Discussion in 'Politics' started by thehangingman, Jan 10, 2007.
yeah go keep fighting the boogie man. well, at least u can say u'll have a nice time.
There's that oil again! Overthrowing a soverign govt, installing and arming a brutal regime, creating war and havoc. Where have we seen this before..the Economic Hitman recipe for taking over a country, to a tee.
Hey, they have oil? They have darker skin than us? Bingo.
Bush Administration Empowers Somali Warlords Who Killed U.S. Troops
Bombing clears path for re-emergence of "Black Hawk Down" savages, to cost of Somali people
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Thursday, January 11, 2007
As a direct consequence of the multiple air strikes inflicted upon Somalia this week, supposedly in the name of killing Al-Qaeda operatives, the Bush administration is helping bring back to power the savage warlords that were behind the "Black Hawk down" fiasco in 1993 where U.S. troops were killed and dragged through the streets in celebration.
Alex Jones was joined on air yesterday by Africa relations expert, Emira Woods, who is the co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., to discuss the real agenda behind events in Somalia.
Woods began by distinguishing between the two sides in the conflict and how the U.S. government has taken the action of destabilizing a popularly elected government in favor of helping remnants of the very warlords that killed American soldiers in 1993, to the cost of the Somali people who had finally found peace and stability after years of civil war and bloodshed.
"There were two sides, one side were the warlords who for the last fifteen years have created havoc in the country....on the other side you had this Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), these were local courts that formed a collective body," said Woods.
Under the UIC, "Women could walk in the streets without the threat of being raped, schools were open, hospitals and clinics were open again for the first time in almost fifteen years," said Woods.
Woods said that the transitional governing body that was made up of the remnants of the warlord factions formed in Nairobi and was only brought into Somalia this week with the help of the Bush administration. The transitional body has direct ties to the Aideed faction, the very same warlord American troops were killed and dragged through the streets of Mogadishu for trying to capture in 1993.
"Essentially what we have now is this transitional government that has been propped into place by the Ethiopian troops and the U.S. bombers - it is that transitional government that is made up of the remnants of these former warlords - so we have the warlords coming back and they've been escorted in, red carpeted in, by the U.S. through this aerial bombardment campaign," stated Woods.
The Bush administration is helping empower the very same warlords that were responsible for the "Black Hawk Down" fiasco in Mogadishu and the deaths of eighteen American soldiers.
As Chris Floyd points out, "The attack also openly allies the United States with repressive dictatorship of Ethiopia, whose troops â trained and supplied by the Americans already â invaded Somalia to join with the local warlords in ousting the Islamic movement that had taken control of the country after more than 15 years of violent anarchy."
The disgusting irony of this is lost on jingoistic cheerleaders for war on Fox News and talk radio, who are applauding the air strikes under the banner of finding and destroying America's enemies, when in reality the Bush administration is aiding the very same thugs that butchered and humiliated U.S. troops fourteen years ago, dragging them around the streets in celebration (pictured below).
Woods described the air strikes as an "irresponsible act of war" based on the same phony intelligence that told us Saddam Hussein had WMD's in Iraq.
"Under this mask of the global war on terror you have the Bush administration trying to decide for the Somali people who should be their leader," said Woods, elaborating that the re-emergence of the warlords spelled disaster for the Somali people who had up until now finally found peace and security.
She highlighted reports of civilian casualties as a result of the bombings, including a four year old child, and over a thousand Somali deaths at the hands of the Ethiopian troops in the last few weeks alone.
"What we're really worried about is that you have four battle ships, four navy ships, off the coast of Somalia, you have reports of U.S. "training" going on not only in Kenya and Ethiopia but likely U.S. ground presence even in Somalia itself - what we're concerned about is that there will be an ongoing occupation in Somalia as has happened in Iraq," said Woods.
Woods characterized developments as a "recipe for disaster not only for Somalia and the region but for the rest of the world."
So why are the US power elite funding sectarian warlords in Somalia and now bombing Islamist areas of the country? Is it really to kill three people who went into hiding in Somalia nine years ago?
