BuzzFlash Has a Question? Who Exactly is the Enemy in Iraq Now? BuzzFlash Asks Its Readers to Help Us Find an Answer.

Most members of the human race seem to have magnifying minds. Whatever we focus on expands.

Perhaps we could ask how possible it is that we have "adversarial interests" rather than enemies? Can we call our own system, that which we have been compliant to, an enemy ?

How might we frame our troublesome issues in terms of "sick" or "unhealthy" rather than "bad" or "evil" ?

We have been given tools for healthiness ... a rich portfolio of religious tradition that can help us differentiate between love and fear.... and philosophical spirituality encompassed by well known phrases like, "...teach only love, for love is what you are...."

As for Bush and his gangsters, let the world judge them at Nuremburg. Our North American psyche is too immature, too confined to handle this bravely with justice. Americans are wasting time on the planet externalizing our provoked fear onto whatever we may cast our eyes upon.

Americans have other fish to fry. Who ever said that the democratic party is free of disease ? The disease we have no longer takes sides it can infect us all.

Let's focus our energy on what the constitution and the oath of office for public service really mean in this modern age. Maybe our founding fathers, talented as they were, could not have forseen every hazard that befalls our system of debts and imbalances.

And, how about cleaning up the media and reclaiming the spectrum of radio frequencies in our air waves once regarded as the public commons owned by all ?

We sink or swim together. We fool ourselves with fantasy lies or face the harsh naked truths together. There is no enemy ... only mass amnesia that helps us forget who we are and the humility to know what we came from. The final answer is not if God is on our side, but rather, who is on God's side? When the chips are down, I hope I can remember that we are all God's children ... every living thing.

If we still don't think of our society suffering from a serious cultural disease: let's try to answer for ourselves how it is that our small but great society runs the largest criminal justice system in the world ?

"Finding more responses to resource stewardship issues that foster a more peaceful world."

Al Dubya

tseving
-Surviving Bush one day at a time
Politics Plus

the fact that these criminals are not yet fired or impeached
is indicative to patriotic citizens of the United States of America and to the world how corrupt and broken the system of government is. American citizens want to see accountability and responsability for the lies, torture, the debacle of Katrina, more lies, investigating with as musch money and time as was spent on Bill clinton.

Guys, guys, guys! Stop with this pointing to this or that neocon or this or that villain having led us to the point where we are. ALL OF US in this country can agree that the present situation in Iraq sucks major. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US participated in contributing to the present situation, so we can't be about saying dubya was the idiot that led us here or whatever. Yes, even those who spoke against the war at the start went on feeding this consumer, oil-destroying culture that has put us in this bad situation in the first place. What we must look at is: what do we do now? My previous suggestions stand as one way through, basically, we must now take up the responsibility for modifying our political responsibility and participation that such an action cannot be done ever again without FULL disclosure and FULL compliance of the American people. But as I read the various stuff out there, my main point for the short term is: we need to start getting American troops out now for the reason that we no longer have any way to control the situation. Thus, the answer to Cindy Sheehan's question is: our young people will NOT be dying for any noble cause at all any more, and on that note the words of McCain take force: we simply cannot ask them to make these blood sacrifices any more. Will there be consequences? Yes, and plenty bad, especially for us. But we cannot do as we hoped: we will NOT be able to control the oil in the middle east, since rising economies nearby in governments that are less hated than we are going to have growing influence on how that oil is distributed. The grass/net roots has to DEMAND that this country head full bore into alternate energy. Despite what corporatists say, know this telling statistic: If all of the reservoirs in California were covered with PV panels floating on rafts, the peak power output of the array would be TEN TIMES the peak power consumption of the state right now. (Right, I know full well that it is politically impossible to cover all the reservoirs, but clearly the required acerage, 600,000 in Califorina, is reachable through using flat roofs in commercial use, taking PART of the reservoirs, and PART of the Salton Sea, itself 200,000 acres.)Moreover, as of year 2007 thin-film PV is coming on stream which, in eliminating the bottleneck of growing Si crystals, can be produced in essentially unlimited amount and therefore at greatly reduced cost per installed watt; the stuff is laid down on a flexible substrate using a printing press. We can do this, we can reduced greatly, or even to zero, our dependence on middle-east oil. Then we will only have to deal with the rise of sea level occasioned by others who will most certainly be making use of middle east oil and upping the CO2 in the air, but that's a story for another time...

This is a no brainer- Pogo said it best, It is us.

and he is us; or rather the idiots who started this unnecessary, gruesome, horrible mess, in the first place.

Whoever is the "enemy" in Bush's ::cough:: brain, he sure "brought it on," didn't he?

"Cagey" is the only one who got it. Fundies of all stripes = enemy of all humanity.

====
Fear and fundamentalism are the enemy
Submitted by cagey on Sat, 11/25/2006 - 12:01pm.
====

Dead on, cagey!

