NationStates Jolt Archive

Iraq, then the world, Bush hoped

By Peter Hartcher
April 17, 2004

This week George Bush came closer to telling the truth about the invasion of Iraq than at any time in his presidency.

It is extraordinary that, a year after invading a foreign country unprovoked, the US leader had still not answered straightforwardly the big question overhanging the whole enterprise - why?

The US soldiers in occupied Iraq have been killed at an average of 1.6 a day since the President's announcement of the end of major hostilities. That's 550 dead over 350 days. Including the other coalition forces, it's 620 dead soldiers, or 1.8 killed daily. That's 360 per cent more killed in the occupation than in the invasion.

How many more will die in the occupation? One of the most credible US experts, Tony Cordesman, of the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and Security Studies, estimates that it will take roughly another year of US military occupation to stabilise the country, at the loss of another 500 American lives at the current rate of attrition.

This attrition of American lives has run in parallel to the attrition of Bush's various justifications for war. The effect of both has been to deal Bush a serious challenge in US public opinion. His status as a wartime President had been his greatest political strength. It has gradually become his greatest political vulnerability.

The Pentagon bans the media from photographing the scenes where the remains of US soldiers are returned home in body bags from Iraq. Not content to blot out the reality of body bags, the Pentagon also has renamed them. Body bags are now officially "transfer tubes". But the explosion of visible violence this month in Iraq has proved impossible to airbrush out of the public view.

The latest Gallup polling showed 64 per cent of Americans believed things were "going badly" for the US in Iraq on April 8, the most negative reading since the invasion was launched. And this is hurting Bush's re-election prospects. The contest for the presidential election on November 2 is as close as it could possibly be. "If it had been held in December or early January, Bush would have been re-elected," points out Charlie Cook, publisher of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

"Had it been late January or in February, he would have lost. In March he would have won, and if the balloting took place today, it would be close, but I believe the President would come up a bit short. No telling how many times this lead is likely to change hands before November 2."

Bush and another political leader, Osama bin Laden, sensed the American President's moment of vulnerability this week, and both acted on it. Bush emerged for only the third prime-time televised press conference of his presidency, to recover public support for his Iraq project.

And bin Laden offered a supposed "truce" to halt planned terrorist attacks in any European nation that withdraws its forces from Iraq, to isolate the US in its Iraq project. Bin Laden's offer, which he said is good for three months, has a clear tactical intent.

As the Bush Administration approaches the June 30 handover of sovereignty to an Iraqi government of some kind, it has been exploring two new international initiatives for the running of Iraq. One is a fresh UN mandate. The other is the possibility of putting the military occupation under the command of its European alliance, NATO. Both require European support.

Bin Laden hopes that his offer of a "truce" will undermine that support, paralyse the UN and NATO, and frustrate Bush. Bin Laden's ploy alone will not, but it can help sow doubt and fear for the next three months. And they are the staples of his trade.

So what is the true reason for Bush's war on Iraq?

The simplest to dispose of is the argument that it had something to do with September 11. We don't need to listen to the rantings of Bush's political enemies. We know from four published sources from within the Bush Administration itself that the President was planning to move on Baghdad from his earliest days in office.

The four? The first exhibit is the book by a former Bush speechwriter, David Frum, The Right Man, a glowing portrayal of the President. Frum relates a conversation in the Oval Office in February 2001, where he took notes, when Bush told his staff privately of his "determination to dig Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq". That was the month after his inauguration and seven months before the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

The second exhibit is the quasi-official history of the post-September 11 White House by journalist Bob Woodward. The White House gave Woodward access to official minutes of the meetings of the National Security Council. His book, Bush at War, tells us that the CIA immediately identified al-Qaeda as the culprit in the terrorist attacks on the US.

But the next day, when Bush convened the NSC to craft strategy, Rumsfeld raised the unrelated question of Iraq. Woodward quotes Rumsfeld asking, "Why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaeda?"

"Before the attacks," Woodward writes, "the Pentagon had been working for months on developing a military option for Iraq."

Third is the new book based on the notes and papers of Bush's first treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill. The Price of Loyalty describes the first meeting of Bush's National Security Council. The President tasked its members with preparing military options for removing Saddam. Says O'Neill, who was at the meeting, "getting Hussein was now the Administration's focus, that much was already clear". The Bush Administration was 10 days old.

Fourth is the new book by Bush's former top counter-terrorism official, Dick Clarke, who co-ordinated the White House crisis response to the September 11 attacks. The next day Bush grabbed him and some other aides and told them "See if Saddam did this."

Clarke replied: "But, Mr President, al-Qaeda did this."

Bush: "I know, I know, but ... see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."

September 11 and the so-called war on terrorism was not the reason for the invasion of Iraq. It was a political marketing opportunity. And as the occupation continues yet the risk of terrorist attack does not abate, it has dawned on an increasing number of Americans that there was never any real connection.

So if Iraq was not about al-Qaeda, and it was not about terrorism, what was it about? The danger of weapons of mass destruction has been so discredited as to be a comic motif. A single line, from the CIA head, George Tenet, on February 5, will suffice. Speaking of the US intelligence community's analysis of the danger of Saddam's WMD, Tenet said: "They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."

Now, by process of attrition, Bush's real motive has been laid bare. Early in the march on Baghdad, he was reluctant to speak of it. But neither was it a secret. It was hiding in plain view. He spoke of it five times in one form or another in his press conference this week: "We're changing the world."

Since the end of the Cold War, a group of Republican ideologues has been developing a theory of and practice of hegemony. Labelled the neo-conservatives, or neo-cons for short, these people are the bearers of the doctrine of American exceptionalism, much as the author Herman Melville formulated it in 1850: "We are the peculiar chosen people - the Israel of our time. We bear the ark of the liberties of the world."

As soon as Bush was elected, he tasked the Pentagon with the work of rewriting the National Security Strategy, which a professor of military history at Yale University, John Lewis Gaddis, describes as perhaps "the most important reformulation of US grand strategy in over half a century".

The two key concepts it enshrines are pre-emption, and hegemony. The US will pre-empt threats to preserve hegemony. And hegemony is a nice way of saying preponderant and unchallengeable global domination. Iraq was destined to be the test bed for the new doctrine as the Bush Administration set out to recast the world in its own interests. Iraq was the ideal starting point for reasons that include its implications for oil supply and for the security of Israel. But they are details in the grand vision.

Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, observes that this is a period of great danger for the US, but also "of enormous opportunity ... a period akin to 1945 to 1947, when American leadership expanded the number of free and democratic states - Japan and Germany among the great powers - to create a new balance of power that favoured freedom".

September 11 was the perfect political opportunity to win political support for the new doctrine. As the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, quickly grasped, that day created "the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world".

It is an idealistic vision, the opposite of realism, and a powerful one. But because it refuses to submit to existing realities of world affairs, it is also a disruptive one. Because it seeks profoundly to change the status quo, it is a revolutionary doctrine.

Bush this week vowed to pursue his vision "to change the world." As he said: "It's important for those soldiers to know America stands with them, and we weep when they die." There will be much more weeping as Bush pursues his conception of America's manifest destiny.

SOURCE.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/16/1082055652370.html

COMMENT.
Seems a far more realistic assesment than many I have seen so far.
The "weapons of mass destruction" is one that is obviously now nothing other than a farce, with Powell distancing himself from his previous statements, particularly re "mobile biological laboratories", an blaming poor intelligence reports.
The "regime change" argument is one that occured almost as an aside. If that was the motivation, it could have been done by Bush Snr a decade before. And we certainly do not see the Iraqis welcoming the coalition forces as liberators. "Not to Saddam, no to the US" was their chant from day one.
The Arab world has been ruled for 3000 years by pharaohs, caliphs, tyrants, oligarchs, colonial overlords, colonels, murderers and religious fanatics. How on earth could Bush and his flinty Washington neo-cons rationally believe that they can impose Jeffersonian democracy on Iraq at gunpoint in less than 18 months ?

Richard Clarke, the former White House terrorism tsar, now resigned, writes in his book Against All Enemies: "He [Bush] had a unique opportunity to unite America, to bring the US together with allies around the world to fight terrorism and hate, to eliminate al-Qaeda, to eliminate our vulnerabilities, to strengthen important nations threatened by radicalism. He did none of those things. He invaded Iraq."

Great article!

*bump*

Meh, I read the PNAC stuff ages ago. Not news to me. Pretty funny though, watching history repeat itself, its primary subject believing itself to possess special immunity from its forces. :roll:

EDIT: Not that I do not applaud you for coming to the same conclusions, of course. :wink:

EDIT 2: Are any neo-cons here ever going to argue that US full spectrum domination of the world is a good thing? To the best of my knowledge, no-one has ever attempted it.

Sorry, DP.
Damn this server :roll:

Meh, I read the PNAC stuff ages ago. Not news to me. Pretty funny though, watching history repeat itself, its primary subject believing itself to possess special immunity from its forces. :roll:

EDIT: Not that I do not applaud you for coming to the same conclusions, of course. :wink:

EDIT 2: Are any neo-cons here ever going to argue that US full spectrum domination of the world is a good thing? To the best of my knowledge, no-one has ever attempted it.

Yes, I have seen some (not all) of these references before.

Believe that this article ties them together well, paticularly with Bush's latest statements.

I do not doubt that some of the "rabid right" would contend that total US domination would be just great, and a wonderful opportunity to enforce Christianity on the "heathens" as well.

Could never quite grasp how it is the same "Christians" who can simultaneously be "pro-life" for abortion, and so enthusiastically support war. The contradiction in value-systems even appears lost on them. :roll:

I guess they would say that while an unborn child cannot defend itself against an abortion doctor, a goat farmer with a Mk 4 Lee Enfield can defend himself against an F-16. :roll:

OK, goat is now auto-corrected with a zero?

EDIT: Sigh. Damn NZ spammer. This sucks.

tag

I guess they would say that while an unborn child cannot defend itself against an abortion doctor, a g0at farmer with a Mk 4 Lee Enfield can defend himself against an F-16. :roll:

What if we start to equip unborn babies with hand-grenades, or foetuses (fetii?) with mustard gas before performing abortions.

Maybe the goat thing has something to do with goatse?

Aidan

EDIT: I just typed in g-o-a-t-s-e and it corrected it to goatse. Now that's just weird...

Yet another anti-bush artical. First off the reason President Bush was scetchy on the Iraq is becuase if he had said exactly what will happen and it turns out it doesnt it gives that idiot Kerry another shot at the white house (God forbid him from becoming the next president) It would be like veitnam even though Militarily they lost They shakened the american trust of its government wich cuased america to withdraw it would be a repeat. Its true we are the strongest military power in the world but that doesnt mean we have the man power to conquer the world. I believe the war was long over due and saddam finally got what he deserved and if you people didnt realize ITS A WAR PEOPLE DIE IN WARS i personally think it could have been worse im tired of people thinking we are failing in iraq when we are not We have delt the enemy fatal blows and all the enemy can do is attempt to pick off our troops we will be there as long as it takes ladies and gents unless you want to be back there 10 years from now. I dont care whats Presidents Bush's "real reason was to invade iraq but i belive when things start to settle down people will stop their complaining. :?

People like you make me shudder.
I think you have hit it on the head.
George Bush, though only allowed in power for eight years, plans to conquer the world using a democratic country ruled mostly by the people. In fact, I have heard that he has plans to "take over" Canada too.
Fact: Saddam Hussein was an evil despot, hell bent on dominating the people of his country to an inch of their lifes.
Fact: The United States has not imperialized any territory. Period.
Fact: Your source is a little-known internet news site written by a man with the literary skills of a third-grader with Down's Syndrome.

It's the new forum settings. Rep must have changed them in response to the latest round of porn spamming. Oh well.

I do recommend people to read the PNAC stuff in full. It was written by the actual people themselves, not "some liberal".

People like you make me shudder.
I think you have hit it on the head.
George Bush, though only allowed in power for eight years, plans to conquer the world using a democratic country ruled mostly by the people. In fact, I have heard that he has plans to "take over" Canada too.
Fact: Saddam Hussein was an evil despot, hell bent on dominating the people of his country to an inch of their lifes.
Fact: The United States has not imperialized any territory. Period.
Fact: Your source is a little-known internet news site written by a man with the literary skills of a third-grader with Down's Syndrome.

And people like you make me shudder as well.

Fact : The "reason" for invading Iraq was about "weapons of mass destruction". That was the line used by Bush, Powell, Blair, Rice etc. The "evilness" of Saddam is undeniable, but that was never listed as a reason for war. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Just because Bush and co no longer rant about this issue, does not mean that the sheep-like followers should forget what they were told. Please feel free to bleat at this point.

The United States does not "imperialise" ?? Try reading some history, say the Mexico wars, the Phillipines, Hawaii. Please feel free to attempt some learning at this point.

"Your source is a little-known internet news site written by a man with the literary skills of a third-grader with Down's Syndrome." If tou thought that was witty, I'm afraid you're only half right. How easy it is to criticise the source of whatever you disagree with, instead of looking at the facts, and arguing on the basis of the facts. Please feel free to feel suitably embarrased at this point.

NO IT WASNT.

I had a disscussion about this the other day with my government teacher. NO THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE IN GOING TO IRAQ WAS NOT WMDS. IT WAS THE TOPPLING OF SADDAMS REGIME. maybe Wmd's got a lot of hype, but that is NOT TRUE, and even i; a liberal, will not allow disgusting lies to cloud the truth.

The war in iraq was wrong. Bush did lie about WMD's, but that was NOT OUR REASON FOR INVADING THAT COUNTRY. If you wanna argue get the facts straight. I'm sick of hearing of all the people saying it is when it ISNT. :evil:

Tony Blair said all along that WMD and not regime change was the reason for the war. Does this mean he lied? Or did Bush mislead him? :shock:

NO IT WASNT.

I had a disscussion about this the other day with my government teacher. NO THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE IN GOING TO IRAQ WAS NOT WMDS. IT WAS THE TOPPLING OF SADDAMS REGIME. maybe Wmd's got a lot of hype, but that is NOT TRUE, and even i; a liberal, will not allow disgusting lies to cloud the truth.

The war in iraq was wrong. Bush did lie about WMD's, but that was NOT OUR REASON FOR INVADING THAT COUNTRY. If you wanna argue get the facts straight. I'm sick of hearing of all the people saying it is when it ISNT. :evil:

Your government teacher is wrong.

Bush, Blair, Powell all stated that the war was necessary due to the "imminent threat" posed by "weapons of mass destruction".

