Why Iraq?
A few days ago, I mentioned I would publish my thoughts on the real reasons for the Bush administration’s drive to attack Iraq. My apologies for the delay. I’m a one-man operation here and sometimes I have to do other stuff, like sleep.
There are several theories floating around about the need to attack Iraq, some coming from the White House and others coming from various sources. The most common argument for attacking Iraq, that given by the administration, is a mish-mash of worries about weapons of mass destruction, disregard for U.N. Security Council resolutions, ties to al Qa’ida and Saddam’s wickedness. Of these reasons, the WMD rationale seems to have gained the most traction in the minds of many Americans. This is hardly surprising, as the White House has been relentlessly on message regarding Saddam’s weapons programs until recently, when Osama bin Laden (remember him?) conveniently popped up to exhort Muslims to defend their Iraqi brothers through martydom operations against Western interests worldwide if the United States assaults Baghdad.
Despite bin Laden’s sneering references to Saddam as a “socialist” and an “apostate,” the White House lept upon the tape as proof that Saddam and bin Laden were playing footsie when the West wasn’t looking. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said bin Laden’s reference to “our mujahideen brothers” inside Iraq and his appeal to Muslims to prepare for jihad suggested a “strong statement of alliance” between Iraq and al Qa’ida.
“If that is not an unholy partnership, I have not heard of one,” he said. “This is the nightmare that people have warned about, the linking up of Iraq with al Qaeda.”
Officials refuse to see the tape for what it is — an attempt by bin Laden to use war against Iraq to bolster his leadership, just as most Arab leaders have cynically used the Palestinians to bolster themselves against Israel. In other words, the tape is a trap that Washington is about to blunder into. To the White House, the bin Laden tape shows not an attempt by bin Laden to tap into world-wide Muslim anger against the United States, but a bona fide announcement of an active, strategic partnership that has existed for years.
Anyway, back in the real world, other theories have abounded, with the anti-war left and the Arab world invoking the siamese-twin spectors of imperialism and colonialism as the main reasons for war. “No blood for oil!” is the classic retort from the left, simplifying a complex array of domestic politics, international relations and geopolitical goals into a four-word slogan that doesn’t do justice to what I believe are the real reasons. Yes, this war is about oil, but it’s not just about oil. And yes, it’s about imperialism, but not in the way that the leftists believe. The real reasons are to secure a continuous supply of oil for Europe and Japan, pressuring Saudi Arabia into cutting off funding to the conservative clergy and thus fueling the worst of the terror networks, securing a stable environment for regional ally Israel and encircling Iran in the hope of sweeping the ayatollah’s from power.
Backon Nov. 14, I wrote the following:
I’m convinced that the reason given by the left for the U.S.’s drive to topple Saddam — mainly control of Iraq’s oil fields — is much too simplistic to give the whole picture. And I don’t trust the Bush Administration that Iraq poses a clear and present danger, with Saddam being thisclose to fielding nukes on magic unmanned drones that could take out American cities. And the Butcher of Baghdad isn’t so stupid that he would give weapons of mass destruction to an element that he couldn’t control, such as al Qa’ida. So what gives? Why the push on Iraq when al Qa’ida poses a clear and present threat and Pakistan has been helping North Korea with its nuke program. (The implication is that if Pakistan has elements that would help the North Koreans, there are likely elements in the government that would help al Qa’ida in a similar manner.)
This report from the Institute for National Strategic Studies’ National Defense University might offer some clues. The main thrust of the report is that America has long realized the strategic value of the Persian Gulf, and fully intends to keep a military presence there regardless of any outcome in Iraq. “The United States will need to diversify its dependence on regional basing and forward presence, as well as reduce the visibility and predictability of its forward-deployed forces,” reads the report.
Why is this necessary? Because way back in 1990, the the Bush White House, part first , announced a defense posture that called for “adult supervision” of the world. And the most recent iteration of the National Security Strategy of the United States calls for the globe’s sole superpower to suffer no rivals militarily or economically, imposing a pax americana . So the United States is in the Gulf to guarantee the supply of oil not for itself, but for Europe and Japan, which get most of their oil from the Middle East. (Surprisingly, the United States gets most of its oil from Canada, Venezuela and Mexico; Persian Gulf sources supplied only 11 percent of America’s oil in 2000, according to the Department of Energy.) The United States Marines safeguard the Persian Gulf because Europe and Japan might re-arm and secure the oil sources for themselves if we didn’t. And as I said, the United States does not intend to suffer rivals gladly.