The control of Somalia via puppet government, just like in Iraq, is a key factor in the Neocon plan to "shrink the non-integrating gap" of the new world order, as Thomas Barnett's 'New Map' of the world has it.
As with Iraq, the real agenda is to obtain a direct foothold in a highly strategic region. The Horn of Africa is newly oil-rich, and lies just miles from Saudi Arabia, overlooking the daily passage of large numbers of oil tankers and warships through the Red Sea.
Not surprising then that multiple US warships and Ticonderoga-class cruisers are now stalking the coastline off Somalia and routinely sending intelligence-gathering flights over the country. The location is also prime in order to be able to instantly mobilize forces for any conflict with Iran at the drop of a hat.
The American oil giants Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips also hold concession rights in Somalia. According to the Los Angeles Times, âcorporate and scientific documents disclosed that the American companies are well positioned to pursue Somaliaâs most promising potential oil reserves the moment the nation is pacified,â - i.e. kill the "Islamofascists" and install a weak and pandering government that could never control its own resources well enough to compete with the Western global elite.
âSomalia is of geostrategic interest to the Bush administration, and the focus of operations and policy since 2001,â writes Larry Chin. âThis focus is a continuation of long-term policies of both the Clinton administration and the George H.W. Bush administrations. Somaliaâs resources have been eyed by Western powers since the days of the British Empire.â
âA new US cleansing of Somalian âtyrannyâ would open the door for these US oil companies to map and develop the possibly huge oil potential in Somalia,â notes F. William Engdahl. âYemen and Somalia are two flanks of the same geological configuration, which holds large potential petroleum deposits, as well as being the flanks of the oil chokepoint from the Red Sea.â
Research by Steve Watson contributed to this report
Another possibilty is that he of course knows that the situations in Iraq is no longer solvable. By pushing forward now he forces the congress to stop him and prevent the sending of extra troops. When Iraq is finally and anarchy, which will happen anyway, he can blame that on his opponents in hindsight. I already hear his voice in afew years giving an 'elders statesman' interview to one of the big anchors: "The situation in Iraq became very unpredictable but I still feel that NOT sending troops was bad decision, frankly, an unpatriotic one as well".
It is hardly possible that he didn't expect this hard opposition; he must have known the troops won't be sent. It's alll large scale politics, don't underestimate the puppet-masters.
Yes, Saddam wasn't brutal at all.
Are We Doing Everything to Win?
By Mona Charen
Friday, January 12, 2007
A White House official involved in developing policy on Iraq tells me that the Bush administration is unanimous on one subject, namely, that defeat in Iraq would be a catastrophe for the United States. So far, so good. (The Democrats do not agree, but more on that in a moment.)
As we saw in the president's Wednesday night speech, he is now prepared, as he was not before, to re-evaluate his strategy and to change course. Whereas the president's position had been that a "light footprint" was the way to go in Iraq, and that more troops would not help to solve an essentially political problem, he has changed his mind. He now emphasizes the need for security in Baghdad as the prerequisite to any other progress.
This shift has been a long time coming, and much of the credit for changing the president's mind goes to Gen. Jack Keane and Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute.
But will 21,000 new troops be enough to do the job? Keane and Kagan had proposed a minimum of 30,000. If the president is correct (and I think it is indisputable) that failure in Iraq would permit "radical Islamic extremists to grow in strength and gain new recruits," permit Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, allow Islamists to topple moderate governments and funnel oil wealth to terrorists for attacks against American targets, then why is the surge so modest? If that much is at stake for us, why only five brigades?
The United States currently has about half a million men under arms, as well as 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists. While our troops in Iraq are being asked to do multiple tours, we have 119,000 troops sitting in Europe. Does anyone think the Soviets are about to roll through the Fulda Gap? There may be good reasons to keep an American presence in Europe -- though I can't think of any offhand -- but is there any foreign policy goal that supersedes the need to stabilize Iraq?
