The neo-con numbskulls never give up. They have murdered thousands of American boys in their un-Constitutional invasions in the Middle East and efforts to rule the world. We’ve pissed away over $1.3 trillion on these worthless wars of choice in the last ten years. The true terrorists (Cheney, Wolfowitz, McCain, Bush, Rumsfeld, and now the drone murdering thug – Obama) failed in their Israel/Saudi Arabia propaganda effort to invade Syria. Israel and their captured politician hacks in Washington DC continue to push war with Iran.

You always hear about what a threat these countries are to us. What a fucking joke. Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran are absolutely no threat to the United States. They do not have the capability or interest in attacking America. On the other hand, 15 of the 19 men who attacked us on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians. Who is the real threat?

Everyone remembers moron Bush landing on the aircraft carrier and declaring Mission Accomplished. How’s that working out now. Prior to 2003 oil was $25 per barrel. Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq. Hussein, our ally against Iran from 1979 until 1990, hated bin Laden and all of the religious Muslim zealots. Now Al Qaeda has taken over Fallujah and is gaining strength in Iraq. What a neo-con success story.

There was no terrorism or bombings in Iraq prior to 2003. Almost 9,000 Iraqis died in 2013 in bombings. The cowardly American public freaked out and cowered in their basements when a couple idiots used some cookware to kill three people in Boston. These same American idiots barely look up from their iGadgets when told that 9,000 Iraqis have been blown up for no good reason. Are their lives worth less than the 3 people killed in Boston? Maybe Neil Diamond can sing a song in Baghdad to sooth the pain of Iraqis.

I’m sure idiots like McCain and Cheney think we should go back into Iraq and fix it again. Neo-cons are the dumbest, most dangerous creatures on earth. Ron Paul was right in 2003 and he is right today.

Remember Fallujah? Shortly after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the US military fired on unarmed protestors, killing as many as 20 and wounding dozens. In retaliation, local Iraqis attacked a convoy of US military contractors, killing four. The US then launched a full attack on Fallujah to regain control, which left perhaps 700 Iraqis dead and the city virtually destroyed.According to press reports last weekend, Fallujah is now under the control of al-Qaeda affiliates. The Anbar province, where Fallujah is located, is under siege by al-Qaeda. During the 2007 “surge,” more than 1,000 US troops were killed “pacifying” the Anbar province.  Although al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before the US invasion, it is now conducting its own surge in Anbar.For Iraq, the US “liberation” is proving far worse than the authoritarianism of Saddam Hussein, and it keeps getting worse. Last year was Iraq’s deadliest in five years. In 2013, fighting and bomb blasts claimed the lives of 7,818 civilians and 1,050 members of the security forces. In December alone nearly a thousand people were killed.I remember sitting through many hearings in the House International Relations Committee praising the “surge,” which we were told secured a US victory in Iraq. They also praised the so-called “Awakening,” which was really an agreement by insurgents to stop fighting in exchange for US dollars. I always wondered what would happen when those dollars stopped coming.Where are the surge and awakening cheerleaders now?

One of them, Richard Perle, was interviewed last year on NPR and asked whether the Iraq invasion that he pushed was worth it. He replied:

I’ve got to say I think that is not a reasonable question. What we did at the time was done in the belief that it was necessary to protect this nation. You can’t a decade later go back and say, well, we shouldn’t have done that.

Many of us were saying all along that we shouldn’t have done that – before we did it. Unfortunately the Bush Administration took the advice of the neocons pushing for war and promising it would be a “cakewalk.” We continue to see the results of that terrible mistake, and it is only getting worse.

Last month the US shipped nearly a hundred air-to-ground missiles to the Iraqi air force to help combat the surging al-Qaeda. Ironically, the same al-Qaeda groups the US is helping the Iraqis combat are benefiting from the US covert and overt war to overthrow Assad next door in Syria. Why can’t the US government learn from its mistakes?

The neocons may be on the run from their earlier positions on Iraq, but that does not mean they have given up. They were the ones pushing for an attack on Syria this summer. Thankfully they were not successful. They are now making every effort to derail President Obama’s efforts to negotiate with the Iranians. Just last week William Kristol urged Israel to attack Iran with the hope we would then get involved. Neoconservative Senators from both parties recently introduced the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013, which would also bring us back on war-footing with Iran.

