posted on April 14, 2003 08:35:30 AM new
Now all of a sudden Darth Vader (Bush) says Seria has chemical and biological weapons and is harboring Iraquis.
This war is going to continue. I hope you missinformed Bushites dont buy into this propoganda. That will be just sad if you do.
[ edited by bigcitycollectables on Apr 14, 2003 08:41 AM ]
posted on April 14, 2003 10:06:49 AM new
Perhaps CIA is there already & regardless of right or wrong, there should be support for these troops.
Support The Quiet American.
I wonder if Bush's yellow brick road is heading toward the land of Oz but Rumsfeld hasn't told him yet.
Quite a few countries will have an idead where it's going next. There must be some hasty preperations going on.
posted on April 14, 2003 10:46:39 AM new
My idealogical little world is called common sense. Tony Blair and General Franks has denied that these acusations by Bush are NOT true.
I am so sick of people saying that people who do not agree with Darth Vaders foreign policy are anti American.We are anti Bush. So is the rest of the world.You Bushites only see our side of the story. That is what the news lets you see. (FOX NEWS) You do not see the full picture,details, and the facts.
This is the most corrupt administraion since the Vietnam war. They have failed with Health care, our economy, child care, jobs, and the list goes on and on and on.
They fail becouse they do not care.All they care about are the Arab countries.
I am not going to waist my time in explaining to you all the policys the Bush administration has failed at.
posted on April 14, 2003 01:28:51 PM new
No CNN is the worst one of them all. They dont tell it like it is. Im not saying its not a good thing the we freed Iraque.
My problem with this issue is the real reasons behind the war.
Saudi Arabia is the number 1 sponser of Terrorism and for some reason our goverment has no interest in going to war with that goverment.
posted on April 14, 2003 01:34:42 PM new
Did you know the only policy George Bush has been putting effort into this whole time is this NEW Oil/Hydrogen program?
posted on April 14, 2003 02:51:25 PM new
This is one theory:
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 Hamas. 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.
Posted by Christopher at February 18, 2003 11:40 AM
posted on April 14, 2003 03:09:02 PM new
Yes that is all true. Im just glad you took the time to type it all. I just dont understand how people can be so naive and believe every word that comes out of this administrations mouth. You would think they would be smarter then that
They actually think that this is some kind of patriotic rightious war....
Fu#@$n Sheep
[ edited by bigcitycollectables on Apr 14, 2003 03:13 PM ]
posted on April 14, 2003 03:21:45 PM new
Actually, I think it is more that this administration is determined to "fix" the Middle East. Syria has been a major terrorist sponsor in the area and is a major supporter of the groups preventing a resolution in the area.
And of course this is nothing new. Bush said we will pursue this till it's done.
Only liberals can say it's about oil on one hand and then stand up in Congress and complain about financing the rebuilding of Iraq costing more than oil revenues.
posted on April 14, 2003 03:32:30 PM new
Actually, I think it is more that this administration is determined to "fix" the Middle East. Syria has been a major terrorist sponsor in the area and is a major supporter of the groups preventing a resolution in the area.
And of course this is nothing new. Bush said we will pursue this till it's done.
Only liberals can say it's about oil on one hand and then stand up in Congress and complain about financing the rebuilding of Iraq costing more than oil revenues.
What did you do? Copy that statement from Sean Hannity? (Fox News, Hannity and Colmes)
posted on April 14, 2003 03:42:50 PM new
No actually it comes from listening to endless "it's about oil" blathering from the anti-US crowd while watching the politicians they genuflect to complaining about the taxpayers footing the bill.
posted on April 14, 2003 04:16:16 PM new
Disagreeing with foreign policy is one thing, but to be so ignorant as to keep saying Iraq was for oil.... that is something else. Not anti-US, just anti-Intelligent...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on April 14, 2003 04:22:04 PM new
Anti-war doesn't equate to anti-american. In my opinion, the invasion of Iraq is anti-American. Now, America is feared and hated all over the world.
This invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as an effort to remove weapons of mass destruction or liberation of the people of Iraq. This is an unlawful invasion of a country because of the oil and to enforce regime change so that we can access that oil and have the power and strategic position in the mid east from which we can control and direct our financial interests and other planned invasions.
During the recent looting, thirty hospitals were destroyed and rendered unusable. The museum containing artifacts of historical and artistic value dating back over 5,000 years were destroyed. Banks were destroyed and the National library was burned to the ground. But saved was the ministry of OIL!!!
Isn't it disgusting that America will profit from rebuilding all that we have so thoroughly destroyed.
posted on April 14, 2003 04:32:46 PM new
See, the stuff they put in the water doesnt work on everybody.
JUST THE WEEK MINDED. I can do some brainwashing myslef.
I love my country not my goverment
I love my country not my goverment
I love my country not my goverment
I love my country not my goverment
I love my country not my goverment
I love my country not my goverment
I love my country not my goverment
I love my country not my goverment
I love my country not my goverment
I love my country not my goverment
I love my country not my goverment
I love my country not my goverment
posted on April 14, 2003 04:40:43 PM new
it's funny, but the more I think about Iraq, the more i think it was a publicity stunt of sorts. We knew that once that they would fold quickly, we didn't really think it would take three weeks. The United States could clearly and quickly with minimal loss of life (as opposed to most war efforts) show that it is a military power of to be reconed with. At the same time, even those against the war would not be able to deny the beneficial side effect of removing the Iraqi regime and the newfound freedom of the people. Additionally, there is the oil issue and big buck contracts for friends of the republican party. There were not a lot of poliical drawbacks to the action.
Now leaders get to beat their drum and giggle as other nations backpedal and bow. Syria has never been a problem for us but now we are going play bad ass with them. Blaming Syria for "freedom fighters" crossing their border into Iraq is like Mexico blaming the United States for allowing criminals to cross into their country. There is a large open border and people are going to cross, unless you are going to put armed guards every 8 feet its not going to be stopped and if we dont do that here, how can we expect other nations to?
Syria does not require visas for any person carrying a passport of an arab nation to be allowed in, are we now going to try to dictate imigration policies to other nations?
Those that walked the fence on a war with Iraq were sold on the humanitarian aspects but Syria is going to be a hard sell. On the upside, if we do invade, it will pretty much insure that one term presidencies become a Bush family tradition.
posted on April 14, 2003 04:48:33 PM new
Aparently the Bushites havent seen the horrors that some of us have seen
I have seen little kids with their arms and legs cut off and people decapetated. I have seen little babys burn to a crisp.
I understand that we freed these people and thats great. I loved watching the statue fall. I was tottally for freeing this country.
But I do know that freeing the Iraquis and WMD is not the main reason why we went to war. This was all planned. They never wanted use diplomacy. Now their making up acusations against Syria becouse that is part of the plan.
By Power and Interest News Report (PINR)
YellowTimes.org Column
((PINR)) – On March 20, the United States began its military campaign against Iraq. The self-stated goal of this action is to remove the current Iraqi government and replace it with a U.S.-friendly regime. Washington has also expressed its desire to occupy Iraq until the Middle Eastern state is stable enough for self-government.
There are a variety of other objectives involved in this military action. Washington would like to remove a regime that in the past has expressed its desire to become a regional power. If Iraq were to become a regional power, it would weaken U.S. control in the region, as Iraq would have an increased ability to take actions opposed to U.S. interests. The Gulf War in 1991 was a conflict meant to neuter the growing power of the Iraqi state.
In removing the Saddam Hussein government, the U.S. will be projecting its power further into the Middle East. Following the ouster of Saddam, Washington will find it necessary to construct military bases in Iraq in order to handle U.S. military activity in the post-war phase. This will follow the model successfully implemented in Afghanistan. With Iraq as a new military launching point, the U.S. will find itself in an incredibly strategic location. Bordering six critical states, Iraq is located at the heart of the Middle East.
Once military bases are active in Iraq, Washington will be able to reshape the Middle East, a term that has been used by administration officials for the last decade. U.S. government officials have expressed their concern with the country of Syria, which is located on Iraq's western border. Damascus has been in a constant state of conflict with Israel, an important U.S. ally in the region and a country with which some officials in the administration strongly identify. Both Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle have been involved in the formation of Israeli foreign policy. Syria has also been accused by the Bush administration of taking actions counter to U.S. interests. By having an amassed military on Syria's eastern border, Washington would be able to increase its leverage in dealing with a recalcitrant Damascus.
In addition to Syria, Washington would be able to apply pressure more easily on Iraq's eastern neighbor, Iran. The Bush administration has labeled Iran as part of an "axis of evil," and expressed concern over Iran's weapons program. In the same way the U.S. will be able to increase their influence over Syria, Washington will also attempt to apply pressure on Iran by establishing military bases within striking distance of Tehran. Moreover, Washington will greatly improve its military logistics by being able to take military action from Iraqi bases, rather than having to negotiate airbase rights with other states in the region.
This projection of power into the Middle East is the primary reason for invading Iraq. But in addition to increasing its influence in the region, Washington will also be securing its control over the Middle Eastern oil supply. By establishing a strong military presence, Washington will attempt to increase the stability of the oil supply in the global market. The Bush administration believes that U.S. influence in the region will reduce the chances of an oil shortage that would greatly damage the U.S. and other oil dependent economies.
Moreover, the oil lobby in the United States has sway with this administration. Many administration officials have prior experience and service in the oil industry, such as National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush himself. Therefore, an invasion of Iraq would inevitably lead to contracts for the American energy industry. Iraq's energy industry is currently in a state of disrepair; U.S. companies will be needed to rehabilitate the industry along with possibly increasing national energy output. American companies have already been bidding on contracts and soon the Bush administration will decide which companies to award with lucrative deals.
The Bush administration has also set a new precedent for U.S. foreign policy. By attacking Iraq without U.N. approval, and devoid of support from traditional allies, the Bush administration has established a new international order where the U.S. will take military action despite opposition from international institutions and multilateral arrangements.
These concerns all play an important role in the Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq and replace the Saddam Hussein regime with a new government more beholden to U.S. interests.
*****************
Erich Marquardt drafted this report.
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an analysis-based publication that seeks to, as objectively as possible, provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. PINR seeks to inform rather than persuade. This report may be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.pinr.com. All comments should be directed to [email protected].
posted on April 14, 2003 06:39:46 PM new
bigcitycollectables
Have yuou ever considered moving to Australia to join forces with Austbounty.
The two of you would make a great couple.
The blind leading the blind
========================
London's Sunday Telegraph reports it has received "top secret documents" that "show that Russia provided Saddam Hussein's regime with wide-ranging assistance in the months leading up to the war, including intelligence on private conversations between Tony Blair and other Western leaders":
Moscow also provided Saddam with lists of assassins available for "hits" in the West and details of arms deals to neighbouring countries. The two countries also signed agreements to share intelligence, help each other to "obtain" visas for agents to go to other countries and to exchange information on the activities of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qa'eda leader.
posted on April 14, 2003 07:18:34 PM new
We are the Champions ....
We are the Champions ....
We are the Champions ....
We are the Champions,
OF THE WORLD.
It will be over quick so don't worry.
AMEN,
I see we have another Chicken Little,
Don't worry the sky's not falling.
Reverend Colin
