My RSS Feeds
Tabacco's Proof That Bush Never Intended To Achieve Victory In The Iraq War "Lipstick On A Pig" - What He Would Do If He Wanted To Win & What He'd Do To Achieve Stalemate! - RI10
Tabacco’s Proof That
Bush Never Intended
To Achieve Victory In
The Iraq War!
"Lipstick On A Pig" -
What He Would Do
To Achieve Victory
& What He’d Do To
Achieve Stalemate! -
RI10
Originally published November 24, 2006
My premise is stated in the title: Tabacco’s Proof
That Bush Never Intended To “Win”
The Iraq War!
To prove it Tabacco will proceed as with a mathematical proof.
First, I establish our Axioms:
We now know for a fact that Saddam got rid of all his WMDs before the invasion and that his chemical and biological weapons were obtained from that great Protector of Peace, the United States of America.
We also know that outside Terrorists had no foothold in Iraq because Saddam would not permit it (which is more than can be said of Bush). Terrorists were drawn to Iraq after the US invasion like moths to a flame.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or Osama bin Laden. Those were Myths fostered by the Bush administration to justify going into Iraq in the first place.
Since the WMDs, outside Terrorist theories, & Saddam’s 9/11 associations with Osama bin Laden were nothing more than Myths, perpetrated by the Bush administration, there can be no reason to attack Iraq in order to protect the USA.
If Bush has perpetrated election fraud, denied Black American citizens the right to vote, dragged his feet in New Orleans after Katrina to remove Black Democratic voters & both Black & White poor to leave New Orleans in the hands of Capitalist Real Estate barons, and sent American military personnel into harm’s way for Profit while exterminating 655,000 Iraqis, why would he, of all people, care about whether Iraqi citizens have either democracy or whether they even continue to exist! The whole idea of “Bush” democracy is an affront to our intellect.
The “Proofs” for this Axiom have been stated previously in many, many Posts. Anyone, who does not accept this Axiom, has not been paying attention or is disingenuous. We need merely look at the results of VP Dick Cheney’s former company, Halliburton, and the other War Profiteers, associated with the Bush administration together with EXXON and other US oil conglomerates and their tripling of oil prices since the Iraq invasion (and subsequent reduction prior to the November elections) and Bush’s “NON-INTERVENTION” with their Profiteering, to see the connections between Profits & The Iraq War.
Next, as in ALL Murder Cases, we must establish a MOTIVE! Why would Bush “Not want to win the Iraq War”? That one is easy. If we win the War in Iraq, we lose our excuse for continued military presence there and concomitant control over their contracts exclusively with American Oil Interests.
To conclude this “Proof”, we analyze what Bush would have done if he wanted to win in Iraq and what he would have done if he merely wanted a permanent presence there and virtual stalemate. Merely accepting the unsubstantiated words of politicians is a
What Would Bush Have Done If He Wanted
To Win Iraq War
1 – Send in enough troops to Win (400,000 is the number generally accepted.) That would not be enough because there is no individual, who could sign an Armistice or Surrender. If Osama is killed, another takes his place. Winning a War with Terrorists is virtually impossible, since no Capital City or Capitol building, no territory can be captured, which signifies the end of hostilities. If one territory is taken by US forces, the Terrorists merely move on to greener pastures. Even a nuclear threat is ridiculous because, just as with conventional weapons, mostly innocent civilians (Bush calls these people “Collateral Damages”) are exterminated.
2 – Secure our US borders to minimize potential for Terrorists to infiltrate our mainland for sabotage. One of the main reasons for Bush foot-dragging on border security is to maintain the level of public fear, which permits him to continue the war. Clever! No?
3 – Be considerate of Iraqi citizens, their rights and their lives to engender good will toward their US “Liberators”. We know this is not the case.
4 – Hire as many Iraqi citizens as possible to rebuild the country to also engender good will toward the USA. The War Profiteers are mostly Americans, who have done a reprehensible job.
5 – Acquire and Secure the assistance and good will of as many UN members as possible to ensure World approval. Bush did not, mainly because he couldn’t; and more importantly, he does not care that World support is severely lacking.
6 – Not create Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo; or having created them, remove them. These are the main Anti-American propaganda institutions, even more than
655,000 Iraqi dead.
What Would Bush Have Done If He Wanted
To Stalemate The Iraq War
1 – Not send in enough troops to secure even a tenuous “Victory”.
2 – Foment Civil War among the major religious sects, destabilizing the country.
3 – Commit humanitarian atrocities like prisoner abuse, indiscriminate genocide of civilians to inflame even our Iraqi supporters.
4 – Install Minority Government, favorable to the US, to inflame the Religious Majority. Hire American mercenaries for American War Profiteers and deny jobs and opportunities to Iraqi businesses and Iraqi workers.
5 – Invade Iraq without a UN Resolution or much military support by UN members, again to inflame other nations.
6 – Create Abu Ghraib & Guantánamo prisons, deny human rights, torture and demean Muslims, and at all costs stick to our right to do these illegal actions.
Since Bush did not pursue strategies aimed at Winning in Iraq, and since he did pursue strategies aimed at Stalemate there, the obvious conclusion is “Bush Never Intended To ‘Win’ The Iraq War! The Bush Administration always wanted a Military Stalemate, which would permit the US to maintain military presence there and control the Iraqi Natural Resources.” QED
Tabacco is the first to admit that if this “Proof” were a mathematical one, he would receive a “D” grade. Not because the Conclusion is Invalid, but because the Proof is far from complete. I have not spent an inordinate amount of time on it nor done any more research because it was unnecessary, obvious to all thinking, informed Readers, and needed merely to be stated as opposed to an actual “Proof”.
If A > B, and B > C, then obviously A > C. I don’t need to prove that either.
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness!
In 1981's 'Body Heat', Kathleen Turner said, "Knowledge is power".
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)
http://dotcalmspage.blogspot.com/2007/09/tabacco-think-tank-for-other-95-of
.html