©2002-2009 Roedy Green, Canadian Mind Products
Cui prodest scelus, is fecit.”
“The one who derives advantage from the crime is the one most likely to have committed it.
~ Lucius Annaeus Seneca (born: 4 BC died: 65 AD at age: 68)
“If Iraq produced pickles and lettuce, do you think they would have been invaded? Of course not.
~ Noam Chomsky (born: 1928-12-07 age: 80) 1927-12-07— On the Iraq Election. Radio Netherlands. 2005-12-18
There are two classes of motives, the altruistic motives used to sell the war to the public and the ones that serve the self interest of George Bush 43.
Uninformed Americans imagine the war continues in order to battle the residual pro-Saddam forces who want to reinstall him. This is nonsense. The Iraqis hate Saddam just as they hate the Americans. Saddam was originally trained and installed by the CIA. Bush hired Saddam’s old death squads, the Mukhabarat to terrorise the Iraqis into submission. Bush has been pushing Alawi for president. Alawi is an ex-Baathist, i.e. one of Saddam’s cronies, who has been promoting other Saddam cronies. Bush also promotes Chalabi a convicted embezzler. Though Saddam himself is out of the picture, Bush would rather deal with secular Baathists than Muslim Shiites. If the war were about suppressing the pro-Saddam forces, Bush has a very strange way to go about it.
Indeed the United States was receiving increasingly desperate peace offers from Saddam Hussein’s regime by multