Jun

14

Winston Churchill’s comments on Iraq still relevant today

Filed Under Latest News & Scandals, Latest posts, Podcasts, Videos | Leave a Comment

The US-supported Maliki government has rejected the US proposals for a long-term presence in Iraq, saying that it would infringe on Iraqi sovereignty. In particular, Maliki doesn’t want the US to be able to use Iraqi air space or territory at will (like, for an attack on Iran) and he objects to the immunity from Iraqi law that the US wants for our troops and contractors. Of course, Maliki has no choice: — the anti-American Shiite militia controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr is threatening to revolt if the deal is accepted, the religious community is opposed to it, and poll after poll shows that the Iraqi public thinks we have overstayed our welcome.

In our book we predicted this would happen: just by following the money trail it is obvious that the expensive bases the US has constructed in Iraq were built with a view to long-term US occupancy.

Thus the US faces a situation not dissimilar to that of Britain after World War I, when the British were trying to maintain military control of Iraq in the face of Sunni and Shiite opposition.

This calls to mind Winston Churchill’s statement to David Lloyd George on September 1, 1922:

“I am deeply concerned about Iraq …. I think we should now put definitely, not only to Feisal but to the Constituent Assembly, the position that unless they beg us to stay and to stay on our own terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate before the close of the financial year. I would put this issue in the most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to co-operate in every manner I would actually clear out…..

At present we are paying eight millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having.”

(Many thanks to Ret. US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor of the Center for Defense Information for finding this quote.)

May

2

The difference between a million, a billion and a trillion

Filed Under Latest posts | Leave a Comment

The words “million,” “billion” and “trillion” look and sound pretty much the same.

But if you stacked up thousand-dollar bills to reach one million, it would reach four inches high. One billion thousand-dollar bills stacked up is around 333 feet high. One trillion is about 63 MILES high.

In other words, a trillion is MUCH bigger. But President Bush, who has asked Congress to approve another $187 billion in new funding for the Iraq war, is trying to distract the public by also requesting $770 million in global food aid. The President’s strategists are betting that people will get mixed up by the size of the two numbers. Obligingly, USA Today newspaper ran a big front page headline on May 2nd, that said “US COULD ADD $770M in FOOD AID.” In small letters below, USA Today mentions “Bush proposal comes along with request for $178B in war funding.”

Unless you read very closely, it is quite easy to miss the difference between the “M” and the “B” — and to miss the fact that the President is asking for 250 times more money for the Iraq War than for food aid.

Indeed, the next 6 paragraphs of the article describe how this $770M in food generosity is being praised by charities - with barely a mention of those pesky $178B for the war.

Read more here. Article by Sue Kirchoff and Richard Wolf, page 1A.