"It does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous...The war is waged by the ruling group against its subjects." -- George Orwell - "1984"
Oil ,politics, and sociopathy.
"The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves." W Clark - Independent Media Center.
"There may have been for George W an element of filial piety, and a sense of a task uncompleted, and controlling the oil may always have been a factor, but the main impetus was surely the conviction of that powerful group of conservatives who controlled the Bush administration – advisers such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle – that "if you have the power, use it". The use of what was imagined to be overwhelming American power to change the Middle East map was too tempting to resist." Bryan Gould - guardian.co.uk
"Millions of Americans have come to their own conclusions about the reasons for Bush’s invasion: (1) Oil: the US government wants to hold on to power by expanding its control over oil, and Bush and Cheney want to reward their oil company cronies. (2) Military-security complex: Police agencies favor war as a means of expanding their power, and military industries favor war as a means of expanding their profits. (3) Neoconservative ideology: Neocons’ believe in "American exceptionalism" and claim that America’s virtue gives the US government the right and the obligation to impose US hegemony on the rest of the world, especially in the Middle East where independent Muslim states object to Israel’s theft of Palestine. (4) Karl Rove: Rove used the "war president" role to rescue Bush from attack by Democrats as an illegitimate president elected by one vote of the US Supreme Court. (5) American self-righteousness over 9/11 and lust for revenge [misguided lust it turns out]." Paul Craig Roberts
These more than likely are the real reasons the United States attacked Iraq in 2003 (as well as having better targets than Afghanistan). Any combination thereof, or a few that may be missing and we'll never know about, but none of these reasons have anything to do with national security (unless one wishes to make the case that it is in the national interest, and so it is national policy to preemptively attack and occupy another country in order to steal it's national resources, in the Iraqi case it would be oil. If this is indeed the case this policy would have to remain clandestine to avoid conflicts with other nations which may wish to curb American imperialism, and would of course this policy if known would be morally and ethically reprehensible, and unacceptable to the general American populace, and certainly not supported in the form of a volunteer military), or forcing a political system and trying to integrate it within a foreign country (we would need to model an effective form of government at home before forcing it onto others, and an effective government in the United States is not the case currently, or recently), or to dispose of cruel regimes and treacherous dictators (we'd go to war with more than half the nations on this planet if that were a real reason for going to war).
Is the United States safer because Saddam Hussein has been disposed (some would say assassinated)? Is the world safer. Probably not. As stated before he had no ties with terrorist organizations, and was a moderate threat to his immediate neighbors, and most likely could have been controlled through diplomatic means. Indeed he served as a check to Iran's growing influence and power in the region, and Iran could be considered the big winner of our conflict in Iraq, as the toppling of the Hussein regime removed a mighty thorn from Iran's side allowing more freedom to act independently.
Further, considering the weakened nature of the central government in Iraq, and with American forces withdrawing, it is very likely the country will once again become dominated by a strongman figure who is able to unit desperate factions, and bring some semblance of stability to the country which hasn't been in effect since the 2003 invasion. If this occurs who knows what direction the country will take. It's all too possible Iraq can follow a course which becomes more dire and antagonistic to the United States than when Saddam was in power. What do we do then? Another invasion?
Even though the President has declared the end of combat operations in Iraq at the end of last month, 4,500 Special Operations troops are still in country, who take part in raids with Iraqi units, pursuing insurgent leaders and suspected members of other armed groups. apparently seven Iraqis were killed in a village near the city of Falluja on the 15th of last month in a joint Iraq-American early morning raid, with at least four American helicopters providing support. How is that an end to combat operations? The answer is it is not. Americans are still fighting and undoubtedly will still die there.
Rep. Boehner, the House Minority leader recently stated President Barack Obama is more worried about ending the war than winning it.
He doesn't say what he means by "winning it." Winning it from who, Mr. Boehner? What is there to win?
Oil, expanding profits for the military industrial complex, the idea of "American exceptionalism," misplaced revenge, and manufacturing the air of a legitimate presidency, and currency concerns are not valid reasons to bring the country into war. For that reason alone, besides the use of torture and extralegal proceedings at Guantánamo Bay, George Bush and those who worked directly under him are clearly war criminals. He's responsible for every single death, and the untold misery that survivors face each and every day.
"It's well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset," Obama said. "Yet no one could doubt President Bush's support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security," the President said during his Oval Office speech to the nation.
I doubt it sincerely. I doubt that the man is capable of feeling love, for country or anything else.
Rachel Maddow: "To have in this speech, as combat operations are ending, to have...the President not only not addressing the circumstances in which we went to war, but these kind words for President Bush, describing his 'commitment to our security' despite the recklessness with which President Bush discarded that national security in favor of this war of choice, which only diminished our security, and is responsible, probably, for the Afghanistan war still going on today, for the deaths of people who have died in Afghanistan after the time after which that war would have ended had we not gone to Iraq - not to mention all of the people who died in Iraq."
Clearly Rachel was not pleased by the President's penchant for selective memory and glossing over the real crimes of the previous administration. Neither am I. Neither should this country. Neither should the mothers and fathers, the husbands and wives, whose loved ones gave their lives for Bush's folly.
Was the "war" in Iraq worth it?
It has been the third largest blunder this country has ever made (after decimating the continents indigenous population and adopting slavery).
