babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » New Babylon

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: New Babylon
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 21 February 2003 03:38 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Plan for the new colony.

quote:
The initial humanitarian effort, as previously announced, is to be directed by retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner. But once he got to Baghdad, sources said, Garner would quickly be replaced as the supreme civil authority by an American "of stature", such as a former U.S. state governor or ambassador, officials said.

Maybe Ken Lay can do it.

quote:
Under a decision finalized last week, Iraqi government officials would be subjected to "de-Baathification," a reference to Hussein's ruling Baath Party, under a program that borrows from the "de-Nazification" program established in Germany after World War II.

The CIA can hire them, like they did to Reinhard Gehlen and his Nazi intelligence apparatus from occupied Russia after WWII.

And just to be sure they play nice, they'll give them a dose of good old neo-liberal magic.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 February 2003 06:44 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Christ. Hussein isn't a dictator worthy of being compared to Hitler. He's a garden-variety tinpot dictator that runs a one-party state like Stroessner, Videla, or any number of African dictators in the 60s and 70s.

The only reason he's being singled out is because the USA needs to pump up a "threat" to keep attention off domestic problems.

De-ba'athification, indeed. Hussein and his military may be a threat to somebody, but this is overblown. There are likely moderate elements within the Ba'ath party that would love to boot out Saddam if they knew they could negotiate an end to sanctions and gain the goodwill of the Iraqi populace.

But then, I would point out that the USA moving the goalposts around and unilaterally saying it would not take sanctions off probably killed any chance of moderate elements feeling bold enough to bump off Mr. Hussein.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cadre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3780

posted 21 February 2003 07:08 PM      Profile for cadre        Edit/Delete Post
The Common Dreams article contradicts todays Krugman column, "The Martial Plan," which reads:

quote:
Meanwhile, outraged Iraqi exiles report that there won't be any equivalent of postwar de-Nazification, in which accomplices of the defeated regime were purged from public life. Instead the Bush administration intends to preserve most of the current regime: Saddam Hussein and a few top officials will be replaced with Americans, but the rest will stay. You don't have to be an Iraq expert to realize that many very nasty people will therefore remain in power — more moral clarity! — and that the U.S. will in effect take responsibility for maintaining the rule of the Sunni minority over the Shiite majority.

From: Stalingrad in mourning | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 21 February 2003 07:12 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Privatization, eh? Well, there' a plan that can't possibly fail. Jesus weeping Christ. And the neocons all say that the left are the ones with no new ideas.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 23 February 2003 05:08 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
paul rogers, who's a prof at bradford university in yorkshire, england, has written in both opendemocracy and foreign policy in focus over what an occupation may look like:

quote:
If the regime is terminated by U.S. military force in the coming months, then there will be an immediate military occupation while some degree of stability is ensured, leading to a regime in Baghdad that is a client of Washington. At that stage, many of the U.S. occupying forces may well be withdrawn, but we should also expect the rapid development of an extensive and permanent U.S. military presence.

This is likely to involve the establishment of at least three (and possibly four) substantial bases, centered on air power but also involving a permanent presence of ground forces. One such base will obviously be in the vicinity of Baghdad itself, combining air force and army units. A second will be close to the huge oil fields near Basra in the south-east of Iraq, close to the Iranian border.

The third base is likely to be in the north, probably in a Kurdish-controlled area, close to the Kirkuk/Mosul oil fields. One candidate site is a large abandoned airstrip west of the city of Suleimaniya, currently being renovated for use by U.S. forces in the coming war. Located at Bakrajo, it was visited last week by a U.S. intelligence team and would cover both the oil fields and the northern border with Iraq.

A fourth base might be established in the western desert close to Jordan and conveniently close to the south-west oil fields that are believed to contain massive additional reserves. There may, in addition, even be a small naval base created, perhaps, at Umm Qasr on the Persian Gulf coast.

We should expect the three major bases at least to be set up as permanent military centers in a matter of months; their development may be modeled on the large-scale Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo. There, the U.S. military did not even bother with temporary structures, but directly built a heavily protected base for 7,000 troops complete with a two-story shopping mall, Burger King outlet, theater, and all the other accoutrements of U.S. life abroad, at a cost of $330 million.



From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 February 2003 05:42 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There, the U.S. military did not even bother with temporary structures, but directly built a heavily protected base for 7,000 troops complete with a two-story shopping mall, Burger King outlet, theater, and all the other accoutrements of U.S. life abroad, at a cost of $330 million.

... and they say the USA doesn't have imperial ambitions. Haven't empires generally transplanted bits of the "heartland" with their occupying forces to ensure that their soldiers are happy?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca