mexico and taken over half that country. It had pretended to help Cuba win freedom from Spain, and then planted itself in Cuba with a military base, investments and right of intervention. It had seized Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and fought a brutal war to subjugate the Filipinos. It had opened Japan to its trade with gunboats and threats…It had sent troops to Peking with other nations, to assert Western supremacy in China, and kept them there for over thirty years… It had engineered a revolution against Colombia and created the “independent” state of Panama in order to build and control the canal. It sent 5000 Marines to Nicaragua in 1926 to counter a revolution and kept forces there for seven years. It intervened in the Dominican Republic for the fourth time in 1916 and kept troops there for eight years. It intervened for the second time in Haiti in 1915 and kept troops there for nineteen years… Between 1900 and 1933, the United States intervened in Cuba four times, in Nicaragua twice, in Panama six times, in Guatemala once, in Honduras seven times. By 1924 the finances of half of the twenty Latin American states were being directed to some extent by the United States. By 1935, over half of U.S. steel and cotton exports were being sold in Latin America. Just before World War 1 ended, in 1918, an American force of seven thousand landed at Vladivostok as part of an Allied intervention in Russia and remained there until early 1920. Five thousand more troops landed at Archangel, another Russian port…”.(Howard Zinn 1995, People`s History of the US:399-400)

My sincere advice to all of you readers here, go through behram1`s posts and look at the claims he makes, without any references to back him up, except for insults and allegations that further lack any references or documentation. He should change his name to FOX NEWS- they do much the same even as they deceive tens of millions in the US. Because of such baseless propaganda most in the US believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and the number of those who watched Fox News was EVEN higher, over 80% of their viewers believed that nonsense.

Re: # 19 masadi: You have gone crazy. First you start your post with [ Regarding the US entry in World War 2, let us see the hypocrisy of the US elite: ]

Then you post [...summarizes U.S. military intervention in the affairs of other countries prior to World War 2:]

Only a corrupt mind like yours can come up with this. But, again you are surrounded with liars, tricksters, and deceivers. And you are surrounded with the forces of darkness and forces of evil.

[... without any references to back him up, except for insults and allegations that further lack any references or documentation.] The above is just one sample of your stupid references. Talk about ``flowers`` and then give references of ``cauliflowers``.

Sub tau laye phool bhuda ghobi lay kar aa gaya......Now that is the quality of your references.

[.... He should change his name to FOX NEWS- ] Stop worrying about what I should or should not do, but, you must change your name to Aljazeera. You are the aspiring writer!!!!!.... Blah, blah, blah....US elite has done this and US elite has done that....There is probably a US elite hiding in your toilet.... Blah, blah, blah

This is laughable. Do you know how to comprehend a simple sentence behram1? The US presented an excuse to its people on why it was entering WW2. That excuse was just that, a hypocritical excuse because of the track record of the US prior to WW2. What is so difficult to understand in that?

Re: # 21 masadi: You are definitely laughable. The question on the table was thank god that the US involves itself in world politics. The only time that it did not was after World War I, and we got in WWII. The US isolated itself from world affairs after World War I and the world was in ruins.

Your deceiving self, however, [ presented an excuse to its people on why it was entering WW2. ] And this is not the question on the table.

And then, as usual, you presented all kind of bogus references that had nothing to do with the item of why we need the US to exert its moral authority over the entire world.

[What is so difficult to understand in that?] Obviously it is very difficult for you to understand.

The following poem appears in the text books of Pakistan, praising President Bush as the greatest vsionary and leader. I am glad that Pakistani faujis have once again beat the hindu baniya in the fine art of ball licking


Patient and steady with all he must bear,
Ready to accept every challenge with care,
Easy in manner, yet solid as steel,
Strong in his faith, refreshingly real,
Isn`t afraid to propose what is bold,
Doesn`t conform to the usual mold,
Eyes that have foresight, for hindsight won`t do,
Never back down when he sees what is true,
Tells it all straight, and means it all too,
Going forward and knowing he`s right,
Even when doubted for why he would fight,
Over and over he makes his case clear,
Reaching to touch the ones who won`t hear,
Growing in strength, he won`t be unnerved,
Ever assuring he`ll stand by his word,
Wanting the world to join his firm stand,
Bracing for war, but praying for peace,
Using his power so evil will cease:
So much a leader and worthy of trust,
Here stands a man who will do what he must.


http://www.theworld.org/latesteditions/12/20051207.shtml

#23, truly disgraceful what they are doing, praising that criminal in this fashion, but that is how the CIA sponsors indoctrination- were they not telling the Afghans that killing the Soviets would be a sure ticket to heaven, back in the 1980s? Proves my point about the slave mentality of the Pakistani elite- and most other elite in the developing world. They not only sell their souls to their masters in America but also the lives of their people.

#23, read the first letter of each line in that poem and it makes ``President George W Bush``- typical trickery, aiming at indoctrinating the youth of Pakistan about a damn criminal and an idiot president.

#6 HP

``With India hitting the skids in stupid political fights and its inability to convince the US of its role in the International and regional politics, Pakistan has certainly emerged as the force to reckon with in the area. ``

India is playing its cards in this game from behind and reaping good returns. Pakistan, though visible from the front, does not get anything in return, as compared to what India gets. It is only Prez.Musharaff who gets his seat.

``Two things that are working for Pakistan: 1) The US grip on Afghanistan and the Karzai govt in Afghanistan are now completely dependent on Pakistan. 2) Pakistan holds all the big guns of Alquaeda thus making it impossible to end the war on terrorism without its support and capture of the Alquaeda leadership. ``

Pakistan, unfortunately, is a mere pawn in the hands of USA in this game. Do you really think a few men sitting in some obscure mountanious caves can control and launch such an operation, worldwide? Even after four years of WOT and with the latest technology and equipments at their disposal, the ``allies`` cannot even trace the foot-steps of these men. Do they really exist or they have been made to be existing?

You say, ``..This is a prelude reminiscent of the retreat from Vietnam. ...``.Others who have been the observers of Vietnam Era would agree with you on this isuue- Mohammed!

There are many aspects of domestic and foreign policiies of USA are simply and can not be defended on ethical and moral grounds.

Now ,`Cut loose and Run` philosophy is dangerous . If it happens rest of the world will have no repect or confidence in US at all. It will spell disaster for every one! It will strengthen the hands and ideology of religious fanatics and terrorists everywhere.

Re: # 27

kamath on December 8, 2005 5:46am PT

You say, ``Now ,`Cut loose and Run` philosophy is dangerous . If it happens rest of the world will have no repect or confidence in US at all. It will spell disaster for every one! It will strengthen the hands and ideology of religious fanatics and terrorists everywhere.``

I wonder how you know this, with what authority you speak. I`ve suggested that Chowk readers would profit from reviewing reliable, trustworthy reports. One that I`ve previously suggested (I`ve posted the credentials of the author) only requires that you click on the URL below. You would at least have the benefit of the opinions of a man whose experience and accomplishments qualify him to speak out. If you disagree with him I would hope that your qualifications and experience would give your opinions some measure of credibility.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129

Here are a few paragraphs from the article, but Gen. Odom goes on to refute all 9 of the hypothetical arguments against pulling out, one by one. Anyone truly interested in reasoned arguments will find the article interesting. mirmir

What’s wrong with cutting and running?
ASK THIS | August 03, 2005
Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?

By William E. Odom

diane@hudson.org

If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.

Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:

1) We would leave behind a civil war.

2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.

3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.

4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.

5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.

6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq`s neighbors.

7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.

8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.

9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.

But consider this:

1) On civil war. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying.

For those who really worry about destabilizing the region, the sensible policy is not to stay the course in Iraq. It is rapid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our allies in Europe, showing confidence in the UN Security Council, and trying to knit together a large coalition including the major states of Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and India to back a strategy for stabilizing the area from the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be formed.

Thus those who fear leaving a mess are actually helping make things worse while preventing a new strategic approach with some promise of success.

2) On credibility. If we were Russia or some other insecure nation, we might have to worry about credibility. A hyperpower need not worry about credibility. That’s one of the great advantages of being a hyperpower: When we have made a big strategic mistake, we can reverse it. And it may even enhance our credibility. Staying there damages our credibility more than leaving.

Ask the president if he really worries about US credibility. Or, what will happen to our credibility if the course he is pursuing proves to be a major strategic disaster? Would it not be better for our long-term credibility to withdraw earlier than later in this event?

bolta aaina #1 writes ``Hastily going to Iraq was a mistake.....hastily pull-out will be a bigger mistake.``

This ``going in`` and ``pulling out`` is a tricky business. Let me try to explain to you in a way I understand it the best.

Imagine you were in lust for a girl, lets call her Nikko. So one day, while she was sitting in a wheat field minding her own business, you grabbed her and proceeded to do what Iraqiologists would call ``going in``.

In order to protect herself, she whispered in your ears that due to her frequent visits to wheat field after sunset, she had every STD that village men could muster, and proceeded to suggest what Iraqiologists would call a ``pull-out`` strategy. To lend credence to her claims, you even felt a few things crawling on your johnnie.

Now would you tell her ``Nikko, its true going in was a mistake....but hastily pulling out would be a bigger one. So I’ll stay put and get the job done``? Or would you rather opt for cut and run?

I hope this simple example puts US` dilemma in Iraq in clear perspective.

#26 right on! The whole ``war on terror`` is a farce designed to feed the US permanent war economy. Just like the CIA was convincing the Afghans of the countryside that fighting the Soviets was a sure ticket to heaven, they are using this ``war on terror`` farce to steal massively from their public by in a paranoid atmosphere of fright. According to the 2006 US budget, the government`s discretionary spending on Defense almost $450 billion is greater than its discretionary spending on ALL other programs combined. Add to this discretionary spending the non-discretionary part and you come up with a whopping $800 billion figure. Over half of the globe`s military spending is done by the US alone, and after spending so much and causing misery over the world with wars started using fake pretexts, they put up a disgraceful performance, like the totally disgraceful performance of the US military in Iraq. A few thousand insurgents are keeping them in check. Tell me if this isnt a totally disgraceful performance after spending over $800 billion on the military and giving it the most massive fire power and technology??

Only idiots would believe that a country (US) with the most massive military power in the world is ``threatened`` by a few people roaming around in caves brandishing ak-47s and world war 2 vintage RPGs- yet this FARCE has been sold not only to the US public but world wide. We must REJECT it, and REJECT it openly.

#29 atif2: In case of Nikko the elapsed time between ``going in`` and ``pulling out`` is less than a minute. So it should be a moot point. By the time Nikko`s sentence is getting completed this johnie already has a happy face.

Re: # 30: Obviously, masadi, you are back at it again. The war on terror is a just war. If only Clinton would have sent in the marines, instead of those stupid missiles to those caves in Afghanistan maybe there would not have been 9/11.

Regime change was already approved by the Clinton administration since 1998. The UN had passed 17 resolutions against Saddam’s regime. It takes only a few rag tag militias to bring down mighty empires. Of all people, you should know how the zealot Arabs brought down the mighty Persian Empire in the 7th century.

Today’s Islamic fundamentalism is no different. Enlightened societies must take these threats seriously and continue this war on terror until we can get it under control. The enlightened societies are better served by eradicating the liars, the tricksters, and the deceivers amongst us, who are constantly spreading unfounded conspiracy theories against this just war.