So we are going to be in the Gulf for a long time. As the INSS report says, “There is no escaping the U.S. role as a guarantor of Gulf stability. Thus, the United States needs a viable concept for its future forward presence that can be sustained over the long haul.” Saudi Arabia is not the secure base that we need for such a presence, as the presence of infidel troops so close to the holy sites of Mecca and Medina directly undermines the legitimacy of the House of Saud, which came to power in the 1920s as the family that would protect Islam’s holiest shrines. The presence of the troops inflames the faithful, such as bin Ladin, and leads the Saudi royal family to pay off the radical clerics that wield much influence in the kingdom. In essence this is the reason radical Islamists with possible access to nukes are “funded” by Saudi Arabia — the Saudis are buying them off and pointing a loaded gun away from their own head and toward someone else’s. If the House of Saud falls, which it could do at anytime, a big reason will be resentment over its invitation of American GIs.
The solution is to get the 5,000 or so Americans off the Arabian peninsula. But the United States can’t pull out with Saddam in power; the troops are there to contain Saddam. So the solution to the solution is to remove Saddam from power, in the process diversifying the distribution of American troops in the region and removing a provocation to radicals. (Once they get over being pissed at the subjugation of Iraq, that is.)
Some would argue that this will just preserve Saudi legitimacy. Others may argue that a friendly regime in Iraq would undercut the Saudis and bring oil prices down as the two countries (which control the largest and second-largest known reserves of oil on the planet) compete for markets. There is evidence that the Saudis are hewing to the second view, doing everything in their power to impede the United States’ war planning, including a massive loan to Russia — interest free! — if the Bear had only vetoed UNSCR 1441. Alas for the Saudis, this didn’t happen, and they are caught between Iraq and a hard place.
So the goal of the United States is to maintain a presence in the Persian Gulf so that Europe and Japan don’t re-arm. In order to maintain a presence and decrease dependency on an unreliable ally, Saudi Arabia, Washington has to lighten the military footprint in the region by removing the cause for the heavy footprint — Saddam Hussein. Once that is accomplished, the forward forces can be distributed out of Saudi Arabia and a friendly Iraq can help pressure the Saudis to keep oil prices low. As a bonus, Washington would no longer have to go easy on the Saudis in its war against al Qa’ida since Iraq would be the bulwark in the Gulf.
Since I wrote that, several other writers have come to the same conclusions. Anthony Lane at the New Yorker, analyzises “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” co-authored by Richard Perle and David Wurmser in 1996. The document, from the Institute for Advanced International Stuidies, instructs the United States to actively work to secure a stable supply of oil and make the Middle East safe for Israel. Wurmser, also the author of “Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein,” (1999) sees the main enemy as the ideology of Pan-Arabism, which for Wurmser is a form of Middle Eastern totalitarianism. He places Saddam and the Assad family of Syria squarely in the Pan-Arab nationalist camp, so bringing down Saddam would undermine the Ba’athist regime in neighboring Syria. And a post-Saddam Iraq with “meaningful participation” of the Shi’ite majority would undermine the claims of Iran’s mullahs that they represent the only legitimate power center for the region’s Shi’ia.
By deligtimizing the Syrian regime and putting pressure on Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and other terror groups, would lose their source of support. As a bonus, as Syrian becomes more pro-American, so, too, would Lebanon, ending the base of operations for Hezbollah. The Palestinian Authority, with no allies remaining in the region, would be forced to renounce terrorism (for real, this time) and sue for peace on Israel’s terms. Perle’s document makes references to the Hashemite monarchy controlling Iraq again, and there have been sinsiter whispers that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is just looking for an opportunity to expel not just Yassir Arafat, but all Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza into Jordan. As ambitious as Perle and Wurmser are in their chessboard thinking, it’s not inconceivable that they could be envisioning Jordan as the new Palestine with Iraq given to Jordan’s King Abdullah Hussein in compensation for the loss of his kingdom.
