How to Win the War In Iraq.

Re: [spiers] How to Win the War In Iraq.

Some of the assertions do sound unusual. As for me,
it's important to hear other perspectives. I may not
agree, but I need to know and learn other views.
Although I can't point to a specific instance(help
anyone), there are trade opportunities in poor
political decisions anywhere in the world. It seems
trade and politics are intertwined. Not knowing or
discussing politics puts me at a disadvantage in the
world of trade.

Anthony

--- Pete Holt wrote:

> John,
> Please provide some credible evidence for your
> following assertions:
>
> On the other hand, I believe the reason there has
> been no second attack
> after 9-11 in the United States is because the
> Chinese have forbidden it.
>
> This is nothing new, the prime reason for Nixon
> visiting China in 1972 was to ask the Chinese for a
> "decent interval" before Saigon fell to the
> communist forces, so the US would not look so bad
> when we quit Vietnam.
>
> China paid for US concessions with a washed-up
> puppet they had stashed in a spider-hole, a puppet
> the US already owned!
>
> I don't agree with either the Republican neocons or
> the Democratic liberals. But I think it is a very
> good thing for both you and us that you did not go
> into politics. It would be even better if you
> stayed as far as possible from the subject as your
> level of expertise is much below you knowledge of
> business. It is rudimentary at best and unrealistic
> in the extreme. Best left alone.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Spiers
> To: spiers@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:54 PM
> Subject: [spiers] How to Win the War In Iraq.
>
>
> Folks,
>
> Since no one thinks we can win the war in Iraq,
> indeed, everyone is looking for the best way
> to lose, I think I should offer a way to win, a
> bit of public service on my part. Perhaps my
> specialty of small biz int'l trade can help out in
> this case.
>
> First, we'd have to define victory in Iraq, and
> apparently Iran as well shortly. Well, that is
> easy, victory is peace and prosperity in the
> region.
>
> As it stands now, we are mired in a conflict which
> the neocons explicitly promoted since 1998
> at the Project for a New American Century.
>
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/
>
> George Bush is no neocon, but he certainly hired
> them on to do his thinking and policy
> development. Just as Martin Luther King hired on
> New York experts in agitation and
> propaganda to advance his moribund civil rights
> movement, so the Bushes accepted the
> neocons offer to advance the Bush family
> interests.
>
> The interesting part is the Chinese welcomed the
> neocons offer as well. A United States as
> the focus of all Moslem rage, present and future,
> takes the heat off the Chinese, who have an
> even more pressing Moslem insurgency problem.
>
> Just as in what the Americans call the Vietnam
> war, and what the Vietnamese call the
> American war, the Chinese are now providing
> crucial intelligence and technological ability to
> insurgents in Iraq. On the other hand, I believe
> the reason there has been no second attack
> after 9-11 in the United States is because the
> Chinese have forbidden it. From the Chinese
> point of view, the situation in the world is
> excellent, and it must not be upset.
>
> This is nothing new, the prime reason for Nixon
> visiting China in 1972 was to ask the
> Chinese for a "decent interval" before Saigon fell
> to the communist forces, so the US would
> not look so bad when we quit Vietnam.
>
> In 2003, while the efforts in Iraq were stumbling,
> the US death toll for the "cakewalk" was
> approaching 500 souls, morale was dropping, and
> Americans began to question our
> involvement in iraq. At the same time Taiwan was
> making independence noises. Here is a
> news summary from those days:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/eqpah
>
> Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited Washington from
> December 8 to 12 of that year, and
> gained many concessions from the US side. Three
> days after Premier Wen returned to Beijing,
> December 14 2003, Saddam Hussein was captured,
> giving the neocons a big boost. China
> paid for US concessions with a washed-up puppet
> they had stashed in a spider-hole, a
> puppet the US already owned! I am not criticizing
> the Chinese, I just wish we elected
> politicians half as smart as the Chinese
> politicians. We have people that smart, they just
> will
> not go into government.
>
> The neocons are trotskyites, and believe all
> disasters can serve their interests. Seymour
> Hersh has an article in the New Yorker laying out
> the situation today, and notes the window
> of opportunity for peace is now.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/hyfsf
>
> One point the article makes is:
>
> "... that ElBaradei's overriding concern is that
> the Iranian leaders "want confrontation,
> just like the neocons on the other side"-in
> Washington."
>
> Exactly.
>
> Hersh also makes the point that in regards to the
> use of a nuclear strike by the USA on Iran,
> many top generals are talking about resigning.
> This not a surprise, in fact, it is quite
> common they do indeed resign. When the elder
> President Bush wanted to invade Panama
> illegally the US general in charge refused to go
> along so he was cashiered. When Clinton
> wanted to invade the Balkans, the general in
> charge refused so Clinton replaced him with an
> Arkansas boy, Wesley Clark.
>
> When the neocons prepared for invading Iraq,
> Generals Zinni, Shinseki and other active
> officers, and quite a few retired, argued against
> it. The active officers were replaced with
> more compliant officers, like Gen. Tommy Franks, a
> Texas boy, with a curious resume.
>
> The general directly responsible for the Abu
> Ghraib prison torture fiasco was a reserve
> colonel promoted to general for the task, in spite
> of the fact she had been busted for
> shoplifting perfume at a PX previously. This is
> the quality of the generals the neocons can
> atttract. After Abu Ghraib, the US Army had
> trouble reaching recruitment targets. After Abu
> Ghraib, the terrorists had trouble training all
> the new recruits.
>
> The president can only nominate who becomes
> general, the congress confirms the
> nominations, or rejects the nomination. It is a
> pity our politicians do not support the troops
> in Iraq by requiring they be led by our first rate
> generals, and accept 2nd and 3rd rate
> generals in war. It is a pity that although
> officers can resign, the poor soldiers are obliged
> to
> fight regardless of who leads them.
>
> So, how to win the war in Iraq, as defined as
> peace and prosperity? Bring back our first string
> generals. The ones who can win the war. Of
> course, they won't work for the neocons, so it
> will require a regime-change in the USA, the
> impeachment of Geo Bush, and a clearing out of
> the executive branch. Talk has begun on this
> point, and really, is a mere impeachment too
> high of a price to pay for peace in the middle
> east? Go Russ Feingold!
>
> Elections won't work, since the democrats have
> promised they will be more of the same. Even
> when the democrats sweep congress this fall,
> nothing will change. With both Cheney and
> Bush impeached, the House of Representatives would
> have to produce a president, as
> provided by the constitution. A very messy
> process, much closer to the US citizens, will
> produce a better president. The struggle would be
> a small thing compared to peace in the
> middle east.
>
> With a completely new administration, devoid of
> the neocons, the hardliners overseas will not
> be as persuasive in their home countries.
> Further, the first rate generals are smart enough to
>
> threaten to withdraw US forces leaving the Chinese
> to step in and fill the void. Just as the
> USA fell into its own trap in the middle east, we
> can
=== message truncated ===

Bookmark this post --- Email this post