On 07 May 2007 20:03:24 GMT, Chris > wrote:

(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote in
:
>
>> In article >,
>> Clark F Morris > wrote:
>>>
>>>The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
>>>the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
>>>are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
>>>to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
>>>tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
>>
>> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>> indefinitely.
>>
>
>I think that is the US governmaents intent

That was unclear. Do you think the intent is to have a group hostile
to US interests come out on top, or to have a permanent occupation. I
can make a case for either.

The permanent occupation is a likely goal, because we are, after all,
building 14 permanent bases including the "US Embassy", actually one
huge base. This will give the US control of the oil.

However a hostile government is also a plus, depending on how one
defines US interests. If the interests are those of the average
American, this is a bad thing. But if you're talking about corporate
interests, then an enemy is great. After the collapse of the Soviet
Union, it was looking like we could actually get a reduction in
military spending, I think we were hoping for something called a
"peace dividend".

That, however, was a threat to the corporations that make their
obscene profits from the war industries; that's what Eisenhower was
referring to with his "military-industrial complex" speech. So, we
needed another enemy. They tried using Gadaffi but even they couldn't
blow him up into a real threat.

Of course, we managed to blow Iran into a huge threat now, so perhaps
we can just take Iraq and still have Iran as a boogyman. Yes, that's a
good plan. Something that Republicans and Democrats can agree on,
since they both feed off the GE-NBC-Etc corporate teat. Hmm, let's
see, yes, combining large "defense" industries with the dominant media
companies! What a great idea.