Is the War on Terror just being used to advance the aims of big oil?

[rotorgun]

I have decided to begin this new thread into this subject because, as is often the case in our discussions, a new topic is often revealed within the frame work of a different thread. In this case, while discussing the bashing of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld as of late in the media, the subject came up of just what were the motives for the Bush administrations' prosecuting the War on Terror. While I agree that some response had to made after the attacks of September 11th, 2001, was the particular response motivated strictly by political/military concerns? Or was it dictated by other factors, such as the interests of the oil industry and international finance organizations?

While these are rehtorical questions, there is a body of evidence, circumstantial at this time, which points to this as a possibility. In recent posts in the "Rumsfeld thread", some interesting links were brought to light which indicate that the invasion of Afghanistan may have desired for other reasons than simple revenge, or to advance the cause of democracy. Indeed there is information pointing to a pressing need for several oil consortiums and international financiers to have the Taliban removed so that they could go ahead with plans to build a pipeline through the country from the CAspian Sea. This would have terminated in India at the behest of the contoversial Enron Corporation, now being scrutinized by the United States government for investor fraud, among other charges. There is even some who believe that the Bush administration intentionally overlooked the warning signs of the 911 attacks (as some think FDR did prior to the Pearl Harbor raid), or perhaps even engineered them to have an excuse to invade Afghanistan while building support for their future plan to invade Iraq.

Iraq had been the stated objective of the previous Bush administration in the past. I believe that, but for losing the election to Bill Clinton in 1992, that administration would have acted then. The idea to move aggressively in the Persian Gulf region was cleary outlined in a draft of the Strategic Defense Planning guide authored by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and his assistant Paul Wolfowitz. It was only delayed until the new Bush team could regain the Whitehouse, this time with Republican controlled Senate and Hose of Representatives.

I propose a discussion of these ideas along several guidelines:

1. Is it possible that the war aims of the Bush administration are suspect?

2. Did the administration ignore the warnings in the days and weeks leading
up to the attack on the World Trade Center?

3. Where the attacks used as a pretext for war, not only against Terrorism,
but also to drum up flagging support at home and abroad for a pre-emptive
strike against Iraq?

4. What are the strategic, political, and economic gains of such a policy, and
is it a moral war that coalition is waging, or does it represent mere
imperialism?

[Major Robert Dump]

Big Oil was my nickname in the mental hospital.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No.

Crazed Rabbit

[rotorgun]

This is a response to a previuos post from Redleg who was trying to clarify some of the points I had made in an earlier post.


Making the case for Iraq is different then the assertion that the attack into Afganstan was for the pipeline. Again address the issue as it relates to your initial point - not the attempt at distraction by pointing to Iraq.
Indeed freind you are, of course, correct. I sometimes get the whole idea of what I think the Bush administration is trying to accomplish so in mind, that I tend to jump ahead of myself. My apologies. As to the idea that this attack was made to allow the plans for such a pipline to go forward, it is something for which no direct evidence, as such exists. I have come to such a conclusion that this is a possibility, and it happened to tie in very conveniently with the September 11th attacks. It immediately gave the Bush administration the pretext to "Lets Roll" as President Bush so dramatically said in the media. My tying it into the Iraq operation was to bring out the fact that it allowed the administration to use the situation to unify the people of the Unted States to support that invasion as well, by tying it into the War on Terror.


So are you attempting in one bold stroke to ignore the ability and limitations of the United States to transport divisions into a mountianous area with limited airstrips? Are you attempting to ignore the historical fact that the only successful invasions by outside forces into Afganstan have been done with forces from within Afganstan?

No I wasn't trying to ignore these facts. I realize the difficulties of operating in such an environment, but clearly more could have been done to block the escape routes into Pakistan. This was not even attempted, although I am aware that it would have been impossible to block all of them. This is because the initial response was weak. Why? The United States Military was not that heavily commited at that time, except in the Balkans, which never involved a full division of troops to accomplish, to have not deployed a much larger response. That is what the 18th Airborne Corps is for-wheels up, ready to deploy anywhere in the world within 72 Hours. Why it was not immediately used is a curiousity.


The operation into Afganstan has many failures - one being not sticking with it until fruitution of the mission goals, and the other being sending forces needed for this operation to another. However neither of these failures support the initial claim of it was about the pipeline.

One must ask why was this allowed to happen, was it just a mishandling of the situation, or was it something deeper? Assume, for a moment, what would have happened had Osama Bin Laden and crew actually been killed or captured? Would not many Americans have simply said "Hooray! The war on Terror is over! They've caught him!" and what would have happened to any support for a future invasion of Iraq? That invasion was already in the planning stages before the wae IMHO. No, it was enough for the extremists to be driven out of the country for the next phase to proceed-the formation of a "democratic" government that would be acceptable to international investors. Enter one Mr. Kalizied (not sure of the spelling), an Afghan foriegn national in the service of the Bush administration in the field of foriegn relations. He is also related to the current President of Afghanistan, a cousin I believe, and has also a main proponent of the pipline. He has been intimately involved with the post invasion phase of the operation, and was also present at many of the secret meetings with Enron and Dick Cheney that is so contreversial. What is that man hiding? Why would a meeting about the future energy policy of our government be a secret?


Are you also implying that the 101st, 82nd, and 10th Mountain did not also particpate in Afganstan?

I am in no way implying such a thing, and would never mean to demean such fine organizations such as these. I am a former member of the 101st Air Assault Division, and am very proud of their performance in this war. But in all honesty, these units where never commited in any large numbers in Afghanistan until long after the Taliban was holed up in the mountains of Tora Bora. Any of the leadership of the enemy was probably long gone by then. It is certain that the native forces employed, sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Quieda as fellow Muslims, could only have allowed them to escape.


Address those areas that apply to the pipeline conspricy that you are bringing forward. So far it doesn't survive contact with reality.

I agree with your point, and will comply graciously. I did not mean to offend or insult anyone's intelligence. It's just that there is so much about this war to consider. I do think that there was a direct attempt by the Whitehouse to link the two operations together. Although they may have differing strategic aims, the one was used to garner support for the other, larger objective of dominating the Gulf region. In Afghanistan, the goals are more economic for the players involved-Enron, Chevron, Delta Oil Corporation (Saudi Based), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, to name a few. These are driving the train there. In Iraq, the goals are strategic, political and econonic-a great position to have military bases to expand inluence and defend against or attack Iran if nessecary; if successful, a democracy in the region could drive a political wedge against the other Islamic nations that are dictatorial or autocratic; control of the oil reserves would allow the the US and UK to dominate the oil market, rather than the Saudis and OPEC do now.



To completely buy into the theory that you are advocating here - one must assume that the administration at best allowed the attack to happen, or at worst planned and assisted in the attack. No other possiblity exists that would explain your initial comment and the premise of the book Crude Politics as you pointed out in your opening line in our little exchange.

Agreed. As I have said before, I can only hope that this is not so.


Congress can not bring impeachment charges upon the president because there is no absolute proof that he or his adminstration was involved in the alledged wrong doing. Circumstancial evidence is just that. Conspricy theories always have a grain of truth in order to build their attempts at being valid, however it does not bear out as truth at this time. Maybe in some distant or near distant future one of the individuals involved in such a conspricy will have a moment of clarity and confess to such activities, but until then its only a conspricay theory with no evidence to truely support it.

This is true, but such things can, and have happened. It is the duty of each free minded person to seek the truth. If our leadership wants to lead us to war, I think that the seriousness of such a course demands that they be honest with those whom will bear the brunt of such a war. These individuals will not bear such a cost. They are not taking the real life risks that the soldiers, mostly middle and lower middle class people, are. I see no "Richard the Lion Heart" in any of them. At least he had the courage to personally lead his military ventures. They are acting like Medieval WarLords except without participating in the hurly-burly. Even William the Conqueror had the courage to lead from the front in his alleged "lawful" war. How does "W" stack up?

[Redleg]

1. Is it possible that the war aims of the Bush administration are suspect?

The initial aim of Afganstan is only suspect if one believes that the adminstration at initially ignored the intelligence that indicated (best case) or assisted in some way in planning and executing such an operation. (worst case). To make such a belief one would also have to completely ignore the 9-11 commission findings.

So for Afganstan the answer is no. Intelligence failure, poor planning, allowing forces to be distracted - all are allegations that have creditablity.

I think what you are really after is not is the war aims suspect, but has the adminstration allowed itself to become distracted because of conflicting information and possible ethical issues with members of the adminstration?



2. Did the administration ignore the warnings in the days and weeks leading
up to the attack on the World Trade Center?


I happen to agree with the findings of the 9-11 commission. Such a conspricary theory that the admimistration ignored warnings would of generated several whistleblowers.


3. Where the attacks used as a pretext for war, not only against Terrorism,
but also to drum up flagging support at home and abroad for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq?

What politician would not use an event of the nature of 9-11 not to drum up support?



4. What are the strategic, political, and economic gains of such a policy, and
is it a moral war that coalition is waging, or does it represent mere
imperialism?

What policy? One must agree with your premise to answer this question. I don't agree with the foundation of your premise.

[Redleg]

This is true, but such things can, and have happened. It is the duty of each free minded person to seek the truth.

Since I am at work - getting ready to go home I will only address this sentence as it relates to the overall previous topic.

Seeking the truth is indeed the duty of every patriot who cares for thier countrymen and their nation. However playing into obvious conspricary theories does not equate to seeking truth.

You did fine with your opening post of this thread, and I will read the follow-up post in detail latter.

[Hurin_Rules]

It is well known that a group known as the Project for the New American Century demanded in 1998 that then-President Clinton take military action to end the regime of Saddam Hussein, and that this letter was signed by many future Bush Administration officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Dick Armitage, William Krostol, Dick Perle and Francis Fukuyama. You can read the text here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

They are quite open about the fact that this is necessary to secure the Middle East's oil.

Clearly, invading Iraq was on the Neoconservative's agenda years before 9/11.

Having established that, I don't think it's too great a leap to think that these same men, once they had become the government and once 9/11 had happened, felt they could then implement the already-existing plan to invade Iraq, especially since they believed this was in America's best interests.

Is that really so hard to believe?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I propose a discussion of these ideas along several guidelines:

1. Is it possible that the war aims of the Bush administration are suspect?

2. Did the administration ignore the warnings in the days and weeks leading
up to the attack on the World Trade Center?

3. Where the attacks used as a pretext for war, not only against Terrorism,
but also to drum up flagging support at home and abroad for a pre-emptive
strike against Iraq?

4. What are the strategic, political, and economic gains of such a policy, and
is it a moral war that coalition is waging, or does it represent mere
imperialism?

1. Possible, though I think it unlikely. I believe that the primary effort is to smash extra-national terrorism. Afghanistan, well handled or no, was clearly in line with this agenda, as are the continuing efforts in the Phillipines, Yemen, and elsewhere. Iraq is the operation with the greatest potential for "suspect" motivation, since there are members of the Bush admininstration who went into the Bush 43 team with Sadam as "unfinished" business in their heads. Regardless, he was a legitimate target in this war as his regime did support international terrorism, including Al Queda (though Saddam's level of support pales when compared to Iran or non-governmental support from Saudi Arabia). Having determined to remove Saddam, however, Bush 43 failed to provide enough resources or plan for the required follow-on of nation-building.

2. Demonstrably, as noted by the 9-11 commission report. However, the ignored warnings were more a product of: failing to take rumored threats seriously, structural constraints that limited the abilit of various departments to coordinate efforts, assuming that Al-Queda represented more of a "nuissance" than a national security threat. The idea that a President would knowingly allow such an attack to occur to generate a pretext for military response is far-fetched. If you are that much of a reptile, you go ahead and stage it like Heydrich did.

3. On some levels yes. Any military effort that was linked to the War on Terror was bound to serve as an outlet for our collective rage over 9-11, even though Saddam was never linked to that operation and was only minimally linked to Al Queda. While the Bush administration did not specifically link the two -- we'd have heard that smoking gun like a loud ringing trumpet -- they did very much put forward the Iraq operation as part of the larger war on terror and did allow public sentiment to make the link without doing much to dissuade that interpretation. A bit of opportunism there, I suspect.

4. For good and for ill, petroleum is the life-blood of the 20th and 21st centuries. Any operation in that theater, for whatever purpose, ends up involving/addressing/coping with that resource. Iraq could never have developed into the threat it did without oil revenues nor would the USA or the rest of the NATO crowd be nearly as involved in the events of that region were it not for oil. However, imperialism by the US it is not. Imperialist goals would dictate the annexation of the oil resources or the development of a client-state to effectively control them. Instead, we'll send our troops to die, build the infrastructure of Iraq so that they may prosper, and then watch as some Chavez-style Islamo-socialist effectively nationalizes it all.

[Divinus Arma]

Yes. Because W has oil money in his family. That means he is a conspirator in the global oil plot to get richer by finding and exploiting more sources of oil.

You see, we are actually stealing the Iraqis oil. This one guy I know who knew a guy over there said that the Americans are actually feeding oil out of Iraq through a secret pipeline and sharing some of the profits with Dubai.

Meanwhile we pay super high profits while the oil kings actually increase their supply, all while claiming a shrinking supply. The war in afghanistan was just to support a pipeline from the oil fields in the former soviet southern states into regions where we control its flow.

The UN actually plays a big part in undercover global illicit oil profiteering, but they kinda got busted with that whole oil/food thing. Luckily, they were able to keep it out of the media by distracting us with rising detah tolls in Iraq. The media is actually nothing more than the smoke in the magic trick that Bush is using to fool us all. They distract, and the oil barons become wealthier and wealthier, consoldiating world power into a fewer and fewer hands.

Then one day they will implement global restrictions on free speech and other liberties in order to protect us all from "terrorism". Eventually we will be forced to consume, and we will be truned to global slavery. Then our oil masters will claim dominance.

They will clone us to replace their failing body parts, and eventually they will live forever as Gods on earth.


Luckily for me and the other conspirators, we have our clones already breeding and picked out. The 128 year old woman? She is hispanic. The hispanic people will be used because they are genetiacally superior and make the best meat for cloning. They think that the vatican is telling them to breed. HA! The pope is a placed puppet who orders as we says in order to influence world behavior in our direction.

The best part is that I tell you this and none of you will believe me, but meanwhile I feast on the blood of Iraqi children since they make excellent appetizers, along with redwood salad and baby seal filet.

[Hurin_Rules]

How very informative.

Anyhoo, back to the discussion...

[Divinus Arma]

I propose a discussion of these ideas along several guidelines:

1. Is it possible that the war aims of the Bush administration are suspect?

Of course. Bush is naturally evil because his father attacked Iraq, because Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr, and because Bush controls oil and there is oil in Iraq.

2. Did the administration ignore the warnings in the days and weeks leading
up to the attack on the World Trade Center?

All the jews escaped. The jews orchestrated the entire thing, didn't you know that?

3. Where the attacks used as a pretext for war, not only against Terrorism,
but also to drum up flagging support at home and abroad for a pre-emptive
strike against Iraq?

This makes perfect sense. I agree completely.

4. What are the strategic, political, and economic gains of such a policy, and
is it a moral war that coalition is waging, or does it represent mere
imperialism?

Cleearly we needed new sources of oil to fill the needs of growing economy! Imperialism is only a natural choice. Iran is next, and then we will invade portions if Africa before finally moving on to South America.

[Avicenna]

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/illusionario/bushPrecious75.jpg
Funny... but the second one was deleted for being a bit too rude...