Other theories have been put forward and there’s no simple answer to any of this. The United States’ invasion and occupation of Iraq is not just about oil, colonialism or empire building. But nor is it not about those things either. I’ve tried to map out what I believe is the administration’s thinking based on reports, research and balance-of-power analysis (which I do from a gut level rather than game theory) and others have echoed similar thoughts. Warblogging has a good entry today on John Bolton, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, and the Administration’s plans to “deal with” Iran, Syria and North Korea, apres Iraq. Do these plans include military action or do they echo the thoughts of Perle and Wolfowitz that an occupied Iraq would pressure Iran and Syria to change their ways if not their regimes? We don’t yet know.
7 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Why Iraq?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.back-to-iraq.com/blog-mt/mt-tb.cgi/2445
If you haven't given some money to help get independent journalist, Christopher Allbritton over to Iraq to cover events, now Read More
"Stratfor and the Associated Press are reporting that former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, supposedly a personal friend of Saddam Hussein, visited Baghdad on Feb. Read More
"Stratfor and the Associated Press are reporting that former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, supposedly a personal friend of Saddam Hussein, visited Baghdad on Feb. Read More
"Stratfor and the Associated Press are reporting that former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, supposedly a personal friend of Saddam Hussein, visited Baghdad on Feb. Read More
As I said in an earlier post, the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq does not give opponents... Read More
The best explanation/summation of the whole drive to war. It must have been floating about on the Internet for a long while, but I just found it today. Another good reason as to Why Iraq?... Read More
As I said in an earlier post, the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq does not give opponents to the invasion of Iraq the right to say "I told you so." Because, frankly,... Read More
37 Comments
Leave a comment
Powered by Ajax Comments
About me
Hi there! Thanks for stopping in. I'm Christopher Allbritton, former AP and New York Daily News reporter. In 2002, I went stumbling around Iraqi Kurdistan, the northern part of Iraq outside Saddam's direct control, looking for stories. (Some might call it "looking for trouble.") In March 2003, I made it back in time for the war, becoming the Web's first fully reader-funded journalist-blogger. With the support of thousands of readers, we raised almost $15,000. You can read my dispatches here. It was one of the moments in journalism when everything worked. It was a grand -- and successful -- experiment in independent journalism. In 2004, I moved to Iraq, where I would spend the next two years. It was a raucous, scary and exciting place with a lot of news going on. But I've since moved on to Beirut and the wider region. I now report for a variety of outlets.
Nice Analysis:
You could also analyze this from the point of view of Saddam’s strategy:
1) Obtain nuclear weapon(s) to neutralize US military threat.
2) Take over small Gulf States, and seize control the Gulf and half of the world’s oil.
3) Attack Israel through proxies; take credit for success if successful, gaining regional popularity.
Game, set, match
Christopher,
Excellent analysis, quite an eye opener, wish more people would read this.
Dave,
Could happen, but I believe the Saddam you envision was the Saddam that had an infastructure and an army and who believed that America could be defeated… that Saddam stopped existing after he got clobbered in round 1.
Christopher, a very good analysis. A lot of sensibility her.
I just hope the #43 administration is that clever.
Recently we have seen a loose cannon on the deck when it comes to diplomacy and communication.
Hearing an intelligent man like Powell standing in front of the Security Counsel saying things that a lot of people must understand is nonsense (and even deliberate lies) could make anybody suspicious.
As Dominique deVillepin said in anger: “We do what we say and say what we do”. Maybe more people should have done that. Buying into your theory would probably have been easier for USAs allies than accepting to go to war based on nothing.
It’s sad. The US really had a lot of symphaty and credibility around the world after 9-11, but W really has messed things up. I hope things will turn out better for the future.
Securing Iraqi oil fields to prevent Japan and Europe from re-arming? A rise of a new Nazi party here in Germany because of empty Autobahns? Where do the Rothschilds fit into that picture? Oh, okay, clean the middle-east up for Isral, missed that part.
I agree that economic interests play a major role in this war, but that concluson seems a little bit over-simplified, doesn’t it? You make a need for stability and peace sound like a conspiracy theory, especially in the quoted paragraphs.
