NationStates Jolt Archive

March 30, 2004
9/11 Commission Director: Iraq War Launched to Protect Isreal
by Emad Mekay

IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 – the 9/11 commission – in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Isreal...

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Isreal appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Isreal's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

I think whatever the purpose of the Iraq war, it has liberated the people, it has stopped Saddam developing WMD's and it has iliminated a threat to the west. What is the problem? It is interesting though how people believe they are morally superior by deciding that the Iraqi people should have lived under a dictator who murdered and overshadowed them, thank goodness Iraqi is free from a maniac.

I suspect this item is from an Islamic source?

It does make sense, though; Iraq was a much greater threat to Israel than it was to the US.

Bush before the invasion made it very clear that the war to be waged on Iraq was about WMD, it was a lie. They changed their story so many times as each of their reasons were deemed lies and or discredited. However, how soon people forget that.

To me the bottom line is who cares why they did it.. it was against International law. For those of you who think the USA doesn't have to answer to any one, keep in mind, those International laws they broke, they were signatory members to. So that argument is not valid. They did have to follow International law. By all accounts Bush is a war criminal. No matter how bad Saddam may have been, Bush was no better in defying International law.

Now, I don't believe for two seconds that Bush will ever have to answer for it, but just because he got away with it, didn't mean he wasn't guilty of it.

I suspect this item is from an Islamic source?
http://Aljazeera.com
:twisted:

Why the US attacked Iraq:

1. The life blood of the US is oil. Without it, America comes to a grinding halt. Ever since OPEC was formed, the US has been at their mercy. The US had to find a way to get control of this commodity. They now have access to the world's 2nd largest reserves of oil.

2. The US needed to establish a foothold in the Middle East to continue its' global enterprise. The US will now be able to set up military headquarters in Iraq, and not have to worry about Saudi Arabia pulling the plug. Actually, the Saudi's had already asked the US to leave due to increased fear of reprisal from Islamic extremists.

3. The war against Iraq represents closure on the previous Gulf War, started by the father of the current President of the US.

4. By default, the invasion of Iraq, acts as an assist to one of the US's closest allies in the Middle East (Israel).

5. The US has been dropping bombs on Iraq since the Gulf War ended. Iraq was in a very weakened state, due to UN reprisals, its' air force was practically non-existent thanks to the no fly zones, and its' ground forces had been decimated due to the lengthy Iran/Iraq war and the Gulf War. They were ripe for the plucking.

The WMD is clearly a smoke screen. There simply were none, and the UN inspectors were in the process of dismantling even short range missles. Saddam was barbaric in the use of chemical weapons against the Iranians during the war between those two countries, but when a resolution was brought forward in the UN condemning this act, the US used its' veto. Why?

There is no known link between, Al-Queda and Saddam. As a matter of fact, Bin Laden and Saddam disliked each other. Please note that the vast majority of those terrorists that attacked the US were from Saudia Arabia. NONE were from Iraq.

I think whatever the purpose of the Iraq war, it has liberated the people,
Ask the Iraquis if they feel liberated. Ask them if they want America to stay.

it has stopped Saddam developing WMD's
What WMD?

and it has iliminated a threat to the west.
What threat did they pose?

It is interesting though how people believe they are morally superior by deciding that the Iraqi people should have lived under a dictator who murdered and overshadowed them, thank goodness Iraqi is free from a maniac.
Yup Saddam was a bad guy for sure. Why did the US prop him up during the Iran/Iraq War while he was using chemical weapons? Why did the US re-establish diplomatic ties with Iraq in 1984?

Bush before the invasion made it very clear that the war to be waged on Iraq was about WMD, it was a lie. They changed their story so many times as each of their reasons were deemed lies and or discredited. However, how soon people forget that.

To me the bottom line is who cares why they did it.. it was against International law. For those of you who think the USA doesn't have to answer to any one, keep in mind, those International laws they broke, they were signatory members to. So that argument is not valid. They did have to follow International law. By all accounts Bush is a war criminal. No matter how bad Saddam may have been, Bush was no better in defying International law.

Now, I don't believe for two seconds that Bush will ever have to answer for it, but just because he got away with it, didn't mean he wasn't guilty of it.
I've lost my faith in treaties, because they are becoming too much like laws. Laws in this country need to go through both houses of Congress. Treaties don't. And increasingly, treaties are becoming laws. My opinion is that all treaties need to be revoked until they are fully reviewed by both Congressional Houses. Only then can they be ratified. Nothing in the Constitution makes an event like that unconstitutional. In fact, it doesn't say how treaties can be deratified.

So far, nothing really "bad" has come from the war. Dead civilains, soldiers, but I think the future of Iraq will be bright if we keep it up.

Bush before the invasion made it very clear that the war to be waged on Iraq was about WMD, it was a lie. They changed their story so many times as each of their reasons were deemed lies and or discredited. However, how soon people forget that.

To me the bottom line is who cares why they did it.. it was against International law. For those of you who think the USA doesn't have to answer to any one, keep in mind, those International laws they broke, they were signatory members to. So that argument is not valid. They did have to follow International law. By all accounts Bush is a war criminal. No matter how bad Saddam may have been, Bush was no better in defying International law.

Now, I don't believe for two seconds that Bush will ever have to answer for it, but just because he got away with it, didn't mean he wasn't guilty of it.
I've lost my faith in treaties, because they are becoming too much like laws. Laws in this country need to go through both houses of Congress. Treaties don't. And increasingly, treaties are becoming laws. My opinion is that all treaties need to be revoked until they are fully reviewed by both Congressional Houses. Only then can they be ratified. Nothing in the Constitution makes an event like that unconstitutional. In fact, it doesn't say how treaties can be deratified.

...And that would be A-OK.. if you're dealing within your own borders! Then you can make whatever laws you wish and follow them. However, when you step outside of your borders you don't make the laws. Although you did have a great part in making many of the International laws you now fail to comply with. the USA is a signatory member of such laws.. not treaties.. but laws that all nations must follow or be in breach of International law. The USA can't pull out of International law, unless they wish to never leave their own borders.. News Flash, the USA doesn't decide alone what should be International law and what shouldn't be. Despite the arrogance of the American government.. they don't run the world. They want to step outside of their borders, they MUST comply with International law like every one else! They didn't.. bottom line Bush is a war criminal. Sure, maybe Saddam is too.. that doesn't negate the fact that so is Bush. That is a fact.

So far, nothing really "bad" has come from the war. Dead civilains, soldiers, but I think the future of Iraq will be bright if we keep it up.
Nothing bad?:

What about the bombing in Madrid, or in Saudia Arabia? Increased terrorism since Iraq for sure. US soldiers being shot at/killed almost daily.

US circumvented the UN, and alienated itself from some traditional allies.

US spends $86 Billion for war in Iraq, while poverty figures climb in US.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/972210.asp?0cv=CA01&cp1=1