[doc_bean]

1. Is it possible that the war aims of the Bush administration are suspect?

2. Did the administration ignore the warnings in the days and weeks leading
up to the attack on the World Trade Center?

3. Where the attacks used as a pretext for war, not only against Terrorism,
but also to drum up flagging support at home and abroad for a pre-emptive
strike against Iraq?

4. What are the strategic, political, and economic gains of such a policy, and
is it a moral war that coalition is waging, or does it represent mere
imperialism?

1. What are suspect aims for a war ? not wanting to win ?

2. Yes, as did Clinton, as did most countries (indifference to the treath of terrorism in general).

3. sure, going to Iraq was very high on the administration's agenda

4. The real gains or the estimated gains ? They wanted to have better control of the oil, and they wanted to show their muscle in the middle east. Possibly they wanted to spread chaos in the muslim world to take away the treath of a united stand against the US.
Is it moral ? What's moral in war ? Does it benefit Americans ? Maybe. Does it benefit the Iraqi's ? Probably not, though getting rid of saddam was likely a good thing for them. Does it benefit the military-industrial complex in the US ? definitely.
Is it imperialism ? Possibly, they seem pretty keen on implementing US structures and 'morals' in the 'new' Iraq.

[rory_20_uk]

Morality is not an issue with most countries, but since the USA likes to bask in how moral it is there is a point mentioning it.

The USA has the death penalty and manages to torture people without going to court about it. We in the UK are having misgivings sending people over there. The USA has yet to attack our failure to hand over suspects yet... but they invaded Afghanastan. Of course invading teh UK has extremely high reprecusions where as Afghanistan doesn't. that might well be it - the USA only picks on weak targets.

But there are terrorists in several other countries such as Saudi Arabia (most 9/11 were Saudis as we know), Pakistan, Chad (hell, Africa is crawling with them), yet none were attacked.

I am sure that the Oil companies employ people to see the potential benefits in egging things in the direction of a war, but that is different to saying they are the cause.

Bush and his mates have been itching for a fight with Saddam since they got into power. For that evidence was to persuade people to along with it, which is fair enough.

Evidence misinterpretated or eager juniors were hoping for a quick promotion for "finding" what their masters wanted - who knows? Bringers of accurate intelligence that isn't flavour of the month isn't going to get you noticed;

~:smoking:

[rotorgun]

1. What are suspect aims for a war ? not wanting to win ?
First of all, thank you for responding to the post, and to all that have done so as well. I guess what I mean is, have they lied about the aims of the war, ie. WMDs, ties with Al Quieda (never really substantially proven), and finally the regime change card, in order to get the Senate and the Congress to vote for action according to their plans? I am not a defeatest, and I'm sure that the Bush administration isn't so. It isn't that I feel that such aims are not valid, but I don't appreciate being lied to when my comrades, and indeed my own hide, are at risk for their lives.


2. Yes, as did Clinton, as did most countries (indifference to the treath of terrorism in general).
No argument here from me. I just think we ought to recognize the fact that much of this could have been avoided if the west would have seriously addressed the root cause of Islamic terrorism-failure to solve the Palestinian question.


3. sure, going to Iraq was very high on the administration's agendaThen why did Bush lie during the 2000 election campaign, and promise that he would pull our forces back from such nation building goals? This was a clear misrepresentation, in light of the stated goals of the PNC, that Iraq was very much on their agenda. Once again, why lie?


4. The real gains or the estimated gains ? They wanted to have better control of the oil, and they wanted to show their muscle in the middle east. Possibly they wanted to spread chaos in the muslim world to take away the treath of a united stand against the US.

Then why not just say so? Did they think that the average American citizen could not see the benefits of such possible gains. Instead they play to our fears rather than to our intellect.


Is it moral ? What's moral in war ? Does it benefit Americans ? Maybe. Does it benefit the Iraqi's ? Probably not, though getting rid of Saddam was likely a good thing for them. Does it benefit the military-industrial complex in the US ? Definitely.
Is it imperialism ? Possibly, they seem pretty keen on implementing US structures and 'morals' in the 'new' Iraq.

If we were to intervene in every situation, such as the one that existed in Iraq, simply to advance our own interests, would we not soon be just another one of many conquering nations that, despite the best intentions, would slip into despotism and moral decay? Why do we not intervene in the bloddy struggles going on in Africa? Is it because it is too dificult, or simply because they are of no vital importance? I would like to believe that my country stands for the good cause, not one tainted by misinformation and corporate greed. As the Greeks were fond of saying...the strong do what they can, while the weak suffer what they must. If we had taken that view in 1941-1945, much of Europe would probably still be under Nazi rule. While these men claim that it is for similar reasons we have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, their motives don't stand a close review.

[rotorgun]

The initial aim of Afganstan is only suspect if one believes that the adminstration at initially ignored the intelligence that indicated (best case) or assisted in some way in planning and executing such an operation. (worst case). To make such a belief one would also have to completely ignore the 9-11 commission findings.
Well said. I am not actually ready to believe that the 911 attacks were orchestrated by the administration. I do believe that the 911 commision report is not definative about wether warnings were ignored. That is not just my own opinion.


So for Afganstan the answer is no. Intelligence failure, poor planning, allowing forces to be distracted - all are allegations that have creditablity.
Agreed. The information at my disposal at this time only puts such a claim in the realm of theory, but not so farfetched as one might beleive. I will admit that I could definately be way out on a limb. I, for the sake of our country, hope that I am wrong.


I think what you are really after is not is the war aims suspect, but has the adminstration allowed itself to become distracted because of conflicting information and possible ethical issues with members of the adminstration?
Good point, but could you elaborate more on this? In what ways have they allowed themselves to be distracted? What members do you feel have possible ethical issues?


I happen to agree with the findings of the 9-11 commission. Such a conspricary theory that the admimistration ignored warnings would of generated several whistleblowers.

To each there own opinion. I will not disrespect your feelings on this, and truly hope that there is no conspiracy.


What politician would not use an event of the nature of 9-11 not to drum up support?
An honest one? LOL


What policy? One must agree with your premise to answer this question. I don't agree with the foundation of your premise.
Indeed. But I thank you for a great post. It has been enlightening, informative, and given me much food for thought. If I am correct, and I pray that I am not, it will give me no great comfort to be so.

[Redleg]

Well said. I am not actually ready to believe that the 911 attacks were orchestrated by the administration. I do believe that the 911 commision report is not definative about wether warnings were ignored. That is not just my own opinion.

Opinion is fine - one can always disagree. However no evidence has been brought forward that shows a concrete effort by the administration. THe 9-11 commission verfies this statement.



Agreed. The information at my disposal at this time only puts such a claim in the realm of theory, but not so farfetched as one might beleive. I will admit that I could definately be way out on a limb. I, for the sake of our country, hope that I am wrong.

Conspricacy theories always have a grain of truth in them, or else they would be easily discounted. The problem with the Afganstan theory that you advocate is that it relies soley on the darker side of humanity. I happen to believe that the World Towers happened because of the dark side of a group of individuals and the naivity of the American thought process about terrorist attacks on our own soil.



Good point, but could you elaborate more on this? In what ways have they allowed themselves to be distracted? What members do you feel have possible ethical issues?

Several of them - they often make the news. If you want greater detail let me know, however tonight I am feeling a little lazy, not wanting to go into major details.



To each there own opinion. I will not disrespect your feelings on this, and truly hope that there is no conspiracy.


Fair enough




An honest one? LOL


Politicans lose their honesty after they are sworn into the office. Wanting to stay in office often means that they sacrifice their integity and honesty.


Indeed. But I thank you for a great post. It has been enlightening, informative, and given me much food for thought. If I am correct, and I pray that I am not, it will give me no great comfort to be so.

No problem, hopefully we can maintain an intelligent conservation and not partake in idealogue banter.:laugh4:

[Devastatin Dave]

Big Oil was my nickname in the mental hospital.
Mine was Stink Fist....:sweatdrop:

[Major Robert Dump]

Mine was Stink Fist....:sweatdrop:


Joe, is that you?