There is more to keep one awake nights. The president's plan relies explicitly on Nouri al-Maliki's government doing its part to subdue the violence. But the Maliki government has made promises before only to break its word. Maliki has leaned heavily in favor of the Shiites, particularly Muqtada al-Sadr (an enemy of the U.S.). It was Maliki's government that forbade U.S. forces to enter Sadr City to search for a kidnapped American soldier. It was Maliki's government that released terrorists U.S. forces had captured.
Early reports suggest that in the wake of the president's speech, Maliki has withdrawn his protection from the Sadrists. That's a good sign. So are the new rules of engagement that will permit U.S. forces to enter any and all neighborhoods in Baghdad in search of bad guys. But to succeed, Maliki must also work to train (with U.S. assistance) a minimally competent police force, drastically reduce corruption in the ministries and arrange a fair distribution of oil revenues to all of Iraq's groups and regions. Will he do so? Unclear.
And what if he doesn't? As John Derbyshire of National Review Online observes, "We seem to be saying to the Maliki government: 'Hey, you guys better step up to your responsibilities, or else we're outta here.' This, a few sentences after saying that we can't leave the place without a victory."
The other reason to sleep poorly at night is that the president's plan has an impossibly short time frame on it. In an ideal world, both parties would recognize the disastrous results of a defeat in Iraq and would signal our resolve to win. But the Democrats (and some Republicans) are all too comfortable with failure. Leading Democrats like the speaker of the House and potential presidential candidates are indicating that if they take the White House, American withdrawal from Iraq is a certainty.
Our enemies watch CNN and read The New York Times. Perhaps they've noticed how eager Democrats are to cast the president's decision as an "escalation" rather than a surge. They like the word escalation because it conjures Vietnam. Vietnam is the Democrats' alpha and omega. It's the war we lost (thanks in part to them), and they seem to want to return to the scene of the crime.
The president has freed himself from some of the rigidity that characterized his conduct of the war. The Democrats, unfortunately, are stuck in theirs.
Happened when Reagan was in too.
Why do they hate us? We are just spreading "liberty" using advanced WMD (but only in countries with oil connections).
U.S. Somalia air raids hit nomads, 70 dead - Oxfam
NAIROBI, Jan 12 (Reuters) - Air attacks against fugitive Islamists in south Somalia in recent days have mistakenly targeted nomadic herdsmen gathering round fires, killing 70, British-based aid agency Oxfam said on Friday.
"Under international law, there is a duty to distinguish between military and civilian targets," Oxfam added, citing its local partner organisations in Somalia for the information.
Washington sent a warplane into Somalia on Monday to try and take out what U.S. officials say are top al Qaeda suspects hiding with the Islamists.
Ethiopia, which helped the interim government of Somalia oust rival Islamists from Mogadishu over the New Year, has also been carrying out air raids against the retreating fighters.
While some Somali sources have reported scores of deaths, there has been no independent confirmation on the ground.
"Oxfam is receiving reports from its partner organisations in Somalia that nomadic herdsmen have been mistakenly targeted in recent bombing raids," Oxfam said in a statement released in Nairobi.
"According to the reports from local organisations in Afmadow district, bombs have hit vital water sources as well as large groups of nomads and their animals who had gathered round large fires at night to ward off mosquitoes.
"Further reports have also confirmed that bombings have claimed the lives of 70 people in the district."
Since the open warfare started in late December, some 70,000 Somalis have fled their homes, exacerbating an already dire humanitarian situation, Oxfam said.
Now hang on a minute...
Is Mona actually suggesting that the Dems had something to do with the way this war has gone? That's funny, because it seems to me that the right is always hammering the Dems for doing an about face, supporting the war at first and then slagging the administration when things started to come apart (that is, about 2 years ago).
I would love to know what 'in part' means. How much is the fault of the Dems? 3%? 4%?
The idea that the US presence in Iraq over the next few years is going to be a significant determinant of worldwide Islamic fundamentalist activity/recruiting/attacks is naive at best.
Air strikes against Iran are looking inevitable.
How best to play this?
Go long crude oil and gold?
Separate names with a comma.