Ruling elite, political parties, and media want Iraq War to go on and on

[Karmadillo]

and on. After all, it's their money and their country. Let's just hope the stupid American people don't start taking democratic concepts seriously and spoil things.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/dec2005/iraq-d03.shtml

US press echoes consensus in ruling elite to continue slaughter in Iraq

The American ruling elite is inextricably committed to military victory in Iraq. That is the only conclusion to be drawn from the response of the major media to Bush’s November 30 war speech.

The most prominent editorial voices of corporate America, from the ultra-right Wall Street Journal to the New York Times, the leading voice of upper-class liberalism, despite disputes over tactics and methods, agree that there is no alternative to using whatever level of violence is required for the United States to remain in control of the oil-rich Mideast country.

<edit>

The Times, which generally articulates the position of the Democratic Party, does not advocate an “antiwar” position; it rather seeks a more effective tactic for winning the war. The military expert it cites, Andrew Krepinevich, published a much-cited article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, rejecting both “stay the course” and immediate withdrawal, calling instead for “a real strategy built around the principles of counterinsurgency warfare,” and citing the lessons of the guerrilla wars in Vietnam, Malaya and the Philippines in the 1950s and 1960s.

<edit>

The Post editorial on Bush’s speech began with an accurate observation: “Though you wouldn’t know it from the partisan rhetoric, there is substantial agreement in Washington on the strategy for Iraq outlined yesterday by President Bush.”

<edit>

The Post’s concern is that military victory in Iraq, which the entire ruling elite considers indispensable, may require more rather than fewer troops. Democratic criticism of Bush’s conduct of the war, insofar as it encourages and legitimizes popular demands for troop withdrawals, may make such a military escalation politically unviable.

more...

[pberq]

1. Kick! - Recommended

"The Times, which generally articulates the position of the Democratic Party, does not advocate an “antiwar” position; it rather seeks a more effective tactic for winning the war. The military expert it cites, Andrew Krepinevich, published a much-cited article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, rejecting both “stay the course” and immediate withdrawal, calling instead for “a real strategy built around the principles of counterinsurgency warfare,” and citing the lessons of the guerrilla wars in Vietnam, Malaya and the Philippines in the 1950s and 1960s."

The above is the Hilary/Joe Biden nuanced approach.

This insanity must stop! Murtha is saying over and over again that you cannot win a guerilla war when you've lost the support of the general population. And don't forget - he's getting this from the generals.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that with the general population on the side of the "insurgents", a military victory for the U.S. is impossible.

The bottom line is that the ruling elite has no intention of leaving the Middle East - not only for the oil but for world control - see PNAC.

[Karmadillo]

2. An unwinnable guerilla war will line the pockets of the right sort of

people forever and ever and ever. What a deal.

[Karmadillo]

3. Kick

nt

[bluedawg12]

4. Was just watching The Bilderberg Group and other secret

societies on TV's History Channel.

I can get the idea of a global ruling elite.

What makes no sense is that if the world is actually ruled by 120 +/-
elite, they can get anything done they want with out blood shed.

They could put resources to space travel, medicine science, longevity, environment...you name it. if indeed, 150 such powerful people really rule then what the hell do they want from the rest of us?

They can engineer war in iraq then surely they could engineer peace, resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they already control-influence oil, they could find alternative fuel.

If such people exist, they could be richer, more powerful even beyond their wildest dreams today.

So, why do the powerful ruling elite, if they exist, if they indeed are multinational, why do they opt for destruction, let disease poverty, AIDS, corruption, exist?

Are they simply evil to the core or nuts? because by definition, they, if they exist could do anything on this planet.

This had been bugging me for a few days now, as I realize that many at the top sound very much alike.

Does anyone have a reasonable answer?

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. Yes, they are simply evil to the core or nuts

and the sooner the rest of us useless eaters realize that, the better off we will all better.

Ever notice that Bush is only happy when people are dieing? For some reason this cabal is like a den of vampires. They can never get enough death and destruction to satisfy their blood lust.

[annabanana]

7. good question...

I hope someone has some good answers...
(a functioning world will yield more riches, longer, than a broken one)
They can't be short sightedly greedy and long term running things at the same time.

[bluedawg12]

8. Under peaceful regimes there has been prosperity-

Queen Elizabeth I ruled for 30 peaceful years and England flourished.

War is a waste of every resource, maybe a very few get rich but the society suffers.

These ass hats are in power- you mean they couldn't have exerted influence or plain out bought Saddam for $$$.

Or, if they had an incling the Oil for Food program was corrupt, then they could have stopped his cash flow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

The original intention of the Bilderberg group was to further the understanding between Western Europe and North America through informal meetings between powerful individuals. Each year, a "steering committee" devises a selected invitation list with a maximum of 100 names. Invitations are only extended to residents of Europe and North America. The location of their annual meeting is not secret, and the agenda and list of participants are openly available to the public, but the topics of the meetings are kept secret—they are not published, and attendees pledge not to divulge what was discussed. The official stance of the Bilderberg Group is that their secrecy prevents the members' discussions from being manipulated by the media. However, many consider class-related exclusivity to be the primary motive

The group has been depicted as an international cabal of the influental and the affluent: politicians, financiers, and media and business moguls; the elite of the elite. Some believe that they have dictated national policies, rigged (or outright stolen) national elections, caused wars and recessions, and ordered murders and ousters of world leaders

[Karmadillo]

5. One last kick in honor of McCain on MTP explaining why we'll be in Iraq

for years and why that's a good thing. If Clinton had ever dared propose such an elaborate scheme for nation-building (in this case, better labeled LOOTING), he would have been impeached AND convicted.