Please ask your teacher to explain the purpose of Powell's address to the UN, immediately before the war started.

At the same time, we know that Iraq is not alone in developing weapons of mass destruction; there are unstable, fiercely repressive states either proliferating or trying to acquire WMD, like North Korea. I repeat my warning: unless we take a decisive stand now as an international community, it is only a matter of time before these threats come together. That means pursuing international terrorism across the world in all its forms. It means confronting nations defying the world over weapons of mass destruction. That is why a signal of weakness over Iraq is not only wrong in its own terms. Show weakness now and no one will ever believe us when we try to show strength in future. All our history, especially British history, points to this lesson. No one wants conflict. Even now, war could be avoided if Saddam did what he is supposed to do. But if, having made a demand backed up by a threat of force, we fail to enforce that demand, the result will not be peace or security. It will simply be returning to confront the issue again at a later time, with the world less stable, the will of the international community less certain, and those repressive states or terrorist groups that would destroy our way of life emboldened and undeterred.


Even now, I hope that conflict with Iraq can be avoided. Even now, I hope that Saddam can come to his senses, co-operate fully and disarm peacefully, as the UN has demanded. But if he does not—if he rejects the peaceful route—he must be disarmed by force. If we have to go down that route, we shall do all we can to minimise the risks to the people of Iraq, and we give an absolute undertaking to protect Iraq's territorial integrity. Our quarrel has never been with the Iraqi people, but with Saddam.


Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and the threats that they pose to the world must be confronted. In doing so, this country and our armed forces will be helping the long-term peace and security of Britain and the world.

All these are dated 3rd Feb 2003.

And Tony Blair said these things


PS: For Americans, Hansard is the Rolls of Parliament. All Government business are recorded there

PPS. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030203/debtext/30203-05.htm#column_21

PPS. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030203/debtext/30203-05.htm#column_21

Good post mate, amazing how the neo-cons are now in denial about their own words, and furiously blaming the intelligence sources that they are supposedly responsible for.

PPS. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030203/debtext/30203-05.htm#column_21

Good post mate, amazing how the neo-cons are now in denial about their own words, and furiously blaming the intelligence sources that they are supposedly responsible for.

Tony Blair said all along that WMD and not regime change was the reason for the war. Does this mean he lied? Or did Bush mislead him? :shock:

Tony Blair got screwed by the BA's BS.

PPS. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030203/debtext/30203-05.htm#column_21

Good post mate, amazing how the neo-cons are now in denial about their own words, and furiously blaming the intelligence sources that they are supposedly responsible for.

Not only that, but they deny saying some words despite the fact that practically everthing they say is recorded.


Compare what I posted before to this (19Nov03):

The Prime Minister: We went into conflict because we believed—in my view, rightly—that Saddam Hussein was a threat to his region and to the wider world, and we are proud of the fact that people in Iraq today, for the first time in decades, have got the chance of stability, prosperity and democracy. What everyone should realise is that if people like the hon. Gentleman had had their way, Saddam Hussein, his sons and his henchmen would still be terrorising people in Iraq. I find it quite extraordinary that he thinks that that would be a preferable state of affairs.

PPS. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030203/debtext/30203-05.htm#column_21

Good post mate, amazing how the neo-cons are now in denial about their own words, and furiously blaming the intelligence sources that they are supposedly responsible for.

Not only that, but they deny saying some words despite the fact that practically everthing they say is recorded.


Compare what I posted before to this (19Nov03):

The Prime Minister: We went into conflict because we believed—in my view, rightly—that Saddam Hussein was a threat to his region and to the wider world, and we are proud of the fact that people in Iraq today, for the first time in decades, have got the chance of stability, prosperity and democracy. What everyone should realise is that if people like the hon. Gentleman had had their way, Saddam Hussein, his sons and his henchmen would still be terrorising people in Iraq. I find it quite extraordinary that he thinks that that would be a preferable state of affairs.

Yes, sometimes they even record their own words.

From

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-23.html

Guess you couldn't ask for a much better source.

"Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)


The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)"

Kinda looks like an obsession with armaments, particularly weapons of mass destruction.

Funny how they all disappeared.

People like you make me shudder.
I think you have hit it on the head.
George Bush, though only allowed in power for eight years, plans to conquer the world using a democratic country ruled mostly by the people. In fact, I have heard that he has plans to "take over" Canada too.
Fact: Saddam Hussein was an evil despot, hell bent on dominating the people of his country to an inch of their lifes.
Fact: The United States has not imperialized any territory. Period.
Fact: Your source is a little-known internet news site written by a man with the literary skills of a third-grader with Down's Syndrome.

And people like you make me shudder as well.

Fact : The "reason" for invading Iraq was about "weapons of mass destruction". That was the line used by Bush, Powell, Blair, Rice etc. The "evilness" of Saddam is undeniable, but that was never listed as a reason for war. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Just because Bush and co no longer rant about this issue, does not mean that the sheep-like followers should forget what they were told. Please feel free to bleat at this point.