And we all will be paying for that blunder for a long, long time.
Oil ,politics, and sociopathy.
"The Real Reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves." W Clark - Independent Media Center.
"There may have been for George W an element of filial piety, and a sense of a task uncompleted, and controlling the oil may always have been a factor, but the main impetus was surely the conviction of that powerful group of conservatives who controlled the Bush administration – advisers such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle – that "if you have the power, use it". The use of what was imagined to be overwhelming American power to change the Middle East map was too tempting to resist." Bryan Gould - guardian.co.uk
"Millions of Americans have come to their own conclusions about the reasons for Bush’s invasion: (1) Oil: the US government wants to hold on to power by expanding its control over oil, and Bush and Cheney want to reward their oil company cronies. (2) Military-security complex: Police agencies favor war as a means of expanding their power, and military industries favor war as a means of expanding their profits. (3) Neoconservative ideology: Neocons’ believe in "American exceptionalism" and claim that America’s virtue gives the US government the right and the obligation to impose US hegemony on the rest of the world, especially in the Middle East where independent Muslim states object to Israel’s theft of Palestine. (4) Karl Rove: Rove used the "war president" role to rescue Bush from attack by Democrats as an illegitimate president elected by one vote of the US Supreme Court. (5) American self-righteousness over 9/11 and lust for revenge [misguided lust it turns out]." Paul Craig Roberts
These more than likely are the real reasons the United States attacked Iraq in 2003 (as well as having better targets than Afghanistan). Any combination thereof, or a few that may be missing and we'll never know about, but none of these reasons have anything to do with national security (unless one wishes to make the case that it is in the national interest, and so it is national policy to preemptively attack and occupy another country in order to steal it's national resources, in the Iraqi case it would be oil. If this is indeed the case this policy would have to remain clandestine to avoid conflicts with other nations which may wish to curb American imperialism, and would of course this policy if known would be morally and ethically reprehensible, and unacceptable to the general American populace, and certainly not supported in the form of a volunteer military), or forcing a political system and trying to integrate it within a foreign country (we would need to model an effective form of government at home before forcing it onto others, and an effective government in the United States is not the case currently, or recently), or to dispose of cruel regimes and treacherous dictators (we'd go to war with more than half the nations on this planet if that were a real reason for going to war).
Is the United States safer because Saddam Hussein has been disposed (some would say assassinated)? Is the world safer. Probably not. As stated before he had no ties with terrorist organizations, and was a moderate threat to his immediate neighbors, and most likely could have been controlled through diplomatic means. Indeed he served as a check to Iran's growing influence and power in the region, and Iran could be considered the big winner of our conflict in Iraq, as the toppling of the Hussein regime removed a mighty thorn from Iran's side allowing more freedom to act independently.
Further, considering the weakened nature of the central government in Iraq, and with American forces withdrawing, it is very likely the country will once again become dominated by a strongman figure who is able to unit desperate factions, and bring some semblance of stability to the country which hasn't been in effect since the 2003 invasion. If this occurs who knows what direction the country will take. It's all too possible Iraq can follow a course which becomes more dire and antagonistic to the United States than when Saddam was in power. What do we do then? Another invasion?
Even though the President has declared the end of combat operations in Iraq at the end of last month, 4,500 Special Operations troops are still in country, who take part in raids with Iraqi units, pursuing insurgent leaders and suspected members of other armed groups. apparently seven Iraqis were killed in a village near the city of Falluja on the 15th of last month in a joint Iraq-American early morning raid, with at least four American helicopters providing support. How is that an end to combat operations? The answer is it is not. Americans are still fighting and undoubtedly will still die there.
Rep. Boehner, the House Minority leader recently stated President Barack Obama is more worried about ending the war than winning it.
He doesn't say what he means by "winning it." Winning it from who, Mr. Boehner? What is there to win?
Oil, expanding profits for the military industrial complex, the idea of "American exceptionalism," misplaced revenge, and manufacturing the air of a legitimate presidency, and currency concerns are not valid reasons to bring the country into war. For that reason alone, besides the use of torture and extralegal proceedings at Guantánamo Bay, George Bush and those who worked directly under him are clearly war criminals. He's responsible for every single death, and the untold misery that survivors face each and every day.
"It's well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset," Obama said. "Yet no one could doubt President Bush's support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security," the President said during his Oval Office speech to the nation.
I doubt it sincerely. I doubt that the man is capable of feeling love, for country or anything else.
Rachel Maddow: "To have in this speech, as combat operations are ending, to have...the President not only not addressing the circumstances in which we went to war, but these kind words for President Bush, describing his 'commitment to our security' despite the recklessness with which President Bush discarded that national security in favor of this war of choice, which only diminished our security, and is responsible, probably, for the Afghanistan war still going on today, for the deaths of people who have died in Afghanistan after the time after which that war would have ended had we not gone to Iraq - not to mention all of the people who died in Iraq."
Clearly Rachel was not pleased by the President's penchant for selective memory and glossing over the real crimes of the previous administration. Neither am I. Neither should this country. Neither should the mothers and fathers, the husbands and wives, whose loved ones gave their lives for Bush's folly.
Was the "war" in Iraq worth it?
It has been the third largest blunder this country has ever made (after decimating the continents indigenous population and adopting slavery).
And we all will be paying for that blunder for a long, long time.
No comments:
Post a Comment