[Devastatin Dave]

Joe, is that you?
No, its Dave, but Joe does lurk somewhere in my psyche.:laugh4:
Are we screwing up another substantive thread or is it just the tequila typing?

[rotorgun]

No, its Dave, but Joe does lurk somewhere in my psyche.:laugh4:
Are we screwing up another substantive thread or is it just the tequila typing?

LOL :laugh4: ~:cheers: Definately the tequila!

[Devastatin Dave]

To answer the question of the thread, EVERYTHING revolves around money. You can call it "stability", "freedom", etc...

[KafirChobee]

I propose a discussion of these ideas along several guidelines:

1. Is it possible that the war aims of the Bush administration are suspect?

2. Did the administration ignore the warnings in the days and weeks leading
up to the attack on the World Trade Center?

3. Were the attacks used as a pretext for war, not only against Terrorism,
but also to drum up flagging support at home and abroad for a pre-emptive
strike against Iraq?

4. What are the strategic, political, and economic gains of such a policy, and
is it a moral war that coalition is waging, or does it represent mere
imperialism?

1) PNAC, I would say, "Say no more" , but it seems obvious that some still ignore the fact that no less than 15 -20 high ranking members of the Bush "team" belong (ed) to it, and that its aim was to invade Iraq. Primarily for the purpose of oil, but using the guise of "freedom". Personally, I was always told people earn their freedom - if it is handed to them they no more understand what it is, than bat given eyes what light is. Aside from the brightness.

2) The first 100 days of a Presidency generally is the tell to its effectiveness and its intent. FDR's first 100 produced no less than +100 bills (that he pushed thru congress like thru a goose - with cajoiling and threats), Bush played golf, went to his ranch (actually spent more time there than in DC) and pushed for tax cuts for the wealthy. Bush didn't have time to ignore anything - he was playing President. Cheney is the one that ignored everything, after all he was (is?) the one running the show.

Did they know? God help us if they did. It would mean a complete collapse of the morality of those with influence in this nation.

3) First, I would like the "war on terrorism" be renamed. First off - one cannnot really have a war against the mentally insane. So, instead lets call it the "aggressively militaristic forte against the nut cases that do not wish to live and want 72 virgins". I know it is a bit (just a bit mind you) winded, but it has much more clarity than "war". Also, since we haven't won a war (aside from Grenneda, Iraq 92', ..... and .... and .... well, must be one I must be missing) since 1945 it would be in our advantage not calling it a war. Police action works - we generally break even in those.

Also, we now the "Bush Doctrine", and what President doesn't want a "doctrine" named for him. Even if it is a pre-emptive strike for unknown reasons-like the Japs on Pearl Harbor (except the Japs had cause - economic sanctions. Guess those things really worked back then; to drive a nation that wants to dominate the world and disagrees with reason to extremes). With a rational President? Well, maybe a sane one - who knows?

Answer is, yes. Had 9/11 not occurred, Bushy's boys (and girls) were looking for a reason to invade Iraq. Fact is, Afghanistan was the furthest thing from their wee little minds - untill 9/11/01.

4) Strategic gains? None. Actually, due to the losses in our Nation's Political and diplomatic prestige - we are at a net loss. Gross net loss, at that. Very gross in fact - since many democratic nations are looking at us and their wealthy are thinking - "Why couldn't (can't) we do that?"

Economic? Well, that was the intent of the oilmen (PNAC) that planned it - but, the intent was for them and their cohorts to gain monetarily. It never had anything to do with the Nation - except tossing a few working and middleclass-kids lives (2,400+ to date) at their future potential for profit.

Thing is, when we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11/01 - we were dead rights to do so. Maybe, even Saudia Arabia - since most of the members on the planes were from there - j/k (sorta). But, Iraq? Sorry, but it was, is, ... and now we're stuck.

"He who listens only to his own council, will always be right - to himself. Reality may never offend him. The circumstances may." It may offend others, however, and at some point the "Decider" must face up to his decidings.

Imperialism? Well, it has always been the goal of the truely wealthy and powerful to return to the age of Kings (and Queens) that dominated the world prior to 1898. It is after all something for all of us to work for - especially those that vote purely along single political party lines. I admit, btw, that I only vote for 1 Republican candidate in my district (hell, he's more liberal than the damn guy that says he's a Democrat, and the damn Green girl is all but a Commy - j/k). But, I look seriously at all of them - and discount those that bring "gay marriage", "right to life (except for condemned prisoners)", or that creationism ought to be taught in our schools. Sorry, but old ideas need to die - as uncerimoniously as possible. Find a candidate that actually is willing to push the nation, the world, the society forward - to the 22nd century - test them out. Stop the political spastics trying to take us back wards to the perfect time of the 1950's (promise you, I was there - great time to be a kid - not to be an adult).

Our choices are dwindling. To some it seems a natural progression of choice; that what ever was done in the past is of less consequence than what we do in the future. I agree with this. What is done is done, investigate and impeach the bastards later. Now, what needs to be done is drop the troops in there to end it (did you know, that alQuaeda is as strong today in Afghansistan as 2001?) - or wait for the next Preident (Bush's plan btw).

It is obvious that Bush is not going to be the leader that ends this, he has conceeded that. He was just the man that allowed it ...

2007, God willing (since he elected Bush) let the impeachments begin. Or not, at this point - who cares. Except a parent or two whoms childs' blood once soaked the soil in Iraq.

[Devastatin Dave]

2007, God willing (since he elected Bush) let the impeachments begin. Or not, at this point - who cares. Except a parent or two whoms childs' blood once soaked the soil in Iraq.
And then Mr Cheney will be the president. Is that what you want? Its fine with me but i always find it amusing when one of you guys says "impeach the president", seems like you don't think the process through or something.

[rotorgun]

To answer the question of the thread, EVERYTHING revolves around money. You can call it "stability", "freedom", etc...
Yes, but robbing a bank involves money. Would you call it legal, or would you call the police? :inquisitive:

As for having Cheney be our President after a Bush impeachment, it is not so far from what we already have. Think about it, is George W. really nothing more than the hand puppet of those more capable? Were talking about a so called graduate of Yale that can never string a sentence together (that isn't a rehearsed speech) without saying ah...or um... between every other phrase. I say send him back to the ranch, and put Cheney in the hotseat for awhile. I think that the pressure would do him in as he hates the spotlight and seems to prefer operating in the shadows.

:hide:

[rotorgun]

First of all, good post KafirChobee. Not that I agree with everything you state, but you and I are on the same track in many ways.


1) PNAC, I would say, "Say no more" , but it seems obvious that some still ignore the fact that no less than 15 -20 high ranking members of the Bush "team" belong (ed) to it, and that its aim was to invade Iraq. Primarily for the purpose of oil, but using the guise of "freedom". Personally, I was always told people earn their freedom - if it is handed to them they no more understand what it is, than bat given eyes what light is. Aside from the brightness.
Coupled with the previous Strategic Defense Planning Guide document of 1992, this is substantial proof that the ultimate aim was always Iraq. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make the connection. I have always felt that this was the case from the very first. http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm


Bush didn't have time to ignore anything - he was playing President. Cheney is the one that ignored everything, after all he was (is?) the one running the show.
While I agrre with the first point here, how could Cheney have ignored the "warnings" if he was running the show? In light of his direct involvement in the Caspian Sea oil pipleine project proposal, and Haliburton was heavily invloved, and with an insider to Afghan politics like Kaliziid on his team, how could he have not been aware of the dangers from AlQuieda? Do you think that he underestimated them? This is possible, or he could have deliberately enticed them with the threats made to the Taliban to "either except being paved with a carpet of gold, or paved with a carpet of bombs" in the negotiations with the Taliban over the pipline deal. http://www.alternet.org/story/12525/


Did they know? God help us if they did. It would mean a complete collapse of the morality of those with influence in this nation.
Agreed, but it doesn't mean that all Americans suffer from such a collapse, and many voters yeild influence as well.


