Recently I have been on two different conversations that have me banging my head against the wall.<\/p>\n
The first one was a re-post on Facebook article by a guy by the name Scott Bonn<\/a>. The standard claims, the UN did not approve, violated international law, we needed the UN’s approval for it to be legal, and accusations of war crimes.<\/p>\n So I posted on the person’s post and she said that she was friends with the guy and that I would get a reply from him. I was thinking that I might get a decent reply: mistake one. He responded when I posted about the UN’s resolutions that supported us being in Iraq all the way until 2008. Which he replied.<\/p>\n The resolution was to “inspect” not to bomb and kill tens of thousands of its citizens! An invasion requires a UN authorization which the Bush crowd sought but, when denied, they conveniently said they didn’t need it. The invasion also violated the Nuremberg Charter as an aggressive act of war and the occupation, torture and killing violated the Geneva conventions. Ask any other expert<\/a> on the international laws of war and they will tell you the same. Thank you.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So my douche bag dectector is going off big time, but I wanted to reply to this “expert” to see what his sources would be if I listed the UN resolutions regarding Iraq<\/a>. I even gave him direct links to the UN resolutions right off the UN’s website<\/a>. Also reminded him about the cease fire and that Afghanistan was a UN approved operation. So I was thinking maybe that just maybe I might get a response to these Resolutions. Mistake 2.<\/p>\n \nDoesn’t justify an invasion. Plain and simple under international law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yea, that counters everything, just reply back with a comment that all but says: “I am right because I say so”. <\/p>\n I message the person to say that I am hardly impressed with her new “friend” and she was less then impressed as well about the exchange. <\/p>\n Then there was another one were I was directed to this link after I used Iraq as a example of a working counter-insurgency place. The person that I replied to was making a comment that only a operation like the one in Sri Lanka. <\/p>\n The article starts off with the again standard claim that there is a Civil War raging in Iraq<\/a><\/p>\n Bombings took the lives of 62 Shiite pilgrims, mostly in the holy city of Karbala, but also in Diyala province<\/strong>. Sunni Arab guerrillas are still attempting to destabilize the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki by provoking Shiite-Sunni feuds and spreading a feeling of instability that interferes with investment and reconstruction. . <\/p><\/blockquote>\n The second I saw Diyala providence got my attention right away. For those that do not know I was stationed in Iraq from 2008-2009. So considering that I went on over 165 missions in this area, I wanted to know what he was trying to paint that place as.<\/p>\n All these years after George W. Bush\u2019s insane war of choice against Iraq, that country remains mired in civil war, as social scientists define it: <\/p><\/blockquote>\n Ugh, no it was not really as bad as he claims it is. You can read my thoughts on this on that link.<\/p>\n Also his confidence in US and the Iraqi populations is less then stunning. <\/p>\n The bad news is that there is no early prospect of this civil war ending, and security improvements have leveled off in recent months.<\/p>\n All this is not to say that the 47,000 US troops still in the country should remain (at all!) If Arabic-speaking, Iraqi Shiite troops and police could not stop a truck bombing in Karbala, US troops wouldn\u2019t have a prayer of doing so. <\/strong>This level of violence cannot in fact bring down the Iraqi government. But it can keep Iraq from attracting foreign investment and keep the population nervous, and so is an element of destabilization.<\/p>\n Bush and the Neoconservatives\u2019 shining beacon on a hill has in fact become a nearly 8 year long civil war, with no end in sight.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But then again this is the same guy <\/a>that said this<\/a>.<\/p>\n There are rumors that the Israeli government may declare a unilateral cease fire Saturday. They had better. Because if they ruin the Obama inauguration by splashing the bloody bodies of dead Palestinian children all over the press during the next few days, no Americans, even the most pro-Israeli, are going to forgive them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why do I do this to myself thinking that I get a real conversation. <\/p>\n ADDED:<\/p>\n I just got this a reply.<\/p>\n Of course there\u2019s a civil war: that\u2019s what the neocons wanted and that\u2019s why there was no post-war planning. The Israel Lobby neocons pretend to be about spreading democracy whereas they actually are about destabilization. Michael A. Ledeen wrote in his 2002 book The War Against the Terror Masters: \u201cFirst and foremost, we must bring down the terror regimes, beginning with the big three: Iran, Iraq, and Syria.\u201d \u201cStability is an unworthy American mission\u2026. We do not want stability in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and even Saudi Arabia\u2026The real issue is not whether, but how best to destabilize.\u201d Of course, fomenting civil wars and destabilizing the Muslim enemies of Israeli expansionism has been a longtime Israeli strategy. This policy was enunciated in February 1982 by Israeli strategist Oded Yinon writing in the World Zionist Organization magazine Kivunim. The idea was to dissolve Israel\u2019s enemies into powerless mini-states. Yinon relished the Iraq-Iran War which he hoped would lead to civil war and fragmentation of Iraq, Israel\u2019s most feared enemy. It did not. However, the Zionist neocons then lied us into the unnecessary invasion of Iraq in 2003 which did foment a civil war. Similarly, the current US\/Israel-pushed Hariri tribunal is aimed at destabilizing Lebanon. That\u2019s what the neocons want.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n **FACE PALM**<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"