Next time the neocons tell us we must attack, just think “Iraq.”

37 thoughts on “NEW SURGE IN IRAQ”

  1. Opposing the Use of Military Force Against Iraq

    Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
    October 10, 2002

    I oppose the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war.

    But I am very interested also in the process that we are pursuing. This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different. This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner.

    It does something else, though. One-half of the resolution delivers this power to the President, but it also instructs him to enforce U.N. resolutions. I happen to think I would rather listen to the President when he talks about unilateralism and national security interests, than accept this responsibility to follow all of the rules and the dictates of the United Nations. That is what this resolution does. It instructs him to follow all of the resolutions.

    But an important aspect of the philosophy and the policy we are endorsing here is the preemption doctrine. This should not be passed off lightly. It has been done to some degree in the past, but never been put into law that we will preemptively strike another nation that has not attacked us. No matter what the arguments may be, this policy is new; and it will have ramifications for our future, and it will have ramifications for the future of the world because other countries will adopt this same philosophy.

    I also want to mention very briefly something that has essentially never been brought up. For more than a thousand years there has been a doctrine and Christian definition of what a just war is all about. I think this effort and this plan to go to war comes up short of that doctrine. First, it says that there has to be an act of aggression; and there has not been an act of aggression against the United States. We are 6,000 miles from their shores.

    Also, it says that all efforts at negotiations must be exhausted. I do not believe that is the case. It seems to me like the opposition, the enemy, right now is begging for more negotiations.

    Also, the Christian doctrine says that the proper authority must be responsible for initiating the war. I do not believe that proper authority can be transferred to the President nor to the United Nations.

    But a very practical reason why I have a great deal of reservations has to do with the issue of no-win wars that we have been involved in for so long. Once we give up our responsibilities from here in the House and the Senate to make these decisions, it seems that we depend on the United Nations for our instructions; and that is why, as a Member earlier indicated, essentially we are already at war. That is correct. We are still in the Persian Gulf War. We have been bombing for 12 years, and the reason President Bush, Sr., did not go all the way? He said the U.N. did not give him permission to.

    My argument is when we go to war through the back door, we are more likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this very seriously.

    Also it is said we are wrong about the act of aggression, there has been an act of aggression against us because Saddam Hussein has shot at our airplanes. The fact that he has missed every single airplane for 12 years, and tens of thousands of sorties have been flown, indicates the strength of our enemy, an impoverished, Third World nation that does not have an air force, anti-aircraft weapons, or a navy.

    But the indication is because he shot at us, therefore, it is an act of aggression. However, what is cited as the reason for us flying over the no-fly zone comes from U.N. Resolution 688, which instructs us and all the nations to contribute to humanitarian relief in the Kurdish and the Shiite areas. It says nothing about no-fly zones, and it says nothing about bombing missions over Iraq.

    So to declare that we have been attacked, I do not believe for a minute that this fulfills the requirement that we are retaliating against aggression by this country. There is a need for us to assume responsibility for the declaration of war, and also to prepare the American people for the taxes that will be raised and the possibility of a military draft which may well come.

    I must oppose this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq. This resolution is not a declaration of war, however, and that is an important point: this resolution transfers the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional authority to declare wars to the executive branch. This resolution tells the president that he alone has the authority to determine when, where, why, and how war will be declared. It merely asks the president to pay us a courtesy call a couple of days after the bombing starts to let us know what is going on. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers cautioned against when crafting our form of government: most had just left behind a monarchy where the power to declare war rested in one individual. It is this they most wished to avoid.

    As James Madison wrote in 1798, “The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature.”

    Some- even some in this body- have claimed that this Constitutional requirement is an anachronism, and that those who insist on following the founding legal document of this country are just being frivolous. I could not disagree more.

    Mr. Speaker, for the more than one dozen years I have spent as a federal legislator I have taken a particular interest in foreign affairs and especially the politics of the Middle East. From my seat on the international relations committee I have had the opportunity to review dozens of documents and to sit through numerous hearings and mark-up sessions regarding the issues of both Iraq and international terrorism.

    Back in 1997 and 1998 I publicly spoke out against the actions of the Clinton Administration, which I believed was moving us once again toward war with Iraq. I believe the genesis of our current policy was unfortunately being set at that time. Indeed, many of the same voices who then demanded that the Clinton Administration attack Iraq are now demanding that the Bush Administration attack Iraq. It is unfortunate that these individuals are using the tragedy of September 11, 2001 as cover to force their long-standing desire to see an American invasion of Iraq. Despite all of the information to which I have access, I remain very skeptical that the nation of Iraq poses a serious and immanent terrorist threat to the United States. If I were convinced of such a threat I would support going to war, as I did when I supported President Bush by voting to give him both the authority and the necessary funding to fight the war on terror.

    Mr. Speaker, consider some of the following claims presented by supporters of this resolution, and contrast them with the following facts:

    Claim: Iraq has consistently demonstrated its willingness to use force against the US through its firing on our planes patrolling the UN-established “no-fly zones.”

    Reality: The “no-fly zones” were never authorized by the United Nations, nor was their 12 year patrol by American and British fighter planes sanctioned by the United Nations. Under UN Security Council Resolution 688 (April, 1991), Iraq’s repression of the Kurds and Shi’ites was condemned, but there was no authorization for “no-fly zones,” much less airstrikes. The resolution only calls for member states to “contribute to humanitarian relief” in the Kurd and Shi’ite areas. Yet the US and British have been bombing Iraq in the “no-fly zones” for 12 years. While one can only condemn any country firing on our pilots, isn’t the real argument whether we should continue to bomb Iraq relentlessly? Just since 1998, some 40,000 sorties have been flown over Iraq.

    Claim: Iraq is an international sponsor of terrorism.

    Reality: According to the latest edition of the State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq sponsors several minor Palestinian groups, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). None of these carries out attacks against the United States. As a matter of fact, the MEK (an Iranian organization located in Iraq) has enjoyed broad Congressional support over the years. According to last year’s Patterns of Global Terrorism, Iraq has not been involved in terrorist activity against the West since 1993 – the alleged attempt against former President Bush.

    Claim: Iraq tried to assassinate President Bush in 1993.

    Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq was behind the attack. News reports at the time were skeptical about Kuwaiti assertions that the attack was planned by Iraq against former. President Bush. Following is an interesting quote from Seymore Hersh’s article from Nov. 1993:

    Three years ago, during Iraq’s six-month occupation of Kuwait, there had been an outcry when a teen-age Kuwaiti girl testified eloquently and effectively before Congress about Iraqi atrocities involving newborn infants. The girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to Washington, Sheikh Saud Nasir al-Sabah, and her account of Iraqi soldiers flinging babies out of incubators was challenged as exaggerated both by journalists and by human-rights groups. (Sheikh Saud was subsequently named Minister of Information in Kuwait, and he was the government official in charge of briefing the international press on the alleged assassination attempt against George Bush.) In a second incident, in August of 1991, Kuwait provoked a special session of the United Nations Security Council by claiming that twelve Iraqi vessels, including a speedboat, had been involved in an attempt to assault Bubiyan Island, long-disputed territory that was then under Kuwaiti control. The Security Council eventually concluded that, while the Iraqis had been provocative, there had been no Iraqi military raid, and that the Kuwaiti government knew there hadn’t. What did take place was nothing more than a smuggler-versus-smuggler dispute over war booty in a nearby demilitarized zone that had emerged, after the Gulf War, as an illegal marketplace for alcohol, ammunition, and livestock.

    This establishes that on several occasions Kuwait has lied about the threat from Iraq. Hersh goes on to point out in the article numerous other times the Kuwaitis lied to the US and the UN about Iraq. Here is another good quote from Hersh:

    The President was not alone in his caution. Janet Reno, the Attorney General, also had her doubts. “The A.G. remains skeptical of certain aspects of the case,” a senior Justice Department official told me in late July, a month after the bombs were dropped on Baghdad…Two weeks later, what amounted to open warfare broke out among various factions in the government on the issue of who had done what in Kuwait. Someone gave a Boston Globe reporter access to a classified C.I.A. study that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims of an Iraqi assassination attempt. The study, prepared by the C.I.A.’s Counter Terrorism Center, suggested that Kuwait might have “cooked the books” on the alleged plot in an effort to play up the “continuing Iraqi threat” to Western interests in the Persian Gulf. Neither the Times nor the Post made any significant mention of the Globe dispatch, which had been written by a Washington correspondent named Paul Quinn-Judge, although the story cited specific paragraphs from the C.I.A. assessment. The two major American newspapers had been driven by their sources to the other side of the debate.

    At the very least, the case against Iraq for the alleged bomb threat is not conclusive.

    Claim: Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction against us – he has already used them against his own people (the Kurds in 1988 in the village of Halabja).

    Reality: It is far from certain that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds. It may be accepted as conventional wisdom in these times, but back when it was first claimed there was great skepticism. The evidence is far from conclusive. A 1990 study by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College cast great doubts on the claim that Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Following are the two gassing incidents as described in the report:

    In September 1988, however – a month after the war (between Iran and Iraq) had ended – the State Department abruptly, and in what many viewed as a sensational manner, condemned Iraq for allegedly using chemicals against its Kurdish population. The incident cannot be understood without some background of Iraq’s relations with the Kurds…throughout the war Iraq effectively faced two enemies – Iran and elements of its own Kurdish minority. Significant numbers of the Kurds had launched a revolt against Baghdad and in the process teamed up with Tehran. As soon as the war with Iran ended, Iraq announced its determination to crush the Kurdish insurrection. It sent Republican Guards to the Kurdish area, and in the course of the operation – according to the U.S. State Department – gas was used, with the result that numerous Kurdish civilians were killed. The Iraqi government denied that any such gassing had occurred. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Schultz stood by U.S. accusations, and the U.S. Congress, acting on its own, sought to impose economic sanctions on Baghdad as a violator of the Kurds’ human rights.

    Having looked at all the evidence that was available to us, we find it impossible to confirm the State Department’s claim that gas was used in this instance. To begin with. There were never any victims produced. International relief organizations who examined the Kurds – in Turkey where they had gone for asylum – failed to discover any. Nor were there ever any found inside Iraq. The claim rests solely on testimony of the Kurds who had crossed the border into Turkey, where they were interviewed by staffers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee…

    It appears that in seeking to punish Iraq, the Congress was influenced by another incident that occurred five months earlier in another Iraqi-Kurdish city, Halabjah. In March 1988, the Kurds at Halabjah were bombarded with chemical weapons, producing many deaths. Photographs of the Kurdish victims were widely disseminated in the international media. Iraq was blamed for the Halabjah attack, even though it was subsequently brought out that Iran too had used chemicals in this operation and it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had actually killed the Kurds.

    Thus, in our view, the Congress acted more on the basis of emotionalism than factual information, and without sufficient thought for the adverse diplomatic effects of its action.

    Claim: Iraq must be attacked because it has ignored UN Security Council resolutions – these resolutions must be backed up by the use of force.

    Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91Security Council resolutions by countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. None of these countries have been threatened with force over their violations.

    Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other chemical and biological agents.

    Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM’s chief weapons inspector 90-95 percent of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s. As one recent press report stated:

    One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three…

    The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid – used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin – directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.

    These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us – and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States.

    Claim: The president claimed last night that: “Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.”

    Reality: Then why is only Israel talking about the need for the U.S. to attack Iraq? None of the other countries seem concerned at all. Also, the fact that some 135,000 Americans in the area are under threat from these alleged missiles is just makes the point that it is time to bring our troops home to defend our own country.

    Claim: Iraq harbors al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

    Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds – who are our allies – and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries – including Iran and the United States – are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States.

    Claim: President Bush said in his speech on 7 October 2002: ” Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem…”

    Reality: An admission of a lack of information is justification for an attack?

    Ron Paul, M.D., represents the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the United States House of Representatives.

  2. The doctrine “the least of ours is better than the best of yours” is still firmly in place. Nothing will change that anytime soon.

  3. We’ve made every country we’ve had anything to do with infinitely worse in the Middle East. And if that isn’t bad enough, war criminal Obama is droning to death innocent children and wedding parties. I was watching “zero dark thirty” the other night. Just a reminder of how much cash we’ve wasted on pointless and destructive military adventures.

    Bin Laden decided to attack the U.S. in earnest after Bush Sr. stationed troops in Saudi, and Bin Laden and his fighters were froze out. The rest is, as they say, history. Bin Laden said in one of his only interviews, before 9/11, that he was going to turn the U.S. into a shadow of it’s former self. He succeeded. The U.S. is now a bankrupt socialist welfare state. And Americans are the real victims, the NSA, turning conservatives and the Tea Party into terrorists. And all the scared soldiers, and all the dead from our undeclared wars. It’s disgraceful beyond reckoning. Nobody ever listened to Ron Paul. What a damn shame. We might not be suffering under the liberal progressive fascists and NeoCons if we’d have listened. It’s too late now.

  4. Sensetti

    Why should I give a flying fuck what Hussein did in his country? It has nothing to do with my country. If he was so fucking terrible, why was he our ally for decades? Who sold him the chemical weapons used to kill the Kurds?


    Your wiki bullshit is nothing but speculative gibberish. The first sentence says 1 million. A later sentence says quarter million. Big fucking difference. Provide some facts Sensetti – not wiki bullshit.

    I guess our Shock & Awe didn’t kill innocent Iraqis.

    I guess you believe the bullshit about him killing Kuwaiti babies in incubators. The entire Kuwait war was a joke.

    Are you trying to make some kind of assanine argument that Iraq is better off because we invaded under false pretenses and lies?

    Your love of Republicans shows through sometimes. Bush and Cheney are murderers. They murdered American servicemen and innocent Iraqis.

    Ron Paul was right then and he is still right.

  5. Admin says: Why should I give a flying fuck what Hussein did in his country?

    I totally agree. If Saddam thinks the Kurds gotta go and they are inside the borders he controls that’s his business, stay the fuck out. The same argument holds true for the Israelis, if they think the Palestinians gotta go that’s their business, stay the fuck out of their way. If Israel decides to bomb Iran back to the stone age let them have at it, winner take all. Wars like elections have consequences.

    1. Sensetti

      Then we are in complete agreement. We should keep our noses out of other countries’ internal business.

      But that is impossible for a global empire that spies on everyone in the world, stations troops in 100 countries, sells billions in arms to dictators, Al Qaeda rebels, and anyone willing to bow down before us. A global empire must fall due to its hubris and overreach and ultimate bankruptcy.

      Neo-cons statists and liberal welfare socialists have compromised to destroy the country. And they both like to kill foreign people in foreign lands.

  6. Admin You said There was no terrorism or bombings in Iraq prior to 2003 thats clearly wrong, Saddam terrorized his people. You can take my wiki numbers or not I don’t care. Bottom line is Saddam killed many people.

    1. It’s not terrorism. That is life in a dictatorship. Please show me a documented incidence of a terrorist bombing in Iraq prior to 2003. Sound of crickets.

      I am not wrong.

      Bottom line. America has killed FAR more innocent people than Saddam Hussein.

      George Bush is a bigger terrorist than Saddam Hussein.

  7. Sensetti, Saddam was a traditional, secular dictator. If you didn’t fuck with him, he didn’t fuck with you. The kurds violated that rule and paid the price. Your analogy with the Palestinians blows. They haven’t done anything wrong other than to be born on property that is coveted by foreigners.

  8. Admin says: It’s not terrorism.

    Are you trying to tell me Saddam did not terrorize his people? Are you trying to convince me terrorism by an external force is different than State sponsored terrorism. I am a fucking redneck so don’t start using big words and throwing numbers at me, slow down.

    1. Sensetti

      I’ll use small words so you can understand.

      Terrorism is when innocent people are randomly killed by terrorists.

      A dictator doesn’t randomly kill people. A dictator runs a country and anyone who attempts to resist his power is dealt with.

      Was that 1 million or 250,000 that he killed according to your wiki source? I got confused by the speculation posted on a wiki page by someone who doesn’t have a fucking idea how many people died at the hands of the evil dictator Hussein – who was our ally when he was supposedly murdering 1 million people or 250,000 people.

      I sure hope you can enlighten me with some more wiki knowledge.

  9. Sensetti has defeated the great Admin, this is truly a glorious day in TBP history. It will take him days to recover, he’s never been proved wrong before. The great ones always fall sooner or later.

    1. Looks like you did your victory dance too soon redneck.

      As soon as we can elect another Republican like Christie into the White House all will be well. Right?

  10. When the US was on the cusp of war against Saddam we kept hearing about him having killed 2-300,000 Iraqis. Even if you buy the theory that we should get involved militarily to stop genocide, it certainly mattered when Saddam did all of that killing. There was plenty of opining about the numbers Saddam killed, but little-to-no reporting of the details of when that killing took place. Made me assume it had been a long time earlier. Genocide in the ’80’s was an especially specious reason for a war that started in 2003.

  11. I can’t understand all this ranting against Neo-cons. Without Neo-con planning and action the United States would not be dominating the Middle East, encircling Russia, and keeping China bottled up. We might be speaking Farsi, Russian, or Mandarin instead. Without Neo-con machinations our banks would have failed years ago, our Living Constitution would be threatened, our military weakened, and the bastions of the State (the MSM, our responsive Congressmen, the courts, and the financial sector) less effective than they have been. Every day I give thanks for the opportunities 9/11 brought and for the Neo-cons who are making their Project for the New American Century come true. Some cost and collateral damage, that TBP readers bitch about, seem a small price to pay for all the good that the Neo-cons have brought us.

  12. Greetings,

    I’d love to chime in on this one. Saddam is blamed for “gassing the Kurds” like it was something he whimsically decided to do while eating a bowl of Fruit Loops. The Kurds were in open rebellion and Saddam decided to use chemical weapons that he had obtained from the Caryle Group (thanks Bush I). It may appear shocking to us that he, Saddam, may have killed as many as 10,000 of his own rebellious people until you put it in the perspective of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Tokyo, Agent Orange and Operation Phoenix. The United States can murder 10,000 people before most dictators can get their pants on in the morning.

    The other big batch of dead Iraqis come from the closing days of the Iraq vs. USA Gulf War when George Bush I told the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam. Saddam may have killed as many as 100,000 rebellious Shiites during that fiasco.

    The United States, and specifically George Bush I, play a big role in both acts. Would either have happened if we had minded our own business.

    Finally, I could give a crap about Kuwait. If one dictator wants to attack another dictator then I do not see how it is any of our business.

  13. NickelthoweR, it’s not any of our (USA) business but our owners (the central bankers) do consider it their business. The good ‘ol USA is just a front operation for the bankers. Sort of like the Canadian company set up by the CIA to “manufacture titanium cookware” as a backdoor way to buy titanium from the USSR during the cold war to build the A-12 (think SR-71) spy plane which was used to spy on the USSR.

  14. Ron Paul – Next time the neocons tell us we must attack, just think “Iraq.” – or native Americans, the several states. Ron Reagan began the modern Imperialist movement and at the same time put us on the current trajectory of deficit spending. A false prosperity has existed since at least then, one to which the world economies gladly hitched their wagons. Now the west is in a financial crisis, hmm, wonder how this is going to end. World war comes to mind. Thanks Ronnie! Reagan, not Paul.

    Zara, you hypocrite! What have the jews done except claim to be born on land coveted by others. You understand Muslims are trouble makers everywhere in world? Why is that?

  15. If you don’t like America , you can just leave, they said..
    No question about it… RES!

    Peter King: “Rand Paul ‘Lies’ About NSA… Hates America… Doesn’t Deserve to Be in the United States Senate”

    Appearing on Fox News Channel on Sunday, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) defended the National Security Agency from attacks on its intelligence gathering practices. He specifically said the charges made against the NSA by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) are “lies” and that he “doesn’t deserve to be a U.S. Senator.” “Rand Paul does not know what he’s talking about,” King said after being asked to respond to Paul’s comments about the NSA. “And, Rand Paul is really spreading fear among the American people.” Read more:

  16. Saddam had his own form of NSA, a secret police force, he had neighbor watching neighbor. You never knew who was watching you or who would turn you in for some minor or fabricated infraction.