Answer is, yes. Had 9/11 not occurred, Bushy's boys (and girls) were looking for a reason to invade Iraq. Fact is, Afghanistan was the furthest thing from their wee little minds - untill 9/11/01.
Although we all agree that 9/11 provided the impetous for the War against the nutcases who want 72 virgins, I think that Afganistan was very much on the minds of the oilman dominated Bush team. http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html


4) Strategic gains? None. Actually, due to the losses in our Nation's Political and diplomatic prestige - we are at a net loss. Gross net loss, at that. Very gross in fact - since many democratic nations are looking at us and their wealthy are thinking - "Why couldn't (can't) we do that?"

Is having a dominate military position in the Persian Gulf not a legitimate strategic aim? I guess one must balance the loss of national prestige, and the making of more enemies against it. It is an important consideration when any nation choses aggresion over diplomacy.
http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm


Economic? Well, that was the intent of the oilmen (PNAC) that planned it - but, the intent was for them and their cohorts to gain monetarily. It never had anything to do with the Nation - except tossing a few working and middleclass-kids lives (2,400+ to date) at their future potential for profit.
Playing Devil's advocate with my own theories, do you think that the nation will not also gain economically as well? Isn't there always an economic boon with a war economy, at least at the beginning of a war?


Thing is, when we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11/01 - we were dead rights to do so. Maybe, even Saudia Arabia - since most of the members on the planes were from there - j/k (sorta). But, Iraq? Sorry, but it was, is, ... and now we're stuck
I believe that you are spot on (as our British freinds are wont to say) here. And as for Saudi Arabia, on 9/12/2001 I would have arrested all Saudi nationals in this country for questioning, especially the Bin Laden family members known to have been in the US at the time (brought to light in Farenhiet 911), and demanded action on the part of the Saudi government to turn over, or divulge the locations of all the "Terrorists" within 72 hours. If they did not do so, I would have bombed a major building in Riyad every day until they complied, and the hell with the consequences. That is what this Democrat would have done, in case anyone out there thinks that I might be a bleeding heart, tree hugging liberal. The Saudis are deeply involved with this whole matter IMHO, and are not to be trusted. I could have kissed Mayor Gulianni when he publicly refused the Saudis' offer of money after the attacks. It's just so damned odd that the Bush family's investment group is so in bed with the Saudis. Between them and the Isreali lobbyists in washington, it's a wonder that they don't run for office.


"He who listens only to his own council, will always be right - to himself. Reality may never offend him. The circumstances may." It may offend others, however, and at some point the "Decider" must face up to his decidings.

Indeed.


Our choices are dwindling. To some it seems a natural progression of choice; that what ever was done in the past is of less consequence than what we do in the future. I agree with this. What is done is done, investigate and impeach the bastards later. Now, what needs to be done is drop the troops in there to end it (did you know, that alQuaeda is as strong today in Afghansistan as 2001?) - or wait for the next Preident (Bush's plan btw).
Unfortunately I must agree with you. This war has been thrust upon us now, and we must win it or forever be condemned for it in the eyes of the world, not to mention our own eyes. This bed has been made, and we must lie in it. It's just unfortunate that we were led to it on a carpet of deciet. Americans will always respond to great leadership; there is no need to decieve us if the facts are presented well. Not only must we be courageous enough to be a world leader, but show the restraint worthy of a great people. Economic and political expediency must not become the motives behind pre-emptive aggresion. Yes, Saddam had to go, that would have been enough of an arguement for me. Why all the tap dancing about WMD's and the so-called "threat to the region and the world" crap?


2007, God willing (since he elected Bush) let the impeachments begin. Or not, at this point - who cares. Except a parent or two whoms childs' blood once soaked the soil in Iraq.
There is not enough hard evidence yet to bring impeachment charges. Perhaps if the Enron scandal blows wide open it may lead to such a thing,
http://www.alternet.org/story/12525/, but I doubt it. Cheney is too sophisticated to let the Democrats get the chance. No, they will be long gone to the ranch by then, enjoying the immense wealth that will be passed on to their descendants for generations to come, paid for by the blood of good middle class American youth, whose jobs are being given away to the Global Economy and illegal immigrants-what else can they do for a living, work for the oil companies?

[Ice]

To answer the question of the thread, EVERYTHING revolves around money. You can call it "stability", "freedom", etc...

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. :idea2: ~;)

[doc_bean]

First of all, thank you for responding to the post, and to all that have done so as well. I guess what I mean is, have they lied about the aims of the war, ie. WMDs, ties with Al Quieda (never really substantially proven), and finally the regime change card, in order to get the Senate and the Congress to vote for action according to their plans?

The WMd theory was more laughable than something your average internet conspiracy theorist would come up with. Of course they lied.



I am not a defeatest, and I'm sure that the Bush administration isn't so. It isn't that I feel that such aims are not valid, but I don't appreciate being lied to when my comrades, and indeed my own hide, are at risk for their lives.

Understandable.


No argument here from me. I just think we ought to recognize the fact that much of this could have been avoided if the west would have seriously addressed the root cause of Islamic terrorism-failure to solve the Palestinian question.

Well, we kinda created (modern) Israel didn't we ? Everybody hates confessing their mistakes...



Then why did Bush lie during the 2000 election campaign, and promise that he would pull our forces back from such nation building goals? This was a clear misrepresentation, in light of the stated goals of the PNC, that Iraq was very much on their agenda. Once again, why lie?

"We're not going to war !" It won FDR an election, and iirc the president who ran during WWI had this high on his agenda too. You can't sell going to war on Americans, not easily anyway. But once you start one you will their (nearly total) support, at least for a few years. In order to go to war, you have to represent it as necessary. If there was an election prior to the invasion of Iraq, witht he same facts represented as they were before the invasion and Bush led a pro-invasion campaign and Kerry an anti-campaign, I'd bet a lot of money Kerry would have won.



Then why not just say so? Did they think that the average American citizen could not see the benefits of such possible gains.

nah, despite all of the "hawks" in the backroom, I'd say most Americans are isolationists first.


Instead they play to our fears rather than to our intellect.

Well, if you let your fears win over reason...


If we were to intervene in every situation, such as the one that existed in Iraq, simply to advance our own interests, would we not soon be just another one of many conquering nations that, despite the best intentions, would slip into despotism and moral decay?

ahem, aren(t you ?


Why do we not intervene in the bloddy struggles going on in Africa? Is it because it is too dificult, or simply because they are of no vital importance?

Possibly because you couldn't sell killing starving Africans to the people ? Maybe the war toys aren't as fit for fighting in Africa as they are for fighting in the desert ? Maybe because Europe is more under the influence of Europe ?



I would like to believe that my country stands for the good cause, not one tainted by misinformation and corporate greed. As the Greeks were fond of saying...the strong do what they can, while the weak suffer what they must. If we had taken that view in 1941-1945, much of Europe would probably still be under Nazi rule. While these men claim that it is for similar reasons we have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, their motives don't stand a close review.

I pretty much agree with your analysis. US politics are rotten to the core these days, little democracy is left in my view from afar.
Of course, democracy is a fragile thing and some would argue it barely exist in Europe either...

[rotorgun]

Thanks for the response. There are some valid points you make about the use of lies by some other notable American Presidents in the past. I am particularly humbled by your mention of FDR, as he is a demogouge of the Democratic party. Your view of the American political view of going to war rings true as well. Perhaps we are reluctant to make war, and usually make terrible war once we are commited, but I don't think that it warrants the lies. I am always dissapointed with our politicians' underestimation of our intelligence. It only seems that they pay any attention to it after they get us into a war.

