Does ethnic cleansing or something like sound like it sound

[madmunchie]

plausible for what is going on in Iraq? My son thinks that is part of the reasoning for why we went in.

[Kagemusha]

1. Oil makes more sense than that.

The ethnic/ religious mix is more of an in-the-way inconvenience than a selling point for the country. The whole reason the elder Bush left Saddam there was so that there'd be someone to keep all the other crazies in line (so to speak). And the US got over a decade of steady, cheap oil as a result...

[CJCRANE]

2. It's hard to tell

what the reasons were but it seems clear that some members of the B*sh administration are racist, so in some ways your son could be right.

[Xipe Totec]

3. We are in Iraq because

Our chicken hawk leaders' only military experience was playing with plastic soldiers in the back yard.

[IndyOp]

4. No doubt. "I hope they kill each other."

Henry Kissinger's words during the eight year Iraq-Iran War, when over one million conscripts were killed in the hostilities. (At different intervals, the US was providing weaponry to both sides.)

When asked what would best serve the interests of the U.S. -- an Iraq win or an Iran win, Kissinger brilliantly summarized the US position on the brutal conflict, "I hope they kill each other."


Bush Iraq Strategy "I Hope They Kill Each Other"
By MIKE WHITNEY
February 19, 2004
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney02192004.html

[Kelly Rupert]

5. No, and that's just stupid.

If we wanted to kill Iraqis, there are far more efficient ways of going about it. The death toll there is a trickle compared to what the USAF could unleash if we felt like it. If we wanted to encourage a civil war, we could have gone about stirring one up far faster. Genocide is just completely implausible.

[madmunchie]

7. Stupid? I don't think stupid is the right word. Since my son in Iraq and he

has done a great deal of reading as well as observing. I don't believe "stupid" would be a good word to use for his opinion/observation/conclusion.

Instead of turning Iraq into a hotbed to "fight the terrorists there instead of here" why not, Light the match and let the different factions of Muslims fight it out against each other, drawing other "dangerous" states into the battle, and causing such chaos, death and destruction that there would be a reason and there would be support to intervene. There would also be help from our neighbors to really unleash heavy duty bombing and destruction of that area's infrastructure and Governments. Afterall, isn't it in many's best interests to preserve the world's oil supply?

[Kelly Rupert]

9. Your son may be in Iraq, but his opinion is stupid.

He may be very personally involved in the matter, but that doesn't change the fact that his opinions run completely counter to all common knowledge.

First, destroying infrastructure necessarily involves disrupting oil supply. See: Iraq.
Secondly, there is no international precedent for stopping a war by unilaterally bombing all involved parties.
Thirdly, we lack the manpower to simultaneously invade occupy every middle-eastern nation.
Fourthly, we lack the money to do so.
Fifthly, such an action would be so outrageous that the presence of a pretext (a region-wide war) would not begin to cover it. If we were going to, we would regardless of pretext.
Sixthly, the absolute last thing that US policy wants is a region-wide war, since in that case our political influence drops to exactly zero.
Seventhly, in the event of a war, the primary goal of all parties is to deny the other parties resources, be they land, men, money, or material. Within a month, no nation would have a semblance of an oil infrastructure. All pipelines, drills, and offshore platforms would be destroyed.
Eighthly, that is not ethnic cleansing, and is nothing like ethnic cleansing.

Your son's theory has nothing to do with extermination of Muslims; rather, it is a backwards version of the original neocon plan. While PNAC proposed knocking over Iraq and making it a democracy, thus opening markets and deradicalizing Islam (both US foreign-policy goals), your son's plan suggests that we invaded Iraq to instill anarchy, thus demolishing the markets and radicalizing Islam--which are completely counter to any interests that anyone in the United States has. If you also mean to suggest, as in the OP, that we intend to murder every single Muslim, then that is barely even worth responding to--if we wanted just to kill Iraqis, we probably would have just engaged in a 30-day intense bombing campaign of populated areas before a single tank crossed the border into Iraq. Horrific as the death toll is, it is nothing compared to the potential our armed forces have.

[madmunchie]

11. He may be wrong, but I wouldn't go so far as to call his idea stupid

My son is viewing this 1st, inside Iraq, 2nd Knowing the the World Bank is really pulling the strings here, not the Neocons (they are simply the latest for doing the World Bankers business, 3rd, Saddam wouldn't play "their" game, so he was dethroned.

Invading Iraq had nothing to do with Democracy, it had to do with oil, money and getting rid of somebody. Sadam that wouldn't cooperate with the New World Order's plans.

The "Ethnic Cleansing" comes from a more historical way of uncooperative societies being delt with. Haven't you ever heard of greater powers sitting back and watching others fight themselves until they are so weakened, that the greater power can then move in and "take over"?

All logic tells us that removing Saddam was opening a Pandora's box. We are not the only ones that knew this, Why would they want a Pandora's box opened? Why would they want a civil war to happen? How do you get rid of a lot of people without having to pull the trigger?

The points you make 2nd, thru Eigth, were more my explanations of what could happen if more hell broke loose in that entire region.

My son and I are not stupid and resorting to namecalling really is not saying much about you. Calling someone's idea is the same thing as calling them stupid. Besides, there were others who have suggested the same thing.

[BlooInBloo]

12. There's nothing particularly insulting about a stupid idea.

And you mendaciously mischaracterize what was said by saying things like "My son and I are not stupid and resorting to namecalling". Your son was not called stupid. You were not called stupid. No-one was called a name.

An idea was called stupid. An idea. Not a person. People have stupid ideas - it's a common occurrence. The New Coke. Wheatgrass juice. And so forth.

[madmunchie]

16. Who are we if not ideas, thoughts and actions?

It boggles my mind when somebody claims to call your ideas and/or thoughts "stupid", but not to worry, that doesn't mean YOU?? I am my ideas, thoughts and actions, the flesh and blood are not all what makes me - me.

Nice try to run interference, but I don't buy it and I didn't mis-characterize anything.

By the way calling someone's outfit stupid is insulting, calling someone's ideas stupid is an insult, calling a person's anything that they created from their thoughts and feelings "stupid" is an insult period. AND totally unnecessary. You don't have to say something is stupid to disagree with them. That is passing a negative judgment. To disagree can be a simple statement like, I don't agree with that observation...PERIOD. The word "stupid" goes beyond the necessity of voicing a disagreement.

[Karenina]

14. GENOCIDE is EXACTLY what is occurring.

[NNN0LHI]

15. You damn right it is

If it were American citizens who were dying here in these numbers while under occupation by Iraqi forces there would be no argument about this.

The defending of what we are doing in Iraq now by some is very disheartening.

Don

[madmunchie]

17. Could you please elaborate on this since my thoughts aren't making

the point the right way?

[valerief]

6. You need a war to bleed the war chest. You need a war in the

Middle East to gouge oil prices.

[magellan]

8. Not ethnic cleansing precisely

I believe BushCo wanted prolonged civil unrest in order to justify our military's presence there. Control of Iraqi oil was and still is the goal.

[Cleita]

10. Since I have been called stupid a few times this weekend

on this board, I'm not going to change my record by saying:

I don't want to kill Iraqis of any ethnicity, nor Iranians of any ethnicity to begin with. I don't think we should be killing anyone. I just heard an A--hole saying we should bomb N. Korea into oblivion. What is wrong with the country???

:eyes:

[rman]

13. If nothing else, creating chaos

in order for the war profiteers to continue profiting.
Conveniently, Iran is implicated as the bad guy.

Who's to say who is actually doing the killing? Planting bombs, beheading people in the dead of night. In a chaotic situation such as in Iraq, it can be done by anyone.