Nobody mistakes George Bush for a shining knight on a white charger, liberating the Iraqi people is another side-effect, too. But hey, what’s wrong with a stable middle east? Before it entirely blows up in our faces…
This analysis seems to be reasonable, but it fails to address a critical aspect of the current geopolitical situation: if one of the goals of the US government is to protect the oil supply for Europe, then why are the French and Germans working so hard against the US taking this action?
The critics here are ignoring something that they should not be: the SOURCES for Albritton’s conclusions, which happen to be unimpeachable. One would wish that they would review the evidence before nattering at such length.
Albritton leaves out the most openly stated version of the Administration’s desire to embark on empire, namely the Project for a New American Century report authored by Administration officials such as Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle. The net upshot of this report is that these people have a plan to control the Middle East and create a ring of bases around China. This can only be seen as an attempt at world domination. And, as with the NSC report, it asserts the need to be able to overwhelm any potential rival militarily.
Excellent post, Mr. Albritton. Do look up the PNAC report if you haven’t already. Take seriously the comments by Bolton— these are not being made without license from the highest authorities. And remind your critics that Richard Perle has just written a swaggering little piece titled “Thank God for the Death of the UN”.
We are not in Kansas anymore.
Hi,
I am amazed at the constant omission of the BIS report involving the Mohammed Atta and al-Ani — an Iraqi case agent — meeting in Prague. On took place in April 2001 and also another preceding that date, which I don’t recall. The Czech ministers with direct associations to the BIS have confirmed the report on quite a few occasions, stating firmly that the identity of Atta was confirmed. The Czech government thought that Saddam Hussein was targeting Radio Free Europe; this information was derived from a UK interrogation of Shalim. The meeting al-Ani and Atta meetings were very irregular suggesting subterfuge, as a “false flag” arrangement was used. Subsequently, al-Ani was thrown out of the country for his espionage activites while in a diplomatic capacity. Interestingly enough, money to the tune of $100,000 showed up in Atta’s account after his return. (These points are referencable in the Prague Post and other newspapers online.)
I would hope that more people would be informed of this. I don’t think at all that the war in Iraq is war fought simply for weapons of mass destruction instead it has multi-dimensional justifications. With respect to the al-Ani and Atta trail, if the US, doesn’t respond to a government sponsoring assistance to an act of terrorism like 9/11, it will be sending a message of weakness to such governments.
Regards,
Bill Shurtleff
The “war” (actually an invasion) is not legal. Why is this important? It is important not because the U.S. will ever have to go to court over it but because of the resentment by millions of people, and because if the war does not go as planned (and war is unpredictable)then the U.S. and our allies are going to lose even more credibility than we have. In addition, these things have a way of pissing people off and going on for not years, but literally, for centuries. With the rise of terrorism and the advent of a bunch of paid killers operating with an encrypted (PGP)distributed network globally based the world is presented with an unprecedented challenge. These events have a way of popping up unexpectedly and inflicting damage to the economies of the world and massive deaths as their hallmark. One has to ask, “How does the invasion of Iraq lessen that threat?”
Whatever the reasons for the invasion of Iraq - the fact still remains that diplomacy failed and the situation could have been resolved without resort to bombing Baghdad - if that is what the administration wanted. However, I do not believe that diplomacy failed per-se. I believe that it was intentionally de-railed. The reasons for attacking Iraq could have alot to do with American hegemony, military industrial ties to oil contracts for managing mid-east production, Israili pressure to protect their homeland, the need for the military to try out their “effects based operations” war theory, and just plain old political gambling. The theories of preventing WMD distribution and removing Saddam from power somehow do not seem to be dependant on an invasion and a war in Iraq. Certainly inspections could have removed any WMD threat, and conversely, the war will most likely have prompted the regime to remove any such materials to another country at the outset of a conflict making the world less safe, not safer.
As to the current war - As I see it, the only good thing that could happen now is that it ends quickly with a minimum of casualties on both sides. This applies doubly to civilian casualties which could have enormous repercussions. As to that, we’ll have to wait and see. But if this turns into another Viet Nam style conflict, God help us all because we could not only be presented with a long expensive ghastly war, but with a downward spiraling economy, loss of safety for all citizens of the world, and most devastatingly, loss of freedoms and erosion of democratic principles as we are forced to sacrifice freedom for safety. This is perhaps the largest single roll of the dice in the history of humanity. It sure would have been nice to have had a little discussion before we took action.
