3 Words: bush, Iraq, Finished

U.S. military strength will mean nothing against a massive rebellion by hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. In countries like China, with unrestrained power, rebellions can be quashed ... but bush (always lowercase) is naive to think that he wields such power in Iraq ...

World opinion is strongly opposed to the U.S. already ... bush has promised us small children with flowers greeting "their american liberators" ... what will he promise with hundreds of thousands of Shi'ite Muslims demanding their right to self-governance ... what will he do when U.S. troops and U.S. tanks are surrounded by hundreds of thousands of unarmed Iraqi citizens ?? and what will he do as Americans come to understand the folly of his policy in Iraq ??

U.S. policy has badly miscalculated the situation ... in trying to impose stability in Iraq, and not allowing natural forces to take their course, the U.S. has invested in excess of $150 billion dollars to achieve greater instability ... civil war in Iraq is inevitable ... the Shi'ite Muslims, the Sunnis and the Kurds will each seek their own autonomy. Does bush think he can send Rove (rover?) over there to build a groundswell of support for a hand-picked U.S. puppet? Is he kidding ?? does he think that the Supreme Court will appoint his choice if elections in Iraq are closely contested ??

Currently, reports indicate that there are tens of thousands demonstrating for free elections ... don't be surprised if that number is hundreds of thousands within a few days ... U.S. troops will be overwhelmed by the sheer number of Iraqis opposing them ... operations will grind to a halt ... wake up, george, you have no cards left to play ...

democratic candidates would be wise to understand these developments and show leadership in addressing them ... regardless of whether candidates have, or have not supported the war, it is time to understand and speak out on these historic, unfolding events ...

source: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040119/ts_nm/iraq_dc


Tens of thousands of Shi'ite Muslims marched through Baghdad Monday to demand early elections but Iraq's U.S. governor prepared to tell the United Nations that any such vote is impractical until next year.

<skip>

But many Shi'ites, who make up about 60 percent of Iraq's population and were oppressed by Saddam and previous Sunni Muslim rulers, want elections sooner. Many thousands waved banners and shouted slogans in support of Sistani in Baghdad.

"All the people are with you, Sayyed Ali," the crowd chanted. "Yes, yes to unity, yes, yes to elections."

If some nervous, frightened soldier opens up with his gun and mows down a bunch of civilians triggering a riot and still more civilians killed?

Americans like to be "the good guys" ... as long as some believe we are "liberators", they can see at least some good coming from our efforts in Iraq ...

but seeing U.S. tanks mowing down hundreds of Iraqi, children included, and dropping bombs on thousands of demonstrators would not sell with the American people ... or the rest of the world ...

how can bush hide his corporate agenda in Iraq behind pretty words like liberations and free elections while killing the very citizens he argues he's helping ??

so the answer to your question is: YES, the American people would care ... but, not too worry, bush cannot afford such things in an election year anyway ... he's got to find closure in Iraq ASAP, even if it means declaring victory and leaving ...

That's the plan, as I understand it. Just like in Vietnam, they're going to try to hand-pick the rulers, and "Iraqize" the leadership, and then wash their hands of it.

Hmmm... how did that work out in Vietnam, again?

and our press hasn't noticed. Think they can't hide (or just neglect to report) 100k dead?

The Mississippi Hair Helment, Trent Lott, suggested our troops should do just that "and see what happens."

What's gotten into the heads of these Iraqis? Did they actually believe * when he said the Iraqis are now a "Free" people?

Ya mean ta tell me they want real democracy, ya know, one man equals one vote? Ya mean ta tell me they don't like the idea of a US appointed republican government?

It's coming to a head right now.

The news will be impossible to suppress, even by the junta's propaganda machine, the Murkin media.

This is going to be a clusterfuck of gargantuan proportions....with our soldiers stuck in bunkers right in the middle of it.

The Dems aren't running as the foreign-policy decisionmakers...they're running as the domestic-agenda champions

Unless they majorly refocus their rhetoric and hone it, no one will ever hear the things you say from the Democrats.

at a minimum, i expect Kucinich to raise the issue ... i hope others do as well ... if not, we've missed an opportunity to show we understand the situation better than bush does ...

while jobs and the economy are no doubt at the top of the agenda, foreign policy is nonetheless going to be a significant issue in this campaign ...

and bush will certainly try to capitalize on "he's strong, he protected us, he won two wars" ...

it's one thing, however much i might disagree, for some democrats to push for a "democratic Iraq" now that we've unilaterally invaded a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us or its neighbors ... it's something else again to ignore the situation and only focus on a domestic agenda ... and i do think our candidates have focussed on Iraq ...

the spectre of hundreds of thousand of Iraqis taking to the streets will put the final exclamation point on bush's failed policies ... democrats should be prepared to address the situation both before it happens and after it happens ... the nation is just starting to pay attention to the campaign ... this is the time democrats need to put the situation in its proper perspective ...

anything different than Bush is? (outside Kucinich, of course)

they are offering virtually nothing on Iraq but they should be ...

we're being handed all sorts of flavors of "I would have done this differently" but no one, outside of Kucinich and perhaps Sharpton, is addressing the situation as it exists today ...

i have no problem with any of the dems talking about how bush messed up the pre-invasion ... but i think, looking at these demonstrations, that offering only "we need to bring in the U.N." does not go far enough ... bush can easily say that he tried to bring in the U.N. ...

the current situation gives the dems a real opportunity to share their vision with country ... playing it safe by making only the most obvious and easy criticisms of bush's policies will benefit no one ...

beginning to demand open elections! You know when the minority starts clamoring for them like the Shia are doing, things are heading for hell in a handbasket.
:eyes:

Why are the Sunnis calling for elections? They will win in their majority districts, but on a national level they will lose out "big time" (to coin a phrase), as would the Kurds.

... they have more regard for majority rule than we do?

and a lot of Shiites in the streets seem to be calling for domination of the country by their faction.

Left to its own devices, Iraq would shatter instantly into at least 3 pieces, more likely 4 or more (including at least 2 Kurdish states).

That's my guess.

Once we are kicked out, they will all be free to go at each other. (which is fine by me)

most Americans get their news from the major propaganda networks. If they don't report the massive unrest in Iraq most Americans won't know or care.

The trick is to get people informed in numbers that will make a difference.

This massive unrest is a prelude, apparently to massive violence.

If the ayatollah tells the shia to "kill", the violence will become so widespread that even the propaganda ministers at the junta's networks won't be able to keep it quiet.

The death toll will be massive, I have a grandson there, only just arrived. I am so fearful of a rebellion.

his father and turn tail and run. They wouldn't have to run if they had listened to the world and never gone in the first place. Looks like they may be leaving before July 1.

a few months ago, bush began dictating who would, and would not, be receiving lucrative "rebuilding" contracts in Iraq ...

the arrogance of this boggles the mind ... "we want y'all to have free elections but we'll be in charge of your country's commerce" ... "oh, yeah, and that includes the oil ... "

when the U.S. is finally pushed out of Iraq, and I think this will happen very soon, the Iraqis will determine who does and doesn't receive contracts ... bush's halliburton war will be seen by all as the hypocrisy and failure it was from the start ...