U.S. official says Syria, Iran will be dealt with after Iraq war

by stop this war Tue Feb 18, 2003 16:32

http://www.msnbc.com/news/873499.asp

....Turkey is demanding that it send 60,000 to 80,000 of its own troops into northern Iraq to establish “strategic positions” across a “security arc” as much as 140 to 170 miles deep in Iraq. That would take Turkish troops almost halfway to Baghdad. These troops would not be under U.S. command, according to Turkish sources, who say Turkey has agreed only to “coordination” between U.S. and Turkish forces. Ankara fears the Iraqi Kurds might use Saddam’s fall to declare independence. Kurdish leaders have not yet been told of this new plan, according to Kurdish spokesmen in Washington, who say the Kurds rejected even the earlier notion of a narrow buffer zone. Farhad Barzani, the U.S. representative of the main Kurdish party in Iraq, the KDP, says, “We have told them: American troops will come as liberators. But Turkish troops will be seen as invaders.”

by Terry Tue Feb 18, 2003 17:14

The current propaganda being put out by Washington and London, is that
the whole sorry episode is now about liberation. Last weeks WMD seems to
have slipped off the agenda.

This Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq clearly shows up what a lie the
liberation argument is. Besides there is not a shred of evidence from recent
history that supports the fantasy that the US is doing this to liberate
the people.

And Why? Because the day the Kurds were attacked Rumsfeld was shaking Saddams
hand (probably to say a job well done, but officially for building friendship
between the two countries). Then they put out the lie, it was the Iranians
carried out the attack. Then later at the UN, they were one of the few countries
to NOT condemn the attack, presumably retaining for themselves the right to use
nerve gas weapons in the future.

On top of that at the end of the Gulf War I, when Bush (on TV) encouraged the Iraqis
to rise up in rebellion, then when it looked like they were on the verge of ousting
Saddam, the US Admin suddenly gave permission for the Iraqi army to fly their
own (Iraqi) helicopters. Result: Rebellion quickly crushed. The folks in the army
and the intelligence service would have been acutely aware that this would be the
outcome. So why did they do it. To leave Saddam in place. Heck if democracy broke out
it could spread all over the Arab world, and then the people would demand a fair
price for their oil. The purpose now is to put in their own obedient dictator
-anything but liberation!

by Terry Tue Feb 18, 2003 17:23

Meant to add this to the last posting... but it is becoming increasingly
clear that many in the CIA, NSA and Military think the current Bush project
is madness and extremely dangerous. They know that there are no WMD left in
Iraq, since they were all destroyed by previous inspections in the 90s. They
also know Iraq is NOT a threat to the US. They also know that this war will
greatly increase terrorism.

So the question is: Bush is a threat to their own power and positions and there
is very likely a much wider base, say he is rocking the boat too much. So clearly
they must be thinking it is time for him to go. The only problem Cheney is
Vice President. So if there is any movement, it is likely, he and Rumsfeld would
be ousted too. This however is just speculation, but similar decisions must
have been made by the Mafia or whoever during the JFK days, over his various actions
from Cuba to other stuff that other key individuals decided he had to go.

by Nicholas Tue Feb 18, 2003 17:59 Cork

Has anybody else noticed that the anti-American slur has almost disappeared in the mainstream media? It seems that people have realised that (a) protests have not been directed at American citizens and (b) the American administration is dodgy at the very least.

On Questions and Answers last night the American government official was left asking us to listen to a Kurdish Iraqi who said that the US military should take out Saddam Hussein BECAUSE THEY PUT HIM IN, and an Irish guy who said that they should fix THE MESS THEY MADE in 1991.

Things are not looking too rosy for the American establishment if the only pro-war voices around are also opposed to them.

by depp Tue Feb 18, 2003 18:37

The comfort from watching a heated argument between (honest)people who want

(a) to rid oppressed Iraqis of a brutal dictator

or

(b) to stop the Imperialist Lying Americ*nts

is that at least BOTH arguments are humanitarian. Both are speaking from the position of what they think is going to save more lives.

Would it be that much of a quantam leap for both these peopple to get together and say;

yeah Saddam Hussein has to go, in the name of humanity, but SO DOES Bush (and the SYSTEM he rode in on)?