Sometimes, the more you look, the less you know. Probably, the reasons you have mentioned in your article are quite right, in the sense that they are smart reasons. But I am affraid this is not the real picture. Why? well, because you should not underestimate stupidity, wich is not a logical driven reason, but yet, a major reason. I think that Bushes administration beleives somehow in what they are saying to the medias, things that are not logical, things without sense, but yet, those are their reasons. Therefore the most logical approach you will undertake to understand this subject, the less you will probably understand.
Why? just because you cannot explain their irrational way of acting using logic. They are probably not as clever or informed as you think! that’s my opinion. That the irrational, due to blood pressure, ignorance, arrogance, hurt patriotism, anti arabic xenophobia, and a manicheistic vision of the world sharply divided in between good and evil, has more to see in this war that the structured logical analysis that you have drawn in your article.
Topic for discussion:
How is this regime change any different than with Slobodan Milosevic?
Just a piece of history…
Enforcing a Milosevic policy of “ethnic cleansing,” Bosnian Serbs set out to “purify” Bosnia by expelling Bosnian Muslims from the country. Bosnian Serb forces drove Muslims from their homes, subjecting them to mass rape, confinement in concentration camps and genocide.
and now for something completely different… or is it?
Saddam’s years as a revolutionary left him keenly aware of the danger of dissent. Shortly after taking office, he purged and murdered dozens of government officials suspected of disloyalty. In the early 1980s, he used chemical weapons to crush a Kurdish rebellion in northern Iraq. Saddam’s power struggles extended well beyond his country’s borders; bent on dominating the Muslim world, he attacked neighboring countries. In 1980 he invaded Iran, launching an eight-year war that ended in stalemate.
In August 1990 he invaded the oil sheikdom of Kuwait, proclaiming it Iraq’s 19th province. He defied U.N. directives to retreat from Kuwait, provoking what he called: The mother of all battles, the Persian Gulf War.
discuss.
excellent article.
This is what i think as well.
I’ll just add that too much things is not going the way it might have been planned, which means that no one can now know what really will happen.
war is unpredictable.
THERE is one last thing that really upset me.
Journalists all around the world (even in France) does not try to ask themselves why.
WHY IRAQ ?
most excellent analysis i have seen…
thank you
YO! No war!!
Whatever reason for this conflict one thing remains, it was bound to happen regardless of why. For 12 years the Bush administration(s) wanted to convince the American public of the need.
Trial balloon after trial balloon began appearing on the horizon last summer as the administration suddenly shifted its cross hairs from bin Laden to the “axis of evil” in a quest to find the path of least resistance for its goals in the Middle East. The result is people on the right naively believe this conflict is a fight for American freedoms - this was one of the first balloons released by the administration. Those on the left awkwardly think America is taking over oil fields. What remains somewhere in the middle nobody seems to want to discuss but for all the smoke and mirrors offered up by the administration and dutifully reported by the media - present company excepted - thank God.
Nine-eleven was tragic for the whole world. Even more so for this country since an American president - I sadly and regretfully believe - understands he could not now exist without the event. If 9/11 had not occurred the Middle East would still be a puzzle to the administration, the policy of preemptive first strike would still be a dusty file and Bush’s vision for the world’s only superpower would be defaulted to the next administration which is something I feel he can’t bear the thought of.
Despite the outcome, we Americans will once again watch the world hold an American president responsible for so much of the world’s suffering be it justified or not. Far greater the tragedy is that even if the United States “wins” the war, we will be hard pressed to recover the respect, integrity, and leadership already lost.
Whether you agree or disagree, support Mr. Allbritton and journalists of his like. Allbritton and sites like his are presenting facts and ideas and letting us come to our own conclusions. Much to their credit we aren’t being spoon fed 30 second opinions for which the media have become so adapt and on which we have become addicted. The problem is Mr. Allbritton forces us to think which takes some discipline and energy.
How’s this for a scenario. Iraq in a dying gasp sends bio terror to Israel. Israelis start dying horribly. They nuke Baghdad in desperation. N. Korea sees the opportunity to get S. Korea. They attack using 2 million infantry and 6,000 fighter jets in a blitzkrieg. The United Nations convenes. Russia sends arms to N. Korea. We defend S. Korea. Venezuela disintegrates internally and all of South America is in turmoil with riots in the streets and looting. Government breaks down in South America. Pakistan is attacked by Al Queda and blames it on India. Next frame. Last minute travel has specials on vacations in almost any destination at $200.00 round trip including hotels and food for a week. Americans say fuck it and go to Mexico to party. They are all kidnapped. President Bush declares himself King and does away with the Senate and Congress. He renames John F. Kennedy airport the Laura Bush airport. He renames Florida Bushland. He calls in all his cronies who were indicted for financial racketeering and stock market manipulation to join his circle of advisors. They figure out the best way to scam the world is to have a monopoly on pipes and wire and figure a way to own all the pipe and wire companies in the world and never sell any pipes or wires, but lease them. They actually create two companies that they own and say that they are in competition. They begin by offering all the pipes and wires and ridiculously low monthly rates but only for 6 months. Then things start escalating. To be able to flush your toilet is eventually 25 cents per time. Then it’s a dollar. Then it gets to 5 dollars per rental of the pipe to flush the toilet and the toilets only get flushed once a week. They grow tired of the revenues from the pipe and wire scam and start dreaming of owning and leasing all the cookware. To do this all stoves have to have a bar code scanner to see how many times the pots are on the stove. Land in Bushland starts selling for a million dollars an acre but it’s worth every penny because only Bushies live in Bushland and they are making all the money. Married couples in Bushland are called Babushkas. Single men are called Bushwhackers. Single women are called Bush. Harleys are Bush hogs. Beer is called Bushweiser.
I heard that our president was speaking to God about the Iraq situation. Although I was not actually there listening to the conversation a maid overheard it and here is what she said.
George gets on the phone and dials God. Only three digits were needed since God is everywhere and George knew the universal area code to get in touch with God and the other spirits. After talking to his receptionist, Peter, they started talking.
George “Hi, God, its me, your humble servant George.” God “Oh, hey, Hi George, how’s it going these days, how did you get my private line?” George, “Oh you know, God, I’ve been elected president of America and someone gave it to me, I hope this isn’t a bad time.” God “Oh, no – not at all – At my age I don’t need very much sleep at all, none actually, er – that’s just a joke, so George, what can I do for you?” George, “Well God, you see, I am having fits of conscience about the possibility of going in and attacking Iraq, and well, what I want to know is this. Is it for certain that the Christian faith is the right and only faith and all the others are a bunch of heathens?” God, “Yes, that’s right, for sure. Why?” George, Well I was thinking, would it be alright to attack the Iraqis and get rid of Saddam – that’s Arab for Satan by the way, and bomb the piss out of his country and take all his oil and of course give it back to the Iraqi people?” God “Of course George, That would be fine.” George “And would it be okay to use lots and lots of bombs and kill lots of people?” God “Sure, why not, they’re evil heathens, right. I can trust your word on that right? Go right ahead.” George, “Oh and one last thing God, can I, can I please, pretty please with sugar use a nuclear bomb on them if I want to?” God, Of course George, no problem, but there is one condition.” George “Sure, anything, just tell me what you want me to do.” God, “You can nuke them, you just have to get the okay from the United Nations.”
Two other things to consider - China will likely become one of the most dependant countries on Middle East oil in the next 30 or so years. Having close ties to the area would certainly be of value there to the US.
Another is demographics - Europe (esp ‘old’ as in age Europe) will become a lot less of a force in the world, as will Japan (at least measured by population) in the next 50 years. By as much as half, while other places grow very quickly. The US too, by ratio will be smaller, but not as drastically. Asia to the Middle East will become much more significant. So this strategy is kind of like buying land at the stations before a subway is built. There is a great population study at csis.org…
Great article btw!
Interesting to read many of the comments. Especially after the war is essentially over. How incorrect so many pundits were and are.
Question:”When is hate speech politically correct?”
Answer: When it is directed toward George Bush.
Clearly, many comments, ie., by poster would be considered “hate” speech by the “PC” police (liberals).