The WMd theory was more laughable than something your average internet conspiracy theorist would come up with. Of course they lied.
No one is laughing any more. From the tone of the questions asked to Mr. Rumsfeld by the former CIA analyst Ray McGovern at his recent speech in Florida, it seems that finally some of the right wing is waking up.

Well, we kinda created (modern) Israel didn't we ? Everybody hates confessing their mistakes...
Yes, but should we compound the mistake by condemming the Palestinians? As much as I admire the Isrealis, I cannot bring myself to hate the Palestinians enough to see them persecuted. The UN should intervene here before they do in Iran. If they can solve this issue, perhaps the threats from the Iranians would be defused.


"We're not going to war !" It won FDR an election, and iirc the president who ran during WWI had this high on his agenda too. You can't sell going to war on Americans, not easily anyway. But once you start one you will their (nearly total) support, at least for a few years. In order to go to war, you have to represent it as necessary. If there was an election prior to the invasion of Iraq, witht he same facts represented as they were before the invasion and Bush led a pro-invasion campaign and Kerry an anti-campaign, I'd bet a lot of money Kerry would have won.
But there was an election. The opponent was Al Gore, and both Bush and Cheney misrepresented their intentions of "nation building" during the debates prior to the vote. They even mentioned that they would continue the econmic sanctions and policy of containment as well. I know, I watched them say so myself, actually heard the words come from their mouths. It was one of the main reasons that I, a Democrat no doubt, voted for Bush in 2000. Now I have documented proof of their real agenda, and I don't care for being lied to. That, and that alone is the reason I voted for Kerry in 2004, not because I was satisfied in any way, but simply because they lied. In my book, you get one chance to prove that you are honorable, and they have proven that they are not. The hypocricy astounds me, and any who defend them are blind.

nah, despite all of the "hawks" in the backroom, I'd say most Americans are isolationists first.
Agreed, but is that a bad thing? I am, despite being a member of the military, a pacifist at heart, but I would give my eye-teeth to get Osama Bin Laden in my sights. Iraq? I figure they had a right to be pissed at us. After all, we bombed them senseless during the first Gulf War and many times after that in the 1990's. No, this war is purely elective, and I invite the Bush/Cheney lovers of this world to personally get all they want of it. I hope that they can get their "hawks in the back room" to personally lead them, but I doubt they have the courage. Am I a little bitter? Maybe, but I am not so bitter as some of the surviving family members of those who have been killed or maimed. Do you think that you'll find any Rumsfelds, Bushes, Cheney's, Wolfowitz, Kenneth Lays, Roves, etc. among the casualty lists? I doubt it.

Well, if you let your fears win over reason...
This is what I have been trying to tell many of my fellow Americans, but you know, "a prophet is without honor in his own land" (Bible, NAS). Many do not not want to face any alternative. I respect their feelings, but in time I think that they will see in the end.

ahem, aren(t you ?
Well....moral decay maybe, but despotism is a strech. LOL

Possibly because you couldn't sell killing starving Africans to the people ? Maybe the war toys aren't as fit for fighting in Africa as they are for fighting in the desert ? Maybe because Europe is more under the influence of Europe ?
Not sure quite what you mean by that last. Did you mean that Africa is more under the influence of Europe?

I pretty much agree with your analysis. US politics are rotten to the core these days, little democracy is left in my view from afar.
Of course, democracy is a fragile thing and some would argue it barely exist in Europe either...
We are really more of a republic in my view, more akin to ancient Rome with some Athenian ideals, mixed with a good dose of European culture rather than a pure democracy. In any case, I appreciate your interesting view of my country from afar.

[doc_bean]

I am always dissapointed with our politicians' underestimation of our intelligence.

It's the same everywhere, the sad thruth is that the average person/voter does actually fall for this BS. Our most popular politicans have idiotic agendas that appeal to the 'common' man. Of course, when they are in office they completely ignore what they've said when they were campaigning...





Yes, but should we compound the mistake by condemming the Palestinians? As much as I admire the Isrealis,

Well I don't, not the extremist that settle where they're not suppsoed to anyway. I've seen reports about how they were deported from there homes and how they complained and their children cried and everybody felt kind of sorry for them...until I shouted: You took your children into a ******* warzone ! They're willing to risk the lives of their children for their nutcase religious ideas, they're no poor people with no where else to live, they built mansions there ! They're not much different from the Palestian/Arab terrorists. Dangerous religious zealots, the lot of them.


I cannot bring myself to hate the Palestinians enough to see them persecuted. The UN should intervene here before they do in Iran.

Euope has been very supportive of the Palestian cause, it was mostly the US that supported Israel no matter what. If there is one good thing to say about Bush and his administration it's that they began to put (actual) pressure on Israel to make peace.



If they can solve this issue, perhaps the threats from the Iranians would be defused.

Israel is a colony, it will be very hard to defuse that bomb. Don't forget that Israel has actually invaded Iran in the past (at least I thought it was also Iran) and they've done bomb runs there too. They're saying they will do this again if Iran develops nuclear reactors. AND Israel does have teh bomb. They're a menace to the surrounding countries, they're nazi germany before the war, or the Sovjet Union at their peak. A military nation with technology and capabilities for above those of the surrounding countries. Israel probably fears for its support from Europe and the US if they attack their neighbours (again), but I doubt there are moral reasons stopping them. israel is a serious threat for the surrounding countries.

I understand Iran's desire for teh bomb perfectly. It would be the ultimate defense, and perhaps the only one that could give them enough power to stand up to Israel if they were to try something in the future again.



But there was an election.

I was talking about a clear pro- or anti- war election.


The opponent was Al Gore, and both Bush and Cheney misrepresented their intentions of "nation building" during the debates prior to the vote. They even mentioned that they would continue the econmic sanctions and policy of containment as well.I know, I watched them say so myself, actually heard the words come from their mouths. It was one of the main reasons that I, a Democrat no doubt, voted for Bush in 2000. Now I have documented proof of their real agenda, and I don't care for being lied to. That, and that alone is the reason I voted for Kerry in 2004, not because I was satisfied in any way, but simply because they lied. In my book, you get one chance to prove that you are honorable, and they have proven that they are not. The hypocricy astounds me, and any who defend them are blind.

I agree.


Agreed, but is that a bad thing?

Of course not, but it's why you get all the lies.


I am, despite being a member of the military, a pacifist at heart, but I would give my eye-teeth to get Osama Bin Laden in my sights. Iraq? I figure they had a right to be pissed at us. After all, we bombed them senseless during the first Gulf War and many times after that in the 1990's.

The US pretty much created Iraq, I've head Saddam wasn't actually the worst guy before the first war, he was a socialist and the level of wealth in Iraq was reasonable. But after the first war things changed for the worse, because of economic sanctions Iraq became very poor (a similar thing happend in Cuba, where it wasn't communism that lead to poverty, but rather the economix sanctions dictated by the US). Of course, a country like Iraq with its many different ethnic and religous groups is always on the verge of revolution, the US sponsered the opposition which threatened his position and which then led to harder oppression of 'minority' groups.

Daddy Bush really ****** up the first war, it's probably the worst mistake the US ever made, possibly worse than Vietnam. Iraq could have been turned into a functional country again back then (well, probably). Junior Bush tried to correct the mistakes of his father, but again, he won the war but lost the fight. No new functioning country could be formed.



No, this war is purely elective, and I invite the Bush/Cheney lovers of this world to personally get all they want of it. I hope that they can get their "hawks in the back room" to personally lead them, but I doubt they have the courage.

That was my favourite part of Fahrenheit 911 (a hopelessy biased documentary really): MM asking senators and representatives if their sosn went to war, and why not. IMHO it showed a clear problem, the people who start the wars have little to no idea of what war is actually like, and even less of a clue of how it should eb handled.



Am I a little bitter? Maybe, but I am not so bitter as some of the surviving family members of those who have been killed or maimed. Do you think that you'll find any Rumsfelds, Bushes, Cheney's, Wolfowitz, Kenneth Lays, Roves, etc. among the casualty lists? I doubt it.