    I agree with all comments above the only point I was bringing forward was Saddam terrorized his own people. Did that justify an invasion, absolutely not.

    Brutal dictators are the very thing needed to keep these people inline, unseating them destablizes the region. These rag heads only understand brute force, installing a police action was a joke, Bush was a dumbass thinking that would work.

    Keep an eye on the Middle East, Iran is going to get hit this year.

    1. Sensetti

      At least we gave the monkeys a little show last night. I know we are in agreement.

      I think you’re right about Iran, but I thought they would be hit last year and the year before that too.

      Israel can’t do the job without us, even though they bluster and make declarations.

  17. efarmer

    Oil was $25 per barrel in 2003.

    Iraq is producing less oil than they did in 2003.

    Libya is producing less oil than before we liberated them.

  18. It was worth it, they said.
    Al Qaeda-linked militants capture Fallujah during violent outbreak
    Published January 04, 2014

    After fighting in a bloody three-day war, Al Qaeda-affiliated militants captured the western city of Fallujah, and raised its flag over government buildings in the city previously secured by U.S. forces before withdrawing from the country two years later.


  19. Nonanon says, “Zara, you hypocrite! What have the jews done except claim to be born on land coveted by others. You understand Muslims are trouble makers everywhere in world? Why is that?”

    1) It isn’t about Jew and Muslim. It’s about European Colonists vs. Indigenous Inhabitants.

    2) Muslims, outside of the Saudi-financed Salafist variety, are not trouble makers everywhere in the world. You only believe that because the media tells you to believe that.

  20. “Muslims, outside of the Saudi-financed Salafist variety, are not trouble makers everywhere in the world.” ——— Zara

    I share your disdain for Zionism.

    I do share your love affair for Mooslims. 90% or more of all current conflicts, or conflicts in the last 20 years involve Mooslims. Here is but a partial list.

    1. Afghanistan
    2. Bosnia
    3. Cote d’Ivoire
    4. Cyprus
    5. East Timor
    6. Indonesia
    7. Kashmir
    8. Kosovo
    9. Kurdistan
    10. Macedonia
    11. Middle East
    12. Nigeria
    13. Pakistan
    14. Philippines
    15. Russia, Chechnya
    16. Serbia,
    17. Sri Lanka
    18. Sudan

    I’ll bet you still believe Islam is a religion of peace.

  21. I want to post Sensettis rules of engagement concerning all things War. Will have to be tonight, up to my neck in work. You wil want to make me King so stand by.

  22. In the 1990’s, the two principal Muslim groups, the Shia and Sunni, had their differences but lived side by side, even intermarried and regarded themselves with pride as Iraqis. There was no Al Qaida, there were no jihadists. We blew all that to bits in 2003 with ‘shock and awe’. And today Sunni and Shia are fighting each other right across the Middle East.

    Scientific studies report that up to a million Iraqi men, women and children have died from the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. That’s the equivalent of the genocide in Rwanda. And the carnage goes on. Relentlessly.

  23. Stucky, I have no love affair with Islam, in fact the opposite is true. It is similar to Judaism in that it is replete with irrational rules of behavior that are inherently totalitarian. What I say is that educated muslims have the same desire as any others, which is to make the best of their lives and to be good parents to their kids; in other words, they are just average normal folks. I consider mormonism to be a bizarre religion too, but I have known quite a few mormons and they are the same.


    This was our interests in the 1980s to support Iraq against Iran. Now addition to the 1953 doesn’t supporting Hussein against Iran make us really persona non grata. Again I won’t repeat this but we haven’t we learned our lessons?? For Christ’s sake. Guys are dead and disabled because of lies. Families have lost sons, husbands and fathers. We have a large bill for this adventure. We have weakened ourselves and I think that Saudi Arabia and Israel provided the Dupes in Washington with false information to get rid of Hussein and invade Iraq. We have strengthened Iran beyond our dreams in that region as a result. Ron Paul was more right today and the media should have given him more time 12 years ago. He was ignored on purpose. Yes Dems have their hands on this too so they can’t Blame Bush with out losing credibility. Hillary I am talking to you!! John Kerry too.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.