The United States went to war with Iraq and now Saddam’s regime and the Ba’ath party have been removed from power. I think we are all happy to hear the good news, especially when thinking of the poor, unfortunate, and disadvantaged citizens of Iraq who will now be given the chance to start anew. Hopefully, all will go well with their new beginning, but that future has yet to come. Until then, keep your fingers crossed.
However, the U.S. administration went into this war with reasons, and good reasons at that. Those reasons being, primarily, to protect the U.S. from a potential Iraqi influenced attack. It was an attempt to pre-empt another terrorist attack. Yet, we have yet to see any of the so-called reasons validated with evidence. Why is no one questioning these issues? Is it still too early to find the answers that were promised us? I don’t see why it should be. The way that Bush and Powell presented the case, we should have found ‘weapons of mass destruction’ by now. Was Iraq ever a threat to the United States??? If so, why are we finding no evidence? If not, why did we spend 90 billion dollars(still rising) as well as kill American and Iraqi human beings?
Now, just to give you a little briefing on my perspective towards this war. I was previously and still am against it. However, once the war began, I laid down my anti-war sentiments in light of the fact that I believed that Bush and the U.S. administration must have known something that I didn’t. Some things are confidential, right? Especially in times of war. So, I said to myself, George Bush, the President of the United States, must be getting some kind of inside information that he can’t tell the rest of the country; else, he would be making a much better case to defend his actions. I have to believe that our country would have valid evidence before taking such drastic measures, right?
Well, now I am questioning again and I want answers! We did not go to war for invalid reasons did we? and I don’t want to hear anybody telling me that we went to war to free the Iraqi people. Sure, that was a minor reason but that was not the reason we went to war or else we would be going to war with many other oppressive governments. So what happened to weapons of mass destruction? What happened to Saddam’s relation to terrorists? What happened to our justification for war?!? Has the U.S. administration made a mistake? If so, I want to hear some one admit the mistake and why is no one asking these questions? This is a very big deal!
It’s a messy situation, certainly. I am certain that Iraq did not pose a threat to the US at any point, but once the neo-liberal privatisation of Iraq commenced the anti-war movement fell back as you described and now we’re all too timid to say anything. If the war had been to free Iraq’s people, then we could at least hope to see (for example) Zimbabwe liberated next. But we aren’t seeing that. Ask yourself; what does Iraq have that Zimbabwe does not? I think the answer is clear.
I still don’t feel that there was any hidden agenda (i.e - oil). It was just the simple fact that we had idiots behind the steering wheel. Although, it is very clear that oil had some influence, that was not a hidden agenda at all. The oil in the region has an extremely important influence on the rest of the world and is not something to be ignored; however, I don’t remember any immediate threat to the oil industry until the war began and we were worried that Saddam would wreak havoc on the Iraqi oil fields (which he, in fact, did).
But why? It’s almost as if everyone is just trying to put all of it behind them. As if, Bush never threw around all those unsupported statements, poorly thought out pro-war arguments, and simply delusional rationale. This guy is the president of the most powerful country in the world, right? Shouldn’t we be questioning his capabilities as such an influential leader? Thousands of people died and billions of dollars were spent at his command and now it seems as if he was severely misguided in his decision. Shouldn’t we also be questioning the president’s ‘checks and balances’(i.e. - congress) to see why they were too timid to appropriately question and take action against a war that “made no sense”!?! Either I’m delusional and am the only one seeing this as such a big issue, or the whole world has lost their minds. On second thought, maybe they have just lost their balls.
JP,
Did you even read the article? or maybe I am just misuderstanding and you meant this as a joke? Oh well. Anyways, I meant to post this archived radio interview with Christopher Dickey(son of James Dickey) who gave a very accurate account of how the future of Iraq would play out nearly 8 months before the war began. Very eerie to listen to. Check it out. Makes you wonder what tabloid the President and his staff had been reading?
I posted the article to highlight hypocritical policy, specifically:
If the same find had turned up in Iraq, we’d be hearing about how it justified the invasion and it would undoubtedly attract headlines all over the globe (even if, as in this case, the weapons programs were long dead and the weapons were “non-virulent”). Yet, in this case, despite the corresponding lack of documentation, it is skimmed over as seemingly “irrelevent” by the Pentagon and the media.
For the record, I agree with everything you have said. The casus belli presented as legal justification for the invasion were the illegal possession of WMDs by the Iraqi state - the desire for “Regime Change”, in legal terms anyway, is not a basis for the invasion and occupation of a sovereign state. Quite simply, if no weapons materialise, the invasion was as illegal as the invasion of Poland in 1939.
Sorry JP! I should know better than to think you were being serious. I just have a hard time reading into sarcasm. Glad to see that you agree; however, if no evidence ever comes about, I wonder if we will ever see any consequences or any admissions of fault?
Perhaps I am reading too far into this, but is the author trying to insinuate that this find may be the cause for SARS?
I’m sure by now you have heard of the Vanity Fair interview with Wolfowitz, where he implies that the removal of our troops from Saudi Arabia was one of our goals (perhaps the main one?) The stationing of our troops in Saudi Arabia has long been a thorn in our side, as it pissed off the fundamentalists (giving them an argument to rally behind) and put our allies, the Saudis, in quite an uncomfortable situation.
I lack any trust whatsoever in my leaders. Every motive behind all legislation is an egoistic act that strives for more power. Nothing is done for the sole reason that it “should be done”, rather, that it will get them reelected.