The United States does not "imperialise" ?? Try reading some history, say the Mexico wars, the Phillipines, Hawaii. Please feel free to attempt some learning at this point.

"Your source is a little-known internet news site written by a man with the literary skills of a third-grader with Down's Syndrome." If tou thought that was witty, I'm afraid you're only half right. How easy it is to criticise the source of whatever you disagree with, instead of looking at the facts, and arguing on the basis of the facts. Please feel free to feel suitably embarrased at this point.

The facts, to the far-left, are whatever crazy interpretation of events suits them. This Gollum character is always posting the most extreme-left garbage he can cull of the internet here, never defending, seriously anything contained therein, and then attacks whoever disagrees as misinformed. This is a rather sad, and very pathetic.

No, I have read allot of Gollums posts and he/she dose back them up with evidence. You'll also notice the people who disagree with his/hers posts normally just have a rant and don't use any evidence, look at the first post from Dragonea (sp?). You'll notice they and yourself are the first to make personal attacks.

What's wrong with a differing intereptation of what's going on in the world? I study International Relations at uni, it's important to get a broad view from as many different sources. From what I have studied, this article dose pretty much sum up what is happening. Have you ever heard of such groups as The Project for the New American Century or The American Enterprise Institute (I think that is their name, I'll double check if you want)? They were just think tanks but now their ideas have been picked up by the Bush administration and put into action. Do some research on it, you'll see what I mean, there's nothing 'far left' about that.

Now, I suppose, you're going to start calling me a drug taking left wing liberal-biased hippy who lives in a fantasy land not caring about security. Please don't, if you disagree with what I wrote, say so, but give me some evidence to back up your claims.

People like you make me shudder.
I think you have hit it on the head.
George Bush, though only allowed in power for eight years, plans to conquer the world using a democratic country ruled mostly by the people. In fact, I have heard that he has plans to "take over" Canada too.
Fact: Saddam Hussein was an evil despot, hell bent on dominating the people of his country to an inch of their lifes.
Fact: The United States has not imperialized any territory. Period.
Fact: Your source is a little-known internet news site written by a man with the literary skills of a third-grader with Down's Syndrome.

And people like you make me shudder as well.

Fact : The "reason" for invading Iraq was about "weapons of mass destruction". That was the line used by Bush, Powell, Blair, Rice etc. The "evilness" of Saddam is undeniable, but that was never listed as a reason for war. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Just because Bush and co no longer rant about this issue, does not mean that the sheep-like followers should forget what they were told. Please feel free to bleat at this point.

The United States does not "imperialise" ?? Try reading some history, say the Mexico wars, the Phillipines, Hawaii. Please feel free to attempt some learning at this point.

"Your source is a little-known internet news site written by a man with the literary skills of a third-grader with Down's Syndrome." If tou thought that was witty, I'm afraid you're only half right. How easy it is to criticise the source of whatever you disagree with, instead of looking at the facts, and arguing on the basis of the facts. Please feel free to feel suitably embarrased at this point.

The facts, to the far-left, are whatever crazy interpretation of events suits them. This Gollum character is always posting the most extreme-left garbage he can cull of the internet here, never defending, seriously anything contained therein, and then attacks whoever disagrees as misinformed. This is a rather sad, and very pathetic.

If you had bothered to read the thread in any sort of depth, or with any sort of understanding, you may have noticed that the post previous to yours, by approximately two hours, was by me.

In that, you will find that I quoted directly from a speech by Bush, from the White House's own site. Now, you may well choose to consider that as an example of "posting the most extreme-left garbage he can cull of the internet ", but I would beg to differ. My reason for quoting Bush was to establish his position, in his own words, re Iraq.

You will find, if you are at all interested in more than mere trolling, which I suspect, that I always quote a source for my posts, and then give my own comments.

Your attempt at a character attack upon me is neither surprising nor well managed. I note that you produce no "facts" at all. Perhaps they may have added the missing ingredient, credibility.

Unfortunately, the usual response from the right wingers. Produce no facts, make personal attacks upon your opponents, and infer that their sources are biased, without even checking to see who or what they are quoting.

Drearily predictable.

Just a wee bump

The Mexican-American war, Spanish-American war, and the Hawaiian annexation were all over a century ago now.

By that logic, since France sent troops to Haiti, they're trying to bring them back into the fold. Or because NATO went after Bosnia and Milosovic, they're should have to patritioned Yugoslavia between the member states. The War in Iraq is probably the largest war / movement of troops in the past decade. However, this doesen't make it an imperialist action. If it was, we'd be sitting there with no date to hand over power to the Iraqis.

I guess they would say that while an unborn child cannot defend itself against an abortion doctor, a g0at farmer with a Mk 4 Lee Enfield can defend himself against an F-16. :roll:
Actually the Iraqis are defending themselves far better than I and perhaps the whole US military figured possible.