Amazing, isn’t it that hijackers and terrorist camps have been found in Iraq. (“Yes but Bush told us it was al quada….so that doesn’t count” will say the “anti’s”)
to ‘a poster’ on April 16:
Please cite your sources as to the hijackers and terrorist camps that have been found in Iraq. I haven’t seen such reports yet — online or even from the Bush propaganda machine.
Albritton’s assessment is still relevant and insightful.
why are you want to kille ira people
If you didn’t have that illegal Zionist entity in an ocean of Arabs, the U.S. (thanks to its politicians beholden to Zionist pressure and jewish money) wouldn’t have to squander billions ensuring the “stability” of the Middle East.
Jon Steele
all you damn communists need to stand behind our president and stop your bitching…our soldiers arn’t
SADAM HAS WASTED, AND STOLE FROM HIS OWN COUNTRY GERMANY, FRANCE AND RUSSIA SOLD HIM BILLIONS IN TOTAL JUNK. ALL THE ARAB LEADERS HAVE BEEN WASTING OIL MONEY AND WHEN IT RUNS OUT WHO IS GOING TO FEED THEM THE ARABS MOST OF THEIR FOOD COMES FROM THE US. THE PALISTINE LEADERS HAVE STOLEN 4 BILLION DOLLARS OVER THE LAST 8 YEARS AND THE PEPOLE GOT NILL. ALL OF THEM ARE ON WELFARE. AND AMERICA IS PAYING THE BILL MOST ARAB MEN DO NOT WORK THEY SET AROUND DRINKING TEA AND SMOKING KEEF KEEF.WOMEN ARE TREATED LIKE SLAVES AND MADE TO DO ALL THE WORK.THE FATHER ENCOURAGES HIS CHILDREN TO STRAP BOMBS ON THEIR BODIES AND TO KILL. WE WOULD RATHER SEE THEM STRAP ON SOME BOOKS AND HELP THEIR CAUSE BY LAW R RADER
for what its worth, first the english took are fredom,then spain,then the white men of this nation,then the goverment,the blacks,now the isliamics, wish you all would get the hell out of my,nation! just one mans wish?
Response to Jon Steele:
On 6/25/03 you wrote:
“If you didn’t have that illegal Zionist entity in an ocean of Arabs, the U.S. (thanks to its politicians beholden to Zionist pressure and jewish money) wouldn’t have to squander billions ensuring the “stability” of the Middle East.”
It has taken me days to calm down. Just the juxtaposition of the words “Jewish” (it is properly capitalized, you know) and “money” says tonnes about your bigotry. Where do you come off spewing this ignorant, hate-filled trash? Have you ever boarded a bus in Jerusalem, not knowing if you’ll arrive safely at your destination without being blown to Kingdom Come? Have you spent any time at all in the Middle East, for that matter? If you haven’t, then stick to writing about what you know. If you have, it’s time to take off the blinders. You owe all Zionists — and Jews — a big, fat, humble apology.
Ariel Landsman
This flowery theory has all the right anlges to be a made for HBO special. But it’s just too overly complex to be real.
Colin Powell said that there was a real concern after 9/11 that Iraq and Al Queda might team up. However remote it might have been, the US aboslutely could not take any chances. The public would never forgive thier leaders if the doomsday scenario did occur.
The reality of many political decision is that our leaders have to make very, very tough choices with poor information, and people second guessing them at every turn (everyone on this blog). Yes the US will benefit in a number of ways, it will also cost the US countless lives and not mention trillions of dollars. Yes we worry about a Japan and Germany rearming, we are also worried about China, we even want to get out of Saudi Arabia. It’s all true, it just isn’t driving American foriegn policy
The evil, illuminati, conspiracy-theory, mumbo-jumbo makes for great books, blogs and newspapers. The complex and frustratingly-unfulling reality of the politics of compromise, is something the general public has neither the brains nor stomach for.
you guys are a bunch of morons. Eat shit!!!!!
I hope you all get viruses, you and your computers.
assholes!!!!!!!!
fuick you!!!!!!!!!
the iraqis smoke wacky tobaci
America has never been invaded since (Pearl Harbour) but has invaded EVERY COUNTRY in the ENTIRE WORLD. Why??????
WORLD DOMINATION.
I hope all of AMERICA DIES soon or gets leashed because there will never be FREEDOM with DOGS OF WAR.
All westerns get out of Iraq and leave the East alone. We don’t want whatever you think you have that is so great.