The Bangladeshi poet Taslima Nasrin (who is under a fatwa for criticizing the Koran) says this, too. It's all a war on modernity vs. medieval thugs. The women are back under the burca in Iraq, and we helped put them there. The guys on "our" side are the worst of the Islamic sexist pigs, from Iraq to Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan. But hey-- even in our "enlightened" society, how many have heard of Salman Rushdie...vs Taslima Nasrin? Instead, progressives worry about being "sensitive" about a religion which practices gender apartheid, and worse. Does it matter if the right kowtows to Saudis because of oil, as opposed to the left which shies away from criticizing another "culture?" Either way, those Saudi police still let the schoolgirls burn to death rather than let them run out of the burning schoolhouse undraped.

We not only need to withdraw from Iraq, and indict our own war criminals and clean our own house --- we need to globally denounce all practioners of gender apartheid, "cultural differences" be damned. South Africa had a "different culture," too.

Those who continue in destruction of Iraq's infrastructure are the enemy.
No electricity, no safe water, sewage in the streets, burning oil delivery systems, being needful of the things that a country requires to allow it's population to go on with their lives and grow, adds otherwise docile people to the insurgency. Dylan's "if you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose" is a concept worth consideration here.
All civilian mercenaries and contractors should leave Iraq. Coalition troops should back all the way out of Iraq and announce that they will return only to protect the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure - by Iraqis only and by contrators hired by Iraqis. Upon their return, coalition forces should use the utmost of military power in the protection of this rebuilding, stopping by extreme force any and all persons who would counteract the rebuilding efforts. The US and Arab nations should fund the beginning of this work.
Iraqis will begin to get their lives back in order after some of their survival and safety concerns are met.
If the Iraqis are determined to have their civil war first, we need to get our troops out.

It is interesting that the question is posed as it is. It addresses "the enemy", as opposed to "our enemy" and I think that "whose enemy" makes a considerable difference in the analysis. If in fact you mean "Who is the "enemy of mankind" in Iraq, then I'd have to say first, it's the power structure behind the war machine that's growing fat off the insane profits of this war and the spoils thereof. They are not only "the enemy" in Iraq, but in the rest of the world as well. The Republicans, whose leadership have made themselves and their supporters the Toady Boys for these fascists, have recently displayed an arrogant amount of "We do it because we can!" and it got them in trouble with the American people. Now they seem to despair of their past behaviour and promise to do better, but don't believe it. As long as supporters of George W. Bush exist, lying and grasping for power in all the wrong places will continue, unabated.

In April 2003, from the deck of the US Lincoln, W said"Major combat operations have ended and we and our allies have prevailed." This was true. We disbanded thier army removed thier president from power, and took control of thier government.

The next day the occupation of Iraq began.
Most of Iraq (80%) want us out as soon as possible.

We are the enemy just as England was the enemy in 1775.
Man must end war or, War will end mankind.

more front line reporting from Iraqi Wife........

They said Thursday was the deadliest day in Iraq. Let me correct this statement. Thursday was one OF the deadliest days in Iraq and if we think this is bad, and there cant be anything worse, believe me things WILL get even worse. Maliki's government proved to the world they are puppets to the militias. Martial law should be put in place, and a strong military guy comes in. No militias, no Sadrists, no Badrists, no Islamists. A pure Military persona that leads with an iron fist. Gets rid of the cancer that has been created.
And people say we are under occupation. Yes we are under occupation but not by the coalition forces, we are under Militia occupation. Do you hear me??? Wake up and smell the roses, oh sorry there are no roses in Iraq anymore, I should say Wake up and smell the dead carnage. Dont you dare say to me that we are occupied by these forces. State your facts clearly. WE ARE UNDER MILITIA/TERRORIST OCCUPATION...OK???

http://cyberray-rays.blogspot.com/2006/11/that-pitiful-purple-finger-people-say.html#links

He went in without planning for no real reason and invaded a noncombatant country on phoney charges. Then did nothing but live in koolaid land and in denial land while the situation deteriorated. When others tried to tell him he would not listen and plugged his ears.
For three years he let it go to hell. Now, with a democratic congress and James Baker and co. breathing down his neck, he has to pretend to agree something needs to be done. But, he won't do it. He always starts something, leaves it to go to hell and waits till someone comes along and cleans up after him. His lifelong pattern.
Now there is a civil war, an impotent government with the leader half way to a nervous breakdown, and Bush's Failed State. Iraq is a Failed State.
Bush's believers stay true by pretending we are fighting WWII again. Why I dont' know. But, this is not WWII and Bush is no FDR. Far from the great man. We should have been shouting at the believers that they are in a fantasy and it is not 1942. It's 2006. We are not going after tyranny but, fighting a made up war that was a Rove production to make Bush look good. that this is now a failed state and people are dying by the dozens every hour. Grow up.

I firmly believe that the enemy is not the U.S. citizens who are against the Iraq debacle but the remaining citizens who still support the Bush Administration, the 31% and all the Republican officeholders, whether federal, state or local for they are the ones who are still allowing the Bush Administration to be in power. Why is Chuck Hagel still a Republican! When he decides that it is in this country's best interest to leave the Republican party, then we will see the beginning of the end of the quagmire.

This post has many rather silly, emotional, or flippant comments. (Right, what blog does not?) However, those taken seriously have a common theme: that Pogo's "us" comprise the enemy. As thinking people, we need to go beyond bromides and on into some more specific things that "us" can do. First, we the people of the United States, largely through apathy and ignorance of issues to do with things we felt were far, far away and irrelevant to us, have by our INactions allowed a corrupt regime, now firmly in control of this country, to have its way on a grand Napoleonic agenda. This agenda was spelled out clearly in the PNAC document, nothing less than domination of the world by the US in perpetuity. Therefore, our first obligation as perps in the worldwide atrocity ongoing is to be sure to see that our own people take their responsibility as citizens much more seriously. If weapons of incalculable horror can be visited upon anybody in the world in our name, always with the justification identical to that claimed by Hitler at the start of the Blitzkrieg -- self "defense" [sic] -- then WE! must pay attention to these issues. To do that we must: (1) work to eliminate completely political influence in Washington purchased by outright bribes as now occur, with statewide models for such programs now available in Arizona and Maine; (2) work to guarantee that elections at every level are conducted in a way that allows full verification of a vote using standard accounting practices, which, so far as I know, can only occur with paper backups of every vote cast in every election; (3) work toward much more thorough, and required, schooling in the pub schools at least about the basic civics of the country, Constitution, laws, and the responsibility of citizens. I suggest we push for a program of providing a tax credit for every vote cast or some other such definite, concrete inducement to get the ball rolling. The right to vote for any citizen should be unchallengable, even for people in the prison system; this will require an amendment to the Constitution. No citizen should have to pay a cent out-of-pocket for an "ID card" or other Jim Crow construct to exclude the hoi and polloi (that is, "us") from voter participation. Those the longer-term issues. In the near term specific to Iraq, all I hear from any source I can find is that the situation in Iraq is out of our control. To me that means that whether we stay or leave, matters are now in motion and will run to whatever disastrous conclusion is in store. If all these pundits, and all these experienced guys can't tell us any specific way that we can "do something" to alleviation the situation (meaning: work some sort of magic that leads to "stability" in Iraq), then our ONLY CHOICE is to get out immediately, not only for the sake of our own young people who are getting blown up for no reason they can see on the ground, but to take at least some positive action toward trying to cause the situation to change. After all, a large majority of Iraqis want us out ASAP. Our situation requires something other than satyagraha, but rather a more proactive citizenry, working themselves to become the mainstream political power for positive changes, i.e., active political proactivism versus Gandhian active resistance. The story of the ouster of Milosovic, originating from the efforts of a few students, shows us that such activism can literally move mountains. When shall we start? How about RIGHT NOW.

The civil war in Iraq is being waged over who will control that nation's resources--resources necessary for people's survival. This is not a war of feudal powers vying for dominence. This is men and women who have been living without running water, electricity, steady jobs, adequate health care, a secure future, the assurance of personal safety from day to day since before Saddam was toppled. Since the arrival of W.'s invaders the situation has become exponentially worse.

Had the US spent the money squandered by Halliburton and Bechtel rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and investing in jobs, the Iraqis would not feel the need to fight each other tooth and nail for a slice of the pie. Victory means a future with security, safety, food, jobs. Defeat, they have good reason to fear, means more of the same until their families are reduced to the kind of abject existence that the Palestinians suffer--with the approval of the world and even other muslim countries.

Until the Palestinians are released from their position as the serfs of the middle east--Israel is not the only country that exploits them. Saudi Arabia treats them shabbily as well---and given economic justice, no one in the middle east will rest easy. If the Palestinians could be sold down the river, they think to themselves, so could we.

Iraq needs economic aid, not more weapons and troops. Bread not bombs. Even members of the US military have recognized this truth.

We are all one. We are them. They are us. There are no enemies in Iraq or elsewhere. The error is in thinking otherwise. Wherever we go, there we are. War on "others" is war on ourselves. Had enough yet?

For some reason you wrote "A week before the US Congressional elections The New York Times published a front-page story which all but admitted that Iraq's nuclear program had been active until March 2003,"

Total bullshit. This is what the NYTimes said: "But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb."

March 2003 appears exactly ONE time in the story: "The nation’s spy agencies had failed adequately to analyze the 48,000 boxes of documents seized since the March 2003 invasion." Either you or who you're quoting literally made up that date for the research.

Here's the only other reference to the period from when the documents were written:

"[the Web site] began posting the nuclear documents, and some soon raised concerns. On Sept. 12, it posted a document it called “Progress of Iraqi nuclear program circa 1995.” That description is potentially misleading since the research occurred years earlier."

If the truth sets you free, don't lies enslave you? Ain't the world bad enough without people spreading more of them?

There was Saddam, but he was our boy. And then, there was the Iraqi people. When we invaded, we created enormous animosity against us, and lit the fuse for the freedom fighters .. who we first called terrorists and now just refer to as "insurgents."

There never was a "war on terror." If there was we'd really be going after people in Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Pakistan, and on and on.

Our soldiers are being trained to call the good people of Iraq, "towelheads" .. and to find a way to accept killing, torturing or otherwise brutalizing the people. They can't know who the "enemy" is. But they've translated their fear into hating and killing anyone who doesn't do what they totally expect them to do. Like.. folks going to a wedding... kill them! Or folks driving down the road who don't understand the command to stop. Kill them too!

And now that we've humiliated Iraqis, brutalized them, tortured them, slaughtered them, well... we've created an enemy.

Only it's all because we screwed up, big time, as divisive Dick would say.

YANK FREE!

Bush had the conflict widened because he gave the enemy false names. He called them Oussama and Saddam. You dont give love a bad name. You don´t give dissatisfaction a bad name.

Bush let the conflict widen because he didnt like the idea to call the problem Iran and Syria.
He let Iraq become Irans miserable backyard after 10 years od gulf war.
The Bush administration led by their most systematic hypocrite Donald Rumsfeld -who met Saddam once- knew from the start they had to shut down Iraq to prevent flaming up of interests. Bush needed votes and Bush used the media and finally Bush told the world: were making failures here.
I guess Bush didnt want to say so.
Anyway, theres no integrity of the state, people count until the americans are gone, theyre splitting up into their sects, common interest for a stronger post-american self-identification than before the war is up.

Western policy was limitted for ten years to supporting Saddam. The Iraqis feel sold out.

NOTE:
Well, Im always a bit harsh in maintaining that Bush tried to force (forge) on his war terror motivations on the case of war against Iraq. Hope u dont mind guys

We are our own enemy.

Until we recognize and overcome the huge mistake we made going into that country, we are killing ourselves.

Michael in Ann Arbor

The Iraqis are not the enemies of America. They want you gone is all.

The enemies of America are those who keep you there - the Neo-Con serial liars, AIPEC, all Zionists, (no matter their religion), as well as the Israeli government itself. Then there’s the sociopathic monsters who control the arms and oil industries, of course. We can’t forget them.

Without their undue influence, America would never have invaded Iraq, a country that threatened no one but Israel, (and then only peripherally).

They are your enemy. Not the people of Iraq or Iran or anyone else.

And almost all of your enemies are now in control of your state. Ironic, isn't it?

You're being eaten alive from within while you continue to direct your aggression outwards towards the innocent.

Ironic doesn’t begin to describe it.

Buzzflash quote:

Who is the enemy in Iraq now?

We are confused. Since the Shiites and Sunnis appear to be killing each other and a recent poll indicated that the majority of Iraqis support attacks on American Gis, is the entire nation our enemy? Except for the Kurds. End of quote

To answer the first question (the enemy):

Let me ask a question with a question. Who stands to lose the most by not being there? In that answer lies the answer to who is doing all of the killings and why. You see I have this opinion that feels that the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are not involved, but somehow someone would like us to believe they are. Someone would like us to feel that the answer is not as orchestrated as it is. Someone would like us to feel that these various sects are not as united as they are. Fortunately, that is not the case.

Are the Sunnis and Shiites fighting each other?

The answer to that is also in the previous response.

And finally, do they want us out?

Well, the question is a rhetorical one because I cannot see how any country that saw another as an occupier would want them there. As for their feelings towards the occupier being one of hatred. Yes, an occupier is usually not someone that is greatly loved, especially since at one time in history that occupier collaborated with them, allowed the dictator at that time to torture and do other inhumane acts upon his people, and now that same occupier, not only kills, maimes, tortures and performs other inhumane acts, not unlike the dictator they now lambast for doing so, but decides, using the cloak of democracy that they need all of the oil not only in Iraq, but from the oil pipeline that runs close to the neighboring countries of Iran and Syria and down from the Gulf of Oman to the Indian Ocean. Hence, a need to create war on the entire Middle East in the name of terrorism.

There is also the need by the occupiers to get bases in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Turkey to protect oil interests so that they can continue to drive their cars and heat their homes, since the occupiers do not appear to like enviromentalists who keep warning about the effects of global warming and what emissions from more oil platforms would mean, not only to the Middle East, but to the international community. No, occupiers would not want to hear this because it creates obvious opposition to their intentions.

Therefore, my response is to take one guess and more than likely you will guess the culprit. And, if you were to look with a very jaundiced eye you could come up with the culprit's rationale.

Sparrows

Copy and Pasted for your convenience:

Our World: The second-worst option
Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST Nov. 13, 2006

A week before the US Congressional elections The New York Times published a front-page story which all but admitted that Iraq's nuclear program had been active until March 2003, when the US-led coalition deposed Saddam Hussein. The Times report relayed concerns of officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding captured Iraqi documents which the administration had posted on the Internet.

The documents in question contained Iraqi nuclear bomb designs that could be useful to rogue states like Iran which are currently working to build a nuclear arsenal. The Times article also reported that, in the past, the same Web site had published Iraqi documents relating to nerve agents tabun and sarin. They were removed after their content elicited similar concerns from UN arms control officials.

In response to the Times story an international security Web site run by Ray Robinson published a translation of a story that ran on the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Seyassah's Web site on September 25. Citing European intelligence sources, the Al-Seyyassah report claims that in late 2004 Syria began developing a nuclear program near its border with Turkey. According to the report, Syria's program, which is being run by President Bashar Assad's brother Maher and defended by a Revolutionary Guards brigade, "has reached the stage of medium activity."

The Kuwaiti report maintains that the Syrian nuclear program relies "on equipment and materials that the sons of the deposed Iraqi leader, Uday and Qusai… transfer[red] to Syria by using dozens of civilian trucks and trains, before and after the US-British invasion in March 2003." The report also asserts that the Syrian nuclear program is supported by the Iranians who are running the program, together with Iraqi nuclear scientists and Muslim nuclear specialists from Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union.

The program "was originally built on the remains of the Iraqi program after it was wholly transferred to Syria."

This report echoes warnings expressed by then-prime minister Ariel Sharon in the months leading up to the US-led invasion of Iraq that suspicious convoys of trucks were traveling from Iraq to Syria. Sharon's warnings were later supported by statements from former IDF chief of staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon, who said last year that Iraq had moved its unconventional arsenals to Syria in the lead-up to the invasion.

ACCORDING TO the US Senate's Prewar Intelligence Review Phase II, which studied the prewar intelligence on Iraq's nuclear weapons program, in 2002, the US had learned from the Iraqi foreign minister that while Iraq had not yet acquired a nuclear arsenal, "Iraq was aggressively and covertly developing" nuclear weapons. The Senate report concluded that Saddam was told by his own weapons specialists that Iraq would achieve nuclear weapons capabilities "within 18-24 months of acquiring fissile material."

In the weeks and months after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, President George W. Bush repeatedly stated that America's primary security challenge was to prevent the world's most dangerous regimes from acquiring nonconventional, and particularly nuclear weapons. When Bush's statements are assessed against the backdrop of the apparently advanced Iraqi nuclear bomb designs that were placed on the Web in recent weeks, it becomes clear that the US-led invasion successfully prevented Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In his State of the Union Address in 2002, Bush placed Iraq in the same category of threat to US national security as Iran and North Korea. The three rogues states, Bush argued constituted an "axis of evil" that must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The post-Saddam insurgency in Iraq - an insurgency largely facilitated and sponsored by Iran - has caused the US and its coalition partners no end of grief. Some 3,000 coalition servicemen have been killed since the invasion; the overwhelming majority of casualties have been American. Frustration with the continued bloodletting in Iraq was undoubtedly the most significant factor that caused the Republican Party to lose control of both houses of Congress in last Tuesday's elections.

And yet, for all the difficulties, pain and frustration the post-Saddam insurgency has caused the US, the toppling of Saddam's regime successfully prevented Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Iraq is a war zone today. But it does not have, and likely will not acquire nuclear weapons - nor chemical or biological weapons, for that matter. To that degree, Bush was neither wrong nor premature when he made it known in the months following the invasion that the US had accomplished its mission in Iraq.

IN THE summer of 2003, assessing future trends on the basis of the US-led invasion of Iraq, Libya's dictator Mu'ammar Gaddafi decided to forgo his nuclear weapons program. Libya's decision to give up its nuclear weapons program was a direct consequence of Gaddafi's analysis of US intentions after the invasion. Quite simply, he believed that the best way to ensure the survival of his regime was to relinquish his aspirations to become a nuclear power.

But as the months and years have progressed it has become clear that far from being a warning to other would-be nuclear armed dictatorships, the US-led invasion of Iraq was a one-shot deal. As Saddam was captured in his hole, Teheran and Pyongyang marched forward, unchallenged in their campaign to become nuclear powers.

The ascent of the most dangerous regimes in the world to the status of nuclear powers reached a new climax last month. First was North Korea's nuclear bomb test on Columbus Day. Two weeks later Iran announced it was doubling its uranium enrichment by utilizing a second network of centrifuges.

For their part, most of the nations of the world have looked on with indifference to these developments. South Korean Foreign Minister and incoming UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appears far more concerned with the Japanese debate over whether North Korea's nuclear test should or should not cause Japan to develop its own nuclear arsenal than with the fact that Pyongyang now has nuclear bombs.

Ban's apparent moral and strategic dementia is of a piece with the international community's apathy. Europe has responded to Iran's sprint toward nuclear arms by offering its usual mix of toothless sanctions, emotional appeals and diplomatic pageantry, all aimed at marking time until Iran announces its entr e into the nuclear club.

Russia and China have responded to both Pyongyang and Teheran's nuclear machinations by increasing their collaboration with both regimes.

AS FOR the US, Iran, North Korea and al-Qaida have all been quick to interpret the Democratic victory in last Tuesday's Congressional elections as a sign that the US has chosen to turn its back on the threat they pose to America. By firing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and replacing him with Robert Gates, who supports appeasing the mullahs in Teheran and finding a fig-leaf excuse to vacate Iraq, Bush has done everything to prove America's enemies right. Moreover, Bush administration officials' statements ahead of the president's trip to Asia this week indicate that Bush will seek to contend with North Korea by ratcheting up US engagement with Pyongyang in the six-party talks.

Reasonably, the world is now assessing the US through the prism of its non-action against Iran and North Korea rather than through the prism of Iraq. And the consequence of the view that Iraq was a deviation from a norm of US passivity is nothing less than the complete breakdown of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty.

Last week the Sunday New York Times reported that Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and the UAE have all announced their intention to build civilian nuclear reactors. Last Tuesday, in an official visit to China, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak reportedly signed an agreement with Chinese leader Hu Jintao for China to build nuclear reactors in Egypt.

It is not hard to see the lesson of these developments. As the Iraq campaign shows clearly, while the price of taking action to prevent rogue regimes from acquiring nuclear weapons is high, the price of not acting is far higher.

Relating this wisdom to Iran earlier this year, Senator John McCain said, "There is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option [to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons], and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

The US and its allies are paying a high price for having successfully prevented Saddam from getting nuclear bombs. The price that Israel or the US, or both, will pay to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear bombs is liable to be even higher. Yet the alternative to paying that price will be suffering, destruction and death on an unimaginable scale.

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378391145&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[ Back to the Article ]
Copyright 1995-2006 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/

Cheney et al use the term to mislead Americans into supporting an indefensible war and a brutal military occupation. It's basic psy-ops.
When the WMD hoax fell apart they decided they would scare us into backing their corporate/colonial enterprise by conflating Iraq with terrorism, especially 9-11. Remember Cheney's "if we don't kill them over there, we'll have to kill them here" business? Pure psy-ops.

The number of foreign terrorists in Iraq has always been very small. Memos have been recovered that state they fear a US withdrawal because they are convinced the Iraqis will kick them out before they have to chance to become part of the Iraqi establishment.

Cheney et al certainly can't tell the American people that they want them to sacrifice their sons and daughters and their economic future so a handful of corporate bad actors and plutocrats can benefit from annexing Iraq and steal their stuff. So they brand the Iraqi resistance to the US occupation "the enemy".

They don't want the American people to know that they deliberately set out to destabilize Iraq to justify a continuing US presence and that they hope that if they murder and terrorize enough Iraqis that they will settle down and be a nice quiet puppet state.

The cultural and historical ignorance in this scenario is staggering.

The MSM refuses to call them on branding the hard pressed Iraqi people as the enemy.
Good for Buzz Flash for challenging Americans to engage in a little critical thought.
http://resetnow.blogspot.com

That's US. I think the consensus is pretty clear that the government of the United States of America is the enemy, not only in Iraq, but of the world.

All right, already; those of us old enough to remember (with affection), Walt Kelly, automatically think "We have met the enemy and he is us" as appropriate to Iraq. My opinion is that the bushies are the enemy of Americans and every decent human being worldwide. They're the enemy of those who weep for the innocent women and children brutalized daily in our name and in the name of "freedom".They're the enemy of those who ask why the coffins of the fallen can't be photographed, and why our Chief Executive has yet to attend the funeral of even ONE of our fallen heros, or refused to explain to Cindy Shehan what noble cause her son's life was wasted for. They're the enemy of those with the temerity to suggest that the REAL reasons for hammering a helpless Iraq using lies and obfuscations, was for resource acquisition (oil) and kickbacks from obscene war profits at taxpayers' expense. They're the enemy of those people capable of anaylitical thought who refuse to buy the "official" explaination for 9/11, and who purport alternative explanations using known facts and scientific method. They're the enemy of those who can prove that global warming is a real threat, and could well be our undoing. They are the enemy of Americans and all of humanity, and thus the enemy in Iraq and everywhere else.

The Enemy in Iraq is the same as the ENEMY in the rest of the world....RELIGION! Christianity in its various venomous forms, Islam in ITS similarly poisonous forms...No facet of human existance is more deadly, more causative of war, suffering, death and destruction than the misled belief in supernatural beings, gods, deities, and the self-righteousness that results. If there were indeed a devil, he would have invented religion.

John Fain

Pogo delivered the goods. All you need to know is right there in those few words. "We have met the enemy and it is us". Here's how most would interpret that statement: "Us" is you and me; you know, 'our' side.
If an American refers to "us" he's referring to fellow Americans. Oddly enough, Americans are kind of unique in that they/we would actually admit that and by so doing take responsibility and accept the complicity that we share with our government even though "we" wouldn't do what our government would do, has done, and will continue to do. Now comes the part where the majority of people reading this go blank. We miss the point to Pogo's comment because we think he means "Us" as in you, me, our side. If Pogo actually meant that, then even he missed his own larger point, if you can swallow that.
Americans and the world at large always thinks in terms of us and them and therefore on any given issue
"we" can be right, and subsequently "they" are wrong.
We ARE them. They ARE us. Liberals are no different than conservatives in that respect because they (we) just don't get that. We don't WANT to get that. And we WON'T get that because it doesn't go along with the way we think, therefore "I" am wrong for proposing what I just mentioned.
Buzzflash is a classic example of that thinking. Buzz thinks George is an idiot and he doesn't have a clue about what is right and what is wrong. While that's true, it's also not true too. If we're talking about the overall health and well being of all living things on the planet, he's done a remarkably horrible job. But you see, that was never his intention. His intention was to do well by and for his club members that most of us are not part of. If you are a bomb manufacturer, you think George is disdained by them? By any of the other weapons manufacturers, by the Israel government?
No. To his club members, he's the man who makes the money flow and since all those mentioned think it's perfectly fine to drop the big one on their "enemy" then they all sleep well at night knowing that they're not only making money, they're ridding the world of more of the enemy.
If they saw their enemy as part of themselves, they would never do them harm because they would know they are harming themselves. Since they don't think that way, the subject never gets any attention from them. And since the average American doesn't think that way, the subject never gets any attention either. It simply doesn't fit in with the way that they think, so it is simply and summarily dismissed. So, it's back to where we started. Who is the enemy? Why, don't you know? It's us.
John Fain

Any brown person who stands between Bush and the Ramallah oil fields in Iraq is the enemy, be they jihadist, insurgent, or citizen.

I assume the administration is meeting wtih the Sunnis and ex-Baathists now and that they will be thrown a bone. If they refuse, the Shiia will be armed to the teeth and turned loose on them, they'll have their genocide and in return the US will have its oil fields and a few "lilly pads" - bases from which to jump off into other parts.

We have met the enemy and he is us!!!

We are our own worst enemy.

Considering that there is no justification for the illegal and immoral invasion of a soviegrn country (a horrible nation, but soveirgn none the less), the only true enemy in the mix would have to be the invaders.

America’s bushit-in-chief said it all: “Yer either with us, or agin’ us” ..... I guess that means everyone.

It's anyone who Bush decides it is.

Good Question Buzz and the current answer is exactly the same as the answer was in Vietnam. The enemy in Iraq is "anyone who is shooting in our direction".

It's not the Shia or the Sunni, it's not the Insurgents or the Terrorists, it's not the Militia's or the roaming bands of thugs, it is "anyone who is shooting at us".

This is the sad truth of Iraq and this is the nightmare that George W. Bush has created.

The brave soldiers of the US military no longer know who the enemy is because the enemy could be "anyone" in Iraq.

Put yourself in our young soldiers boots and imagine spending everyday of your life knowing that "anyone" within the scope of your vision had the capacity to kill you.

This isn't Mission Iraqi Freedom this is Mission Impossible.

Bring our children home, NOW!

I vote for our religious zealotry. Starting with the White House.

Hal Hackett
Shorewood, Wisconsin

I'm sure I'm just one of thousands who would reply this way. Pogo said it decades ago. "We have met the enemy and it is us."

The USA in Iraq - we are both the enemy and the occupier. To achieve victory as Bush envisions, only more killing will result. The
sole political solution to Iraq will require delicate negotiations that can only be handled by a politician who has physical courage, clarity of purpose (getting out of Iraq ASAP), and cultural sensitivity. Since that
is not Bush, I volunteer. We have done so much psychic and structural damage to Iraq, our place at the table should only be to adhere to the agreed upon date of our exit. No conditions, no embassy or enduring bases left staffed, nothing. We are raping Iraq
daily. There is no such thing as a partial or conditional withdrawal from a rape in progress. Iraq has been illegally and brutally destroyed for only one purpose - oil. On top of that, Bush’s juvenile belief that being a man means striking back at a head of state who may have attempted to assassinate his father, is equal to videotaping the rape. But I digress.

Al Maliki wants to live to be PM another day. If he leaves Baghdad to meet Bush in Jordan, he will be got. Surely, if you look to Al Maliki's left or right, it's a toss-up as to which direction the bullets will originate.

When Al Maliki, the Prime Minister of Iraq, chooses his political allegiance to Muktada Al Sadr, over the summons of the President of
the USA, and refuses to meet Bush in Jordan on Thursday, please mail Buzzflash $5.00. Buzzflash.com will then split the donations with me.

If George W Bush, as President, can be paid (not earn) $400,000.00 yearly, plus a living/entertainment allowance, free board (the White House and Camp David), unlimited travel on Air Force One, Secret Service Protection 365/24/7, then surely a mere $5.00 for an opinion is a great deal!!

The solution to Al Maliki's dilemma is to invite Bush to Baghdad for the same meetings. Al Maliki’s reasoning could be the fragile state of Iraq is such that his (Al Maliki) absence would be irresponsible. And there
you have it. If Bush can talk with a swagger and walk with a swagger, then flying into Baghdad for 48 hours should be a breeze.

Thus, Al Maliki will have solved the awkward position the non-thinking Bush administration has created. How about another $5.00 donation
to Buzzflash.com/me if Bush does not accept Al Maliki's invitation?

George W Bush swaggered into Baghdad behind bombs, bullets, and inane verbal bravado and the deliberated, precise killing of citizens of a sovereign nation. A nation that had not attacked or threatened our well-being, social , political or economic. (Another on the latter
later)

The way to begin to eliminate the genocidal forces Bush has let loose in Iraq, is for him to swagger into Baghdad and sit at the negotiating table with all the major players in Iraq. And those players include Muktada Al- Sadr, his Shiite rivals, the Sunni's and the so-called elected representatives of the new Iraqi government.

To understand the meaning of the huge US Embassy being built in Iraq is to understand why the occupation has failed spectacularly. Bush invaded Iraq without positing that Iraqi’s are people too. Iraqi’s had homes, families, jobs, bosses they hated, jobs they despised, but a life that was nominally under their control. Bush assumes that the world wants our way of life and governance. no, they may want our stuff, but that’s about it.

The US Embassy being built in Baghdad will be completed by the occupiers, but will not be occupied by the occupiers. if Bush continues
his push into Baghdad, the Green Zone is sure to be overrun and attacked. The people of Iraq will never allow the US to camp on its
face, acrrete waste products on its land and embassy personnel live better than Iraq's own people. It's a matter of pride. Something Bush
should understand exceptionally well.

WAR ON IRAQ:
2,873 U.S.A. soldiers dead; over 655,000 noncombatant Iraqis dead;
345 billion U.S.A taxpayer dollars spent. When is enough ?

"What does sovereignty mean to me if I can be shot at by any soldier on the street for any traffic violation without any responsibility on the American soldier?" said Ali Nejam, 37, a Baghdad merchant.

A Tenuous Grip on Sovereignty,
by Borzou Daragahi
The Los Angeles Times, Tuesday 28 June 2005

The enemy in Iraq is the surrogate of Zionism: The USA as formulated by the Wolfowitz, Pearles, etc in the New American Century.

Iraq war was good for Israel: Olmert
Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:17 PM ET

By Dan Williams

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The Iraq war was a boon for Israel's security, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Wednesday, voicing fresh endorsement for a Bush administration sapped by the unpopularity at home of its Middle East policies.

The mid-term election losses of U.S. President George W. Bush's Republican Party were widely considered a repudiation of his decision to topple Iraq's Saddam Hussein as part of a vision of democratizing the region and bolstering allies like Israel.

Olmert avoided explicit comment on the Republicans' fortunes during Washington talks with Bush earlier this month. But in a speech to visiting American Jews, Olmert made clear he had few regrets about the changes wrought by the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Sorry if I quote this incorrectly, The
fault dear Brutus is not in our stars
but in ourselves. It is as it was from
the beginning we were taken to Iraq un-
invited by a president who was not truly
elected by the American people but was
appointed to that position. Even with
the re-election of G.W.Bush there is a
queezy feeling of that election being
rigged. If someone would come to your
country as bad as some of us feel about
G.W. with guns and bombs and open a
Pandoras Box, we would if we could do
anything to wrench the U.S. free from
the invaders. We are the wolves in sheeps
clothing. Our beautiful men and women
so proud to serve are being made into
wanton killers and rapists. Many are just
made to protect the code by closing their
eyes. Although these returning soldiers
will not be coming home to an angry people
like the Vietnam Vets to be spat upon
and called names. They will still face
all those memories of the horrors of
war. And who's to say they will not be set up
for a war at home as well. Thus, the enemy
will remain us.

JSMullen

I'm sure I'm not the first to be reminded of this comment, but when young, I was a big POGO fan, and recall when -- I'm sure it was Pogo himself -- "We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us."

Walt Kelly had it right. The US erred horribly by invading this area of the world. Even Dick Army (!) said it was wrong!