There has been a whole lotta war going on since Bush declared "victory" last May.

There may be more irony ahead yet. The US wants radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr "dead or alive", yet Iraq’s top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, warned of a strong Shiite response if U.S. forces entered Najaf or Karbala to capture al-Sadr.

Are US forces about to shoot themselves in the foot by killing Moqtada al-Sadr ? Stay tuned.

Sunni group says it backs rebel Shiite cleric
Calls on all Iraqis to evict occupying troops:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4667742/

The Mexican-American war, Spanish-American war, and the Hawaiian annexation were all over a century ago now.

By that logic, since France sent troops to Haiti, they're trying to bring them back into the fold. Or because NATO went after Bosnia and Milosovic, they're should have to patritioned Yugoslavia between the member states. The War in Iraq is probably the largest war / movement of troops in the past decade. However, this doesen't make it an imperialist action. If it was, we'd be sitting there with no date to hand over power to the Iraqis.
There is a date established. It is meant to be a date of "convenience" for the upcoming US elections. The idea would be to portray that the US has the situation in Iraq well in hand and that the Bush government had accomplished much.

Bremer's Orders demonstrate just how imperialistic this Iraq War is:

http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?newsID=550&pageID=177&subSiteID=44

The US is simply going to hijack the Iraqi economy, allowing wide open foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses. Some "liberation". Wake up!!

Yep. When your infrastructure is as damaged as Iraq's is, you need to move away from the old, corrupt public institutions and at least temporarily draw foreign investment.

Smeagol-Gollum, you might find
THIS (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/american.html) an interesting read.. ;)

Yep. When your infrastructure is as damaged as Iraq's is, you need to move away from the old, corrupt public institutions and at least temporarily draw foreign investment.
Yup and this is how it should go down:

A 7-Point Program for the True Liberation of Iraq

The Bremer orders are illegal and immoral. They must be repealed.

The BearingPoint Plan must be discussed publicly in Iraq and the US. At most, it should provide for short-term economic necessitates required to keep the Iraqi economy from collapsing during reconstruction. Once the Iraqi government is elected, it is the Iraqis themselves who must determine their long-term economic future -- not the US.

In the short-term, the following alternatives drawn from more detailed analysis provided by International Occupation Watch Center in Baghdad, the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC and the International Forum on Globalization are offered to help restore the Iraqi economy to a functioning position.

( 1 ) The military occupation of Iraq must end.

( 2 ) Iraq's foreign debts, accrued by Hussein in the suppression of the people of Iraq, must be forgiven.

( 3 ) Only with the end of the US-UK occupation should the United Nations, including an UN-commanded multilateral peacekeeping force, return to Iraq. Their mandate should be for a very short and defined period, with the goal of assisting Iraq in reconstruction and overseeing election of a governing authority.

( 4 ) As belligerent powers who initiated the war, and as occupying powers, the US and the UK are obligated to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and to pay the continuing costs of Iraq's reconstruction, including the bulk of the cost of UN humanitarian and peacekeeping deployments. Washington should reverse the spending priorities of its $87 billion request from Congress, and turn over to full UN authority (on behalf of the Iraqi people as a whole, not simply given to the US-appointed Council) a starting grant of at least $75 billion (the initial amount Washington spent on waging the war) for reconstruction in Iraq.

( 5 ) The $15 billion (out of the $87 billion) requested by the Bush administration for Iraqi reconstruction is insufficient to meet Washington's obligations under international law. The $65 billion scheduled for the Pentagon to continue the occupation of Iraq should be challenged. The additional reconstruction funds should not come from ordinary taxpayers. They should be raised from (a) an excess profits tax on corporations benefiting from the war and post-war privatization in Iraq; and (b) the Pentagon budget lines currently directed at continuing war in Iraq.

( 6 ) Reconstruction of Iraq should be based on rebuilding the economy to maximize fulfilling the needs of the Iraqi people. All contract processes should be completely transparent and accessible to Iraqis. Contracts should privilege local companies, towards the goal of strengthening and diversifying local production. Labor laws should ensure protection for local workers.

( 7 ) Iraq should be allowed to join the worldwide movement for local sustainability by moving away from export oriented economics that make trade and multinational corporations the basis of economic development. Government spending, taxes, subsidies, tariff structures, etc. should be reoriented to support local environmentally sustainable production that meets local needs (these ideas are expanded upon in the IFG publication, Alternatives to Economic Globalization).

http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?newsID=550&pageID=177&subSiteID=44

Somehow, I have my doubts. :!:

Smeagol-Gollum, you might find
THIS (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/american.html) an interesting read.. ;)
Awesome article Steph.

People really need to know what is truly going on.

Thats pie in the sky. Asking the US, UK, Australia, and the rest to pack up and leave while still paying for the bill.

Smeagol-Gollum, you might find
THIS (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/american.html) an interesting read.. ;)
Awesome article Steph.

People really need to know what is truly going on.