Think about it.
What do you have that we want……
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
I think there should be population control installed for AMERICA. you are all genacidal fat pigs who enjoy killing people.
FACT: For every AMERICAN, they have killed 8 people. that is more people killed by America than both world wars put together. German’s are not the devils
AMERICA = SATAN
Why does America kill on the one side and feed the survivors on the other. This cannot be condoned as Humane action. But torture by a State who is rampant on GENACIDE.
fuck u.s they are dogs i dont know why they take war in irak i hope all americans die soon
well for one thing, if your not going to post anything smart on here or appropriate for that matter, dont, its only making you look like an idiot. secondly i do belive that out goverment makes very hard choices, but hey, at least our persident makes the tough choices. weather or not you belive in the war, dont make it look like you hate the troops that are there. support them.
To “poster” and “jesse”
It is now June 16, 2004 and “the war” is not over, as “Poster” claimed in your 2003 post. People are still shooting at us and we are still shooting at them. There are two pieces of legislation the administration is quietly trying to get through that will institute a draft of our children after the election. We haven’t actually “declared war” on anyone, but the administration wants to institute the draft because they are stretching our military too thin.
Yes, our soldiers have been complaining. Reports are that morale is horrible, and the military honchos were upset and stepped in because our troops were emailing family members with their complaints and disallusionment.
I SAY WE NUKE THESE MOTHERFUCKERS!
I think that there was another, additional motivation to the one Christopher mentions in his summing-up of the situation - one which is rooted in 9/11 itself, and the events leading up to it, a motivation tied up in the way the world media often operates (i.e. following the most sensational story), one which was primarily opportunistic, and which can be paraphrased by the Bushism ‘It’s the Economy, stupid’. A few months before 9/11, the USA pulled out of a major international agreement, to which most other ‘western’ nations (plus several major non-western ones) are signed up: the Kyoto Accord - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1252556.stm
At the time of 9/11 this was only just entering the public consciousness, and the media and political frenzies were just beginning - since 9/11 I have heard barely anything about it. Interestingly, Bush’s electoral campaign was bankrolled by powerful fuel and energy corporations, amongst other companies, and these stood to lose out through the limits on pollution set down by the Kyoto Accord. Similarly the USA’s arms manufacturers, many of whom also supported Bush, also stood to gain from the war through increased demand for weaponry.
The claim that Bush is encouraging ‘green’ options for power sources is quashed when you consider that he is encouraging the use of Hydrogen over other possibilities - however basic chemistry tells you that to create hydrogen you need vast amounts of electricity, which needs power stations to supply it. In the USA, most of the new power stations being built are powered by fossil-fuels, not renewable resources - improving the business interests of Bush’s campaign sponsors, and placating the anti-nuclear lobby.
How does this relate to 9/11 and Iraq?
Right after 9/11 Bush is famously seen to have ignored the events and continued with his publicity stunt with a group of schoolchildren, yet within days he was vehemently denouncing the events as evil, and he very quickly proclaimed the ‘War on Terror’. To me, this indicates pure political opportunism - initially not recognising the inevitability of a change in media attention, Bush saw it later and then used the 9/11 tragedy to focus the world’s attention away from an unpopular policy decision and onto one which he knew he could sensationalise and popularise to his heart’s content.
Nor is this the only instance during the 9/11 events and subsequent wars of situations being used or manipulated to their advantage by the US government - the CIA is believed to have influenced the wording of the Iraq Dossier the British Security Agencies gave to Blair, and which he subsequently used to pursuade the House Of Commons that the Iraq war was necessary. This same document has had its accuracy and honesty widely discredited in both the British Media and the 2004 Butler Inquiry; it is also central to the currently much-mooted impeachment of Blair - which would be the first impeachment of a British Prime Minister for 150 years.
Its simple - The world is better off without Saddam - The Middle East NEEDS to stabilize - Ya gotta start somewhere - Would you start elsewhere with Saddam on your back door? No! The USA is way smarter than that. So topple the one most likely to attack your flank and start a base there. Neutralize all terrorist cell units. Start a democracy cause the dictatorship they were in didn’t work too well. And presto-changeo - you may have stabilization.
http://www.yoursitetop10.com