Comments on: Drawdown Plan May Leave Combat Brigades in Iraq

By: Shabnam

Shabnam — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:00:56 +0000

Many believe that Obama is hundred times worse than Bush, because he has been chosen for, not his ‘intelligence’ rather his black skin to sell it to ignorant people around the world to improve the US credibility to show ‘everything is possible’ under the ‘new world order’ even election of a black president. In fact, his masters are using his black skin, and Obama is selling it for his membership, as symbol of ‘oppressed’ people to execute their plot against African countries, mainly Sudan and Zimbabwe and in the Middle East. He just agreed with zionists and zionist occupied countries such as Canada and West European countries to boycott UN conference on racism. He does not deserve to be there anyway because he is a racist. Shame on Obama, a puppet.
The following video, “The Men Behind Barack Obama” says it all. I hope Iran does not cooperate with Obama’s racist game in the region. India is defenitely playing her share because the game wants India as dominat power in the region, which is desirable to Israel, where it requires to kill more Muslims to achieve their goal.

http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/video-the-men-behind-barack-obama/

By: Tree

Tree — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:07:54 +0000

Max, I phrased my original comment badly. I should not have written “one of the reasons” for Iraq but maybe a better way would have been, “one of the outcomes of Iraq.”

By: Tree

Tree — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:06:08 +0000

I just thought it was an interesting article that reveals the myriad ways occupation work.
I found this article shortly after reading one in the New Yorker about seed banks and how the seed bank in Iraq had been destroyed, or “vanished” as this article puts it. The whole thing is insidious.

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:36:45 +0000

So, Tree what do you think Monsanto is all about? Particularly that division of Monsanto dedicated to the industrialization and genetic engineering of seed?

Look, I’m not saying that there aren’t all kinds of things that went on in George W. Bush’s little head. He might have gone into Iraq because Saddam Hussain once “threatened” his daddy. Or, he was trying to one up his pops.

Come’n, Monsanto is a fossil based company. Take a look at Onmivour’s Dilemma. When the agribusiness farmer in the mid-west was asked about this endless monoculture of corn and soy, he answered it’s ALL about the military industrial complex. All of that corn comes from Monsanto see and all of the fertizler is OIL (artifical nitrate).

But I rather doubt the whole invasion/occupation of Iraq was about Monsanto per se, though as a major US imperial corporation, they certainly play their hand at the table of power.

Invading and occupying Iraq may have many little fathers (most denying it) but it is a fact (something we need to concede now and again), Iraq has the world’s largest oil reserve. Are we there because, as Deadbeat would want us all to STAN D UP and BELIEVE IT’S THE ZIONISTS THAT ARE MAKING THE US INVADE AND OCCUPY!!

Deadbeat so believes this that he’ll attempt to refute just about every history book ever written or any documentation on American expansionism JUST to make his only point, his reason for commenting here on DV.

(btw, Tree, Bremmer didn’t get into the Iraq quagmire until after the occupation began.)

By: Tree

Tree — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:19:51 +0000

An interesting article from 2005 on one of the reasons for Iraq, and it’s not oil.

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/GMO/Iraq_and_seeds_of_democracy/iraq_and_seeds_of_democracy.HTM

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:36:24 +0000

Deadbeat what is it you’re on? I’m mean, the symptoms seem always to lead back to this idea that the delusional are seeing clear, and the sun does rise in the West. And that all remarks to the contrary are “leftist” conspiracies based in the book for Zion.

Yes, it is all an illusion, Deadbeat, just one big flash.

Peace be with you during your difficult times.

By: rosemarie jackowski

rosemarie jackowski — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:34:05 +0000

Of course the US will leave combat troops in Iraq. Only TV news readers like Katie Couric refer to them as “non-combat”.

If he carries a weapon, is backed up by tanks and planes, and has access to DU and cluster bombs, he is not a farmer or plumber. He is a combat troop. The propaganda around this issue is mind-numbing.

Seems that the voters cannot admit that they were duped.

By: Deadbeat

Deadbeat — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:50:40 +0000

That’s a 50+ year commitment to occupy the arguably oil reserve richest nation in the world.

Maybe oil part of the reason or not at all. Perhaps because Iraq has traditionally supported the Palestinian cause which is a “threat” to Zionism. Now that Iraqi leaders also has open up ties with its neighbor Iran, Obama’s fealty to Zionism won’t permit him to leave. The “War for Oil” has been a major canard by posers on the Left who infused the “anti-war” movement with confusion and to retard any kind solidarity especially surrounding a boycott of Israel.

The notion that this is about “empire” has also been part of the distraction as well. Any challenge to the real “empire” has been stunted by the vast amount of misinformation that has been promoted by the “Left” regarding the war “on” Iraq.

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:34:26 +0000

Erroll you are right. The only substantive difference between Obama and McCain is the expanding the war into Pakistan. Obama was and is for it and McCain indicated he was not planning such action if elected.

What we see unfolding is what McCain called for, following the South Korean model of US occupation in Iraq. That’s a 50+ year commitment to occupy the arguably oil reserve richest nation in the world.

So, much for transformative leadership! The MIC empire gained a more articulate spokesperson in Obama.

By: Erroll

Erroll — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:02:40 +0000

After seeing the [alleged] antiwar candidate’s latest bellicose actions, one has to wonder how Obama’s decisions to keep a huige “residual force” in Iraq would have been all that different if John McCain had been elected president. Yet so many liberals are still loath to recognize Obama as being the militant leader who is so quick to take aggressive action against third world countries.

By: bozh

bozh — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 18:17:41 +0000

about combat troops in afgh’n and iraq? wld these combatants mostly shoot misiles at houses? and do some combatting against resistance fighters only after the latter fire upon nato soldiers.

so, the model of violence wld be same or similar to that of IOF which shoots from air, artillery, tanks, helis, etc., but largely avoids footwar?

as the massacre of gazans prove, resistance does not shun from accepting civilians deaths/maimings or even losing fighters selves.

taliban fighting mode appears similar to that of hezbos and gazans. the more civilians killed in afgh’n, more fighters are obtained?

in gaza, the idea was to have isr. destroy many buildings for gazan resistors to move in and have a better lie to shoot at israelis than from trenches, holes, tunnel openings.

let DV have an expert in asymmetrical warfare tell us how do resistors fight?
of course, resistance fighters won’t tell us the nature of their warfare.
so, i’m not asking that a hezbo or a gazan tells me that. thnx