An Iranian leader, referring to Bush's plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely, spoke the truth about the plan:
"The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."
Bush is trying to force the Iraqi government to agree to the following terms by the end of next month:
-allow US troops occupy permanent bases
-allow US troops to conduct military operations without consulting Iraqi government
-allow US troops to arrest Iraqis without consulting Iraqi government
-allow US troops to have immunity from Iraqi law
-allow US control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000 feet
And so on.
Does that sound like "freedom" to anyone? Isn't that what our war was euphemistically named--"Operation Iraqi Freedom?" Oh, but we have long since learned that politicians in general and neocons in particular are well-versed in what I call "oppositism," i.e., saying the opposite of what they mean.
Do the terms that Bush wants Iraqis to agree to sound any different than what Saddam Hussein did? No, they don't. Bush obviously isn't interested in "victory" in Iraq. Making Iraq agree to such odious terms is a surefire way to ensure defeat and a prolonged conflict.
Because that's what the neocons really want--war all the time. That's so they can always say that we're "in a time of war" and they can use that excuse to continue taking our civil liberties. The war in Iraq and the wider "war on terror" are really an excuse to wage war on US.
If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.
2 comments:
Reminds me of the constant war in Orwell's [i]1984[/i]. And the more I think about it, southerns start to look more and more like Proles.
Crack = Victory Gin
Maybe 2+2 = 5?
Applique Soft
Post a Comment