Contrary to what you may have heard on CNN, this war was not about WMD at all; it was about sand. It is a little reported (I wonder why) fact that George Bush receives millions of dollars from the semiconductor, optics, and drinking vessel industries. If you add up all of the so-called “private” donations from employees, friends of management, and friends-of-friends, you will find that they have in fact contributed over 85% of Bush’s year 2000 campaign funds! Widespread conglomeration and cross-ownership of big media and big glass have made sure that you don’t know this very startling and relevant fact.
Now I ask you, who has the best-quality and most plentiful reserves of silica sand in the world? Saudi Arabia, followed closely by–you guessed it–Iraq. Not only is it the best sand, it is also the cheapest to extract; most of it is just sitting out there in open! Since World War II, the Saudi royal family have agreed to serve as America’s primary suppliers of high-quality sand. Supplies of Saudi silicon have been instrumental in the economic dominance of America’s computer and pornography industries. It would not be too much to say that it is the lifeblood of the American economy. The increasing importance of this commodity made the overthrow of Hussein a necessity. America could not have its economic future completely dependent on the whims of the Saudi royals and the Ba’ath party. Opening up Iraqi sand will allow increased leverage in pricing negotions with the Saudis and other producers. And the decreased prices will stimulate the American economy to a new robust growth spurt.
So now the world is keeping its eyes on the Iraqi oil, but it’s all a smoke-screen–a sandstorm if you will. We obsessively watch for any signs of chicanery and advantage-taking of petroleum resources, but who, I ask you, is watching the sand?
Blauboad, Sand! I haven’t heard this angle before! Those Iraqis really have all the luck! They get the Oil and the Sand! WOW!!! So that being said, using my 60% about Oil means it was 40% about Sand!
America invalid Iraq for Sand! Film at 11
Haha, but really! I don’t think the war was about Sand! Then again Bush might want to play and make some very BIG sandcastles.
blauboad, have you any sources to back up this perspective. Information on this industry. I’m a little incredulous right now. What information did you gather to come this conclusion?
I have a friend in the marines, who recently returned from Iraq. He attempted to smuggle over an Iraqi special forces knife, and of all things, a jar of sand (he was inspired by the character in Saving Private Ryan). Both were confiscated because (to quote the U.S Government)- “this is the wealth of the Iraqi people, not yours”. Why they confiscated the knife, I can understand. But the sand? I was baffled. Thanks Blauboad, now it makes perfect sense .
There are many people who don’t see war as any solution, whether it’s based on false premises or not. If British intelligende had really known about weapons of mass destruction, I suppose these would already have been found.
Nevertheless, the war was fought for other reasons, to make things easier for supporters of the current dominating western system. The maintenance of that lies behind the wish for war. Many believe it’s a good system both morally and otherwise, as if representing the Christian God, and thus find this war legitimate just for that reason. Saddam did not subordinate himself this system, which is why the war broke out, not because of weapons of mass destruction. Earlier, the USA has tried similar things with other different systems. A belief lies behind it all that no other system can be as good. So it was a war in the name of mainstreaming the world. That’s what the protesters against the current form of globalisation are against.
It appears Russian and other companies now have to move out because they weren’t part of the American “crusade”. And the USA does think it has a certain right to things first and foremost, because it is the leader of this heavenly system and as such deserves the most in its neverending missionary activities. The USA simply has right in oh so many ways is the logic behind this war.
From media information it does appear there once was a dreadful ruler in an area in the Middle East named Hussein who now has been ripped of power. The question is now if the world has gotten less dreadful after this war. There is no consensus that the logic behind the war and its “victory” is quite the right thing for this world. The protesters against the current form of globalisation exemplify that. Because one can’t separate this war from the USA and what it stands for. The USA is according to many people (historians etc) too unique to be copied across the globe. And it is exactly the negative form of pressure from the outside world that has led the Middle East into stagnation and isolation. Earlier, there was dynamic change there, but colonialisation and other funny ideas caused a profound change indeed.
So, I’m still against the war… (and future wars of course)
As to the sand angle.
Perhaps it would be more profitable for the glass and archaeology groups if they took the sand out of egypt? I can live with babylon for time being But id like to see the lost room under the sphynx and other stuff lost in the sand. There should be an extra Sphynx out there too.
Also as to the soldier with sand, that gesture is something i had not thought about. “i killed 22 guys for my goverment and all i got was this sand” But basically i too would want to bring home a bit of the land that many died for.
Good show, blauboad, you had all of us fooled. I think it’s time for my two cents in this discussion.
Cent 1- George Bush has no right to live after what he’s done to the innocent people of Iraq.
Cent 2- The war was based on what I see as the mentality of the red-neck, dogmatic followers of anything with 50 stars on it (making up about 90% of America at this time) which is “If you get in our way, we can and will kill you.” Americans see no need to consider the suggestions as well as demands from the rest of the world because, in short, we have more money and money means power. And God forbid we share any of our good fortune with anyone, in fact, we even feel the need to steal from other people. So oil, land (it’s the Mideast, so for strategic purposes), or whatever else we want, we will kill people for it because we can and they are different, and we hate anything that isn’t rich and white.
I think you are getting a bit carried away in your commentary. The U.S. may have made a mistake and a big one at that but it was all in good intentions; however, that does not make the situation any less serious.
I should probably note that my entire post was fiction as well. I’m not so sure everyone is following the sarcasm that is, or perhaps I should say was, permeating throughout parts of this thread.
I should know better than to think you were being serious. I just have a hard time reading into sarcasm. Glad to see that you agree; however, if no evidence ever comes about, I wonder if we will ever see any consequences or any admissions of fault?
I haven’t heard this angle before! Those Iraqis really have all the luck! They get the Oil and the Sand! WOW!!! So that being said, using my 60% about Oil means it was 40% about Sand! 