Yeah, this was the article I said I would try to dig up for you CanuckHeaven in our last telegram.. It had sort of slipped to the back of my mind when I seen this thread I thought Smeagol-Gollum might like to read it. Any hoot, this was the one I said I wanted to give you last week. :)

Thats pie in the sky. Asking the US, UK, Australia, and the rest to pack up and leave while still paying for the bill.
The bull went into the China shop and broke all the China. Who owns the bull?

How do you spell responsibilty?

Then the sign with "You Break it You Buy It" is seen. The man with the bull now owns the bull as well as the china.

Then the sign with "You Break it You Buy It" is seen. The man with the bull now owns the bull as well as the china.

Iraq, then the world, Bush hoped

By Peter Hartcher
April 17, 2004

This week George Bush came closer to telling the truth about the invasion of Iraq than at any time in his presidency.The truth, or what liberals want him to say?

It is extraordinary that, a year after invading a foreign country unprovoked, the US leader had still not answered straightforwardly the big question overhanging the whole enterprise - why?Why not? National security. If 9-11 were prevented, no event would have occured to justify Bush's action to stop the terrorists, and he would be commonly called "Big Brother." The same applies to Iraq. We may never find out what they planned.

The US soldiers in occupied Iraq have been killed at an average of 1.6 a day since the President's announcement of the end of major hostilities. That's 550 dead over 350 days. Including the other coalition forces, it's 620 dead soldiers, or 1.8 killed daily. That's 360 per cent more killed in the occupation than in the invasion.We lost 10,000 men on June 6, 1944. In Vietnam, it was considered a "good" day if only forty people died. The best thing would be no casualties, but these stats prove nothing except that there are far fewer casualties now than before. That's a GOOD thing.

Well, I think the original article is pretty biased against George Bush, to the point of excluding reality. George W. Bush has already stated why we invaded Iraq, namely to ensure that Iraq could never develop nuclear weapons, to remove a <a href=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html>state sponsor of terrorism </a>, and to liberalize (I mean in the classic sense) the Mideast by creating a significant Arab democracy. There are those that claim that GWB invaded Iraq to either create some vast, American empire or claim Iraqi oil/reconstruction contructs. The most insidious of these claims revolve around Haliburton and Iraqi oil contracts. However, <a href=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html>Haliburton is doing really poorly (both in Iraq and elsewhere). </a> It is unlikely to profit in its Iraqi oil contracts- security and infrastructure costs are too high, and it undercharged the government. It undertook the contracts to gain political favors, which will probably result in lucrative contracts down the line.

Maybe GWB really is in Iraq for the oil. It is my opinion that the only reason the US government cares about what happens in the Greater Middle East is because of oil. However, as far as developing American access to petroleum, the Iraqi war has been a miserable failure, a quagmire if you will. We're burning through 87 billion dollars in military spending for the ability to access <a href=http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html>115 billion barrels of oil </a> At 30$ a barrel, that's 345$ billion dollars. That's a pretty hefty profit. <a href=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3339605/>According to Newsweek, we're going to spend 130 billion dollars in Iraq. In 2004. </a>

Iraq currently drills up <a href =http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20040416wo11.htm> 2.4 million barrels of oil per month. </a> Let's assume that American money can get that up to say, 5 million barrels per month. That's 60 million a year- it would take us over 20 years of military occupation to get that oil out. There's no conceivable way it would be cheaper to occupy the country, rather than simply having let Saddam hussein run the country and pay him good money for the oil. That's why I discount claims that "we did it for the oil."

and to liberalize (I mean in the classic sense) the Mideast by creating a significant Arab democracy.

That seems to be the main reason. In his press conference, he almost said outright that a democratic Iraq is the cornerstone of his Mideast policy. Unfortunately for him (and the world), he failed miserably, but I do think that had he succeeded (if it was possible to succeed) it would have been a major step forward for the world. Too bad his simplistic view of war and the entire administration's single-track mind fooled him into using a policy that got us where we are now. Yay for groupthink!

"Failed" is in the past tense, considering the proccess is still going on in Iraq its a jump to a conclusion to say that it has either failed or succeeded, yet.

"Failed" is in the past tense, considering the proccess is still going on in Iraq its a jump to a conclusion to say that it has either failed or succeeded, yet.

I'm pretty sure Bush's (Rumsfeld's) plan of bustin' up the place with Shock and Awe then letting the Iraqis swoon over the American liberators in the aftermath has failed. Rummy thought he was going to win the country with a minimal number of troops, and it was going to be a strategic masterpiece. However, the administration clearly didn't think about what could go wrong.

I thought you meant that Iraq and Democracy had failed.

If you didn't, I misunderstood you.

I thought you meant that Iraq and Democracy had failed.

If you didn't, I misunderstood you.

No, no, Iraq is still moving toward democracy. However, there has been much damage to the movement, and there is still a very good chance that Iraq will end up a) in a civil war b) like Iran or c) both. In hindsight, the best move would have been to drop this in the hands of the UN and make everyone deal with it, but of course that seemed absurd then. It still would have been a much better move to use more troops,rather than try to get the job done as little as possible to satisf Pentagon wet dreams.

If Bush is allowed to subvert free elections and steal yet another election he will wage 4 more wars in the middle east, be forced to reinstate the draft as a result of his christian taliban crusade of corporate looting, and it will ultimately lead to an Armaggedon end of the world type scenario--why doesnt it surprise me that it will be the rightys who ended up destroying the world and ending all history?

Well, I think the original article is pretty biased against George Bush, to the point of excluding reality. George W. Bush has already stated why we invaded Iraq, namely to ensure that Iraq could never develop nuclear weapons, to remove a <a href=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html>state sponsor of terrorism </a>, and to liberalize (I mean in the classic sense) the Mideast by creating a significant Arab democracy. There are those that claim that GWB invaded Iraq to either create some vast, American empire or claim Iraqi oil/reconstruction contructs. The most insidious of these claims revolve around Haliburton and Iraqi oil contracts. However, <a href=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html>Haliburton is doing really poorly (both in Iraq and elsewhere). </a> It is unlikely to profit in its Iraqi oil contracts- security and infrastructure costs are too high, and it undercharged the government. It undertook the contracts to gain political favors, which will probably result in lucrative contracts down the line.

Maybe GWB really is in Iraq for the oil. It is my opinion that the only reason the US government cares about what happens in the Greater Middle East is because of oil. However, as far as developing American access to petroleum, the Iraqi war has been a miserable failure, a quagmire if you will. We're burning through 87 billion dollars in military spending for the ability to access <a href=http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html>115 billion barrels of oil </a> At 30$ a barrel, that's 345$ billion dollars. That's a pretty hefty profit. <a href=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3339605/>According to Newsweek, we're going to spend 130 billion dollars in Iraq. In 2004. </a>

Iraq currently drills up <a href =http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20040416wo11.htm> 2.4 million barrels of oil per month. </a> Let's assume that American money can get that up to say, 5 million barrels per month. That's 60 million a year- it would take us over 20 years of military occupation to get that oil out. There's no conceivable way it would be cheaper to occupy the country, rather than simply having let Saddam hussein run the country and pay him good money for the oil. That's why I discount claims that "we did it for the oil."
Ummmm the article says:

115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and possibly much more undiscovered oil in unexplored areas of the country.
Iraq also is estimated to contain at least 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Ya kinda missplaced 115 billion barrels of oil and ALL that natural gas in your argument, which throws off your calculations a tad.

Not to mention, the fact that US investors will be able to establish 100% ownership of Iraqi businesses, and export ALL the profit to the US, after paying a measly 15% flat tax.

The US can also own up to 50% of the financial industry.

This is a hijacking of the economy and is far more involved than just oil.

Unfortunately, this type of rape will leave the Iraqis forever in a mode of dependency. This should reverberate negatively throughout the Arab world, especially Iraq.

Ohhhh and BTW, that should read 6 million barrels PER DAY, not month.

Then the sign with "You Break it You Buy It" is seen. The man with the bull now owns the bull as well as the china.
When you see that sign, it means that you have bought the broken china. Then you pay the shop owner for the broken china (super glue anyone?), and then HE gets to restock HIS shelves.

It doesn't say the guy with the bull gets to keep the store.

The Mexican-American war, Spanish-American war, and the Hawaiian annexation were all over a century ago now.

By that logic, since France sent troops to Haiti, they're trying to bring them back into the fold. Or because NATO went after Bosnia and Milosovic, they're should have to patritioned Yugoslavia between the member states. The War in Iraq is probably the largest war / movement of troops in the past decade. However, this doesen't make it an imperialist action. If it was, we'd be sitting there with no date to hand over power to the Iraqis.

The references to the Mexican-American war, Spanish-American war, and the Hawaiian annexation were all in response to the blatantly ludicrous statement of " Fact: The United States has not imperialized any territory. Period. " I was illustrating that this statement is incorrect, by showing the events that prove my case.

The "hand over" of power to the Iraqis is to hand power to a group of hand-picked exiles, one of whom is already wanted for bank fraud. This hand picked council obviously has little credibility with the Iraqi people, particularly seeing huge "reconstruction" contracts have been let to US firms, who are busily employing their own private armies for "security".
At the same time Iraqi newpapers are being forcibly closed down. Does this really sound like a "hand over of power", or like the installation of a puppet regime?

Smeagol-Gollum, you might find
THIS (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/american.html) an interesting read.. ;)

Thanks Steph.
yes, it was an interesting read.
As we both know though, there are plenty who do not want to know of any except "official" versions of any events, even when this requires exceptional doublethink ability.
In this same thread I quoted Bush's own words from the White House's own website, and was still accused of looking for all the left wing propaganda I could find.
No so blind and deaf as those who refuse to see or listen.