Very distant relatives, maybe.


This is what I have been trying to tell many of my fellow Americans, but you know, "a prophet is without honor in his own land" (Bible, NAS). Many do not not want to face any alternative. I respect their feelings, but in time I think that they will see in the end.

Hindsight is 20/20. Although now that the administration refuses to release classified document sof 50 years ago, it's probably a little less so...


Well....moral decay maybe, but despotism is a strech. LOL

Well, it's turning into an aristocracy of sorts imho. This might be ahppening in Europe too, lots of political families here too.


Not sure quite what you mean by that last. Did you mean that Africa is more under the influence of Europe?

Yes, my typing was horrid in that post :embarassed:


We are really more of a republic in my view, more akin to ancient Rome with some Athenian ideals, mixed with a good dose of European culture rather than a pure democracy. In any case, I appreciate your interesting view of my country from afar.


:bow:

[Brenus]

“Of course, democracy is a fragile thing and some would argue it barely exist in Europe either...” ? Not in Europe than a President was elected because his brother decided that the ballots were valid… Not in Africa neither…:laugh4:

“much of Europe would probably still be under Nazi rule” Most probably communist…:no:

“I am always disappointed with our politicians' underestimation of our intelligence.” And right they are… In all democracies the numbers of people who care go to vote are laughable. And what do we do? Do we create new parties, do we go in the arena and “Ave Cesear, Morituri te salutant”? No, we stay home, cursing then and go to drink of beer…:embarassed:

“It won FDR an election, and iirc the president who ran during WWI had this high on his agenda too.” Yes, FDR wanted to help UK and others, but he didn’t create Pearl Harbour… Hitler and Mussolini declared war upon U.S.A. :sweatdrop:

“Daddy Bush really ****** up the first war, it's probably the worst mistake the US ever made, possibly worse than Vietnam. Iraq could have been turned into a functional country again back then (well, probably).” Bush Senior was more troubled by the possibility of the Shiites taking power (quite rightly considering what happen nowadays) than by a fallen dictator. Also, the aim of the operation was the liberation of Kuwait, not to take Iraq, still needed somewhere against Iran. That is real politic, not a game… :juggle2:

[Redleg]

“Of course, democracy is a fragile thing and some would argue it barely exist in Europe either...” ? Not in Europe than a President was elected because his brother decided that the ballots were valid… Not in Africa neither…:laugh4:

Didn't happen in the states either. :laugh4:

Playing tennis on a court might help..

[doc_bean]

[B]“It won FDR an election, and iirc the president who ran during WWI had this high on his agenda too.” Yes, FDR wanted to help UK and others, but he didn’t create Pearl Harbour… Hitler and Mussolini declared war upon U.S.A. :sweatdrop:


I said it was part of their campaign that they wouldn't go to war, whether they intentionally lied is an other matter entirely.

[rotorgun]

much of Europe would probably still be under Nazi rule” Most probably communist…:no:
I was mainly trying to make a case for a worthy cause of intervention in foreign affairs. While I absolutely feel that the Iraqi people deserve to be free from the rule of Saddam Hussien and his insane sons, I don't think for a momement that this was the main purpose of the invasion. In a way though, the policies of previous administrations all helped create, and keep in power, this maniacal regime. I don't believe that he could have achieved his aims without the support he recieved from the west, so we had to go there in the long run. I simply cannot abide the hypocrisy of the repulican Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Rice/ad infitum administration in claiming all the myriad of falsehoods that they have to convince me that we had to invade. I am not a fool, and I'm sure that you are not as well. Why did they have to mislead people with this so called "threat to the world" nonsense? Iraq's abillity to strike with the alleged WMDs was regional at best, and would have initiated such a counterstrike from the US as to make Hiroshima look like a weenie roast. No, a simple plea to the world to take action to free Iraqis would have been enough for most, if made with passion and honesty by the President. It would have been enough for me. Why insult my intelligence?


“I am always disappointed with our politicians' underestimation of our intelligence.” And right they are… In all democracies the numbers of people who care go to vote are laughable. And what do we do? Do we create new parties, do we go in the arena and “Ave Cesear, Morituri te salutant”? No, we stay home, cursing then and go to drink of beer…:embarassed:
This did apply to me in my youth, but not now. I must agree with you, reluctantly, in principle here.


Yes, FDR wanted to help UK and others, but he didn’t create Pearl Harbour… Hitler and Mussolini declared war upon U.S.A. :sweatdrop:

True, but many still feel that he knew, and did not forewarn his commanders at Pearl in time. Hitler was a fool to declare war! He had no moral obligation to the Japanese to do so. They attacked us, and therefore violated the terms of the Tri-partite Act which called upon each member to come to the aid of another who had been attacked by the Aliies. I think your sweatdrops are appropriate here. President Roosevelt must have been sweating this one too.


[/B]Bush Senior was more troubled by the possibility of the Shiites taking power (quite rightly considering what happen nowadays) than by a fallen dictator. Also, the aim of the operation was the liberation of Kuwait, not to take Iraq, still needed somewhere against Iran. That is real politic, not a game… :juggle2:
Agreed. Now your getting somewhere with the whole real strategic reason we are "liberating" the Iraqi people. As outlined in the Cheney/Wolfowitz imperialistic Strategic Defense Planning Guide of 1992, and the later stated goals of the PNAC sponsored letter to President Clinton in 2000, Iraq would be a very suitable place from which to dominate the region and influence politics throughout the Middle East. This is a somewhat more aggresive motive than freeing innocent people from tyranny. Free them to what purpose? To serve their own interests, or the interests of a new imperialistic United States? Below are the two sites to see the scources for yourself. The PNAC article is a little frightening IMHO. I think you'll find them interesting to ponder. I don't think that they are representative of the ideals of America that I was raised to believe, but then, maybe I'm just being naiive.


http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

PS: I enjoyed your post. It was enlightening, yet you have a good sense of humor.

[Brenus]

“Why did they have to mislead people with this so called "threat to the world" nonsense?” Hum, if not, no body would want to go.
Do you remember, before Desert Storm, how (at least in the French Media) they tried to convince us than Saddam, in few months, in the sands and under blockade, succeeded to built a defence line better than the Maginot line…:inquisitive:

Here are the 10 principals to apply if you want to demonise you opponents:
We don’t want war; we just defend ourselves or people in need (ever using a preventive strike)

The opposite side is the only and solely responsible for the war. We exhausted all diplomatic means.
The enemy Leader is Evil,
We defend a Noble Cause (Democracy, Minority Rights, Freedom, etc, not limitative list), and we do not fight for our own interests.
The Enemy commits on purpose atrocities and, if we do collateral damages, it isn’t our fault (you may also say that if the enemy Air Defence didn’t destroy the Cruise Missile, it won’t have fallen on a shelter full of refugees).
The enemy uses non authorised weapons, or would if he had the opportunity (an intention is equal to act, in the Law.)
We have light casualties and the enemy losses are enormous.
Artists and Intellectuals (that was written for Europe, US translation is Media) are with us (if not, they are enemy of Freedom. Or paid by the evil dictator)
Our cause is a holly cause.
These who doubt and question our propaganda are traitors.


I don’t know all the answers. I was in Iraq after Desert Storm, for Provide Comfort and what I saw there, the military material didn’t impressed me. T62, good for the scrap yard, but most tanks were T54/55, and usual BTR and BMP as APC.

But I studied history. And I am interested in politic. Well, for me all is politic.
French History is full of moment when we wanted to spread freedom happiness and democracy, to civilise the savage, to protect the weakest. We ended with the second larger colonial Empire. Because behind noble causes are the merchants, the priests and soldiers.:book:

Politics and people who decide for us will always give you what they know you want to hear.
Just a short example: The 10th to 15th February 1930 an upraising against the French in the province of Yen Bay was crushed with extreme severity. 13 peple were guillotined.
Now we have the report on the event from 2 persons:
The governor, who insisted that every thing is fine, the revolt is crushed, no need to panic etc
The chef of he Police who say, yes, the revolt is crushed, but the roots are still here, revolt is brewing.
Two different reports on the same event were sent to Paris. Why?
The Governor wanted the investors come back. He wanted the companies exploiting coal, iron, and rubber to invest. So all is quiet along the Potomac to night…
The chief of the police want more money for his agents. He wanted more agents, cars, etc.
Both served their own interests.

That is why the lie to you.:2thumbsup:

[rotorgun]

Hum, if not, no body would want to go.
That's a fact.

Do you remember, before Desert Storm, how (at least in the French Media) they tried to convince us than Saddam, in few months, in the sands and under blockade, succeeded to built a defence line better than the Maginot line…:inquisitive:
Yes, I remember that well. I knew however, that when Saddam did not attack the rapid deployment forces in Saudi Araibia that he was making a big bluff. It was really his only chance to win IMHO, because it was the only time that his offensive capabilities matched the coalitions' abilitiy to defend itself. I was praying that he wouldn't attack the 101st, 82nd, and 24th infantry divisions while they were still unorganized. He certainly was no Napoleon.

Here are the 10 principals to apply if you want to demonise you opponents:
We don’t want war; we just defend ourselves or people in need (ever using a preventive strike)

The opposite side is the only and solely responsible for the war. We exhausted all diplomatic means.
The enemy Leader is Evil,
We defend a Noble Cause (Democracy, Minority Rights, Freedom, etc, not limitative list), and we do not fight for our own interests.
The Enemy commits on purpose atrocities and, if we do collateral damages, it isn’t our fault (you may also say that if the enemy Air Defence didn’t destroy the Cruise Missile, it won’t have fallen on a shelter full of refugees).
The enemy uses non authorised weapons, or would if he had the opportunity (an intention is equal to act, in the Law.)
We have light casualties and the enemy losses are enormous.
Artists and Intellectuals (that was written for Europe, US translation is Media) are with us (if not, they are enemy of Freedom. Or paid by the evil dictator)
Our cause is a holly cause.
These who doubt and question our propaganda are traitors.

I would say that we have been given every reason except for #6 and 7. This is a pretty good list of political pretenses for war. All imperical nations have used them throughout history.

I don’t know all the answers. I was in Iraq after Desert Storm, for Provide Comfort and what I saw there, the military material didn’t impressed me. T62, good for the scrap yard, but most tanks were T54/55, and usual BTR and BMP as APC.
This is why I ask what threat to the region? Have you ever played the Avalon Hill game Arab Isreali Wars? It always amazed me how a platoon of well operated up-gunned Sherman tanks could destroy about 4 times there number in that game. Saddams forces weren't much better than the Arab forces of those conflicts.

Because behind noble causes are the merchants, the priests and soldiers.:book: May I quote you on this? That is a profound statement.

Politics and people who decide for us will always give you what they know you want to hear. Just a short example: The 10th to 15th February 1930 an upraising against the French in the province of Yen Bay was crushed with extreme severity. 13 peple were guillotined. Now we have the report on the event from 2 persons:The governor, who insisted that every thing is fine, the revolt is crushed, no need to panic etc The chef of he Police who say, yes, the revolt is crushed, but the roots are still here, revolt is brewing.
Two different reports on the same event were sent to Paris. Why?
The Governor wanted the investors come back. He wanted the companies exploiting coal, iron, and rubber to invest. So all is quiet along the Potomac to night…The chief of the police want more money for his agents. He wanted more agents, cars, etc. Both served their own interests.
A worthy anecdote indeed. Corruption is at the root of the problem, no?

That is why the lie to you.:2thumbsup:
Thank you! Merci! Finally someone who has an understanding of my bitterness. The irony of it all is enough to make one weep. I appreciate this post very much Ami.

Bon Chance Soldier de France! Vive le veteran! :shakehands:

[Alexanderofmacedon]

You know it's funny you say this. A group of two kids and I, who are in the same geography class are all liberal kids. Well, our teacher is far right, and we have this discussion on a daily basis. Long story short, anything I do, she's pissed at me...

It's really quite entertaining. I wish I could tape it one day. We tell her strait to her face what she says is bull****. Yeah. It's funny...

[Brenus]

Mistake, it should have been like that:

We don’t want war; we just defend ourselves or people in need (ever using a preventive strike)
The opposite side is the only and solely responsible for the war. We exhausted all diplomatic means.
The enemy Leader is Evil,
We defend a Noble Cause (Democracy, Minority Rights, Freedom, etc, not limitative list), and we do not fight for our own interests.
The Enemy commits on purpose atrocities and, if we do collateral damages, it isn’t our fault (you may also say that if the enemy Air Defence didn’t destroy the Cruise Missile, it won’t have fallen on a shelter full of refugees).
The enemy uses non authorised weapons, or would if he had the opportunity (an intention is equal to act, in the Law.)
We have light casualties and the enemy losses are enormous.
Artists and Intellectuals (that was written for Europe, US translation is Media) are with us (if not, they are enemy of Freedom. Or paid by the evil dictator)
Our cause is a holly cause.
These who doubt and question our propaganda are traitors.

“worthy anecdote indeed. Corruption is at the root of the problem, no?” Not as such. Both had deferent goals to achieve. I forgot to say it was in Vietnam.
Indochina was a colony for economy and exploitation, not for population like Algeria. So his goal was to calm down the anxiety of the big manufactures and investors.
The Chief of Police was a good functionary and wanted more police officers, to be able to pay his spies.
I think both had their function interest in mind.
But it show how you can manipulate facts in highlighting what you want, slighting what you don’t and still telling the truth, if not entirely at least partially. All is in analysing of the events, in the presentation.

“May I quote you on this? That is a profound statement” It isn’t from me but from a French Singer Jean Ferrat. I just added the merchants. But be free to use it.

“Thank you! Merci! Finally someone who has an understanding of my bitterness. The irony of it all is enough to make one weep. I appreciate this post very much Ami.”
The advantage to be French is we don’t believe our elites. We doubt. We don’t believe them. Sure they hind things.
To be a soldier of France is to be ready to fight for ideals and great ideas and to serve and die for more earthly advantages and petty lies.

Bon Chance Soldier de France! Vive le veteran!
So many times we died for Marianne and then she forgot as. She cheated on us more than one time. She is unfaithful, but we forgot and forgave her. The soldiers who bled for her have to pay the medals she gave them, and old soldier fade away, far from her beautiful eyes more interested in new young and athletic generation than the used and tired old one.
We KNOW her only interest in as is our money we give her every year. She pretends to be grateful, but we surely know the truth. She doesn’t care of us. We don’t trust her.
But we will still die for her, like we did in the past. It is our doom. It is our honour.
We love her.:no:

Welcome in the club.~:cheers:

[rotorgun]

Bon Chance Soldier de France! Vive le veteran!
So many times we died for Marianne and then she forgot as. She cheated on us more than one time. She is unfaithful, but we forgot and forgave her. The soldiers who bled for her have to pay the medals she gave them, and old soldier fade away, far from her beautiful eyes more interested in new young and athletic generation than the used and tired old one.
We KNOW her only interest in as is our money we give her every year. She pretends to be grateful, but we surely know the truth. She doesn’t care of us. We don’t trust her.
But we will still die for her, like we did in the past. It is our doom. It is our honour.
We love her.:no:

Mon Deui!
What a lovely way to express such a sentiment. It sums up exactly how I feel about the current situation I'm in. I love my country, and will gladly die (kicking and screaming all the way) in defense of her ideals. But oh how she abuses her soldiers! I could not have expressed it any better. Well said. ~:mecry:
Are you perhaps a musican? This would be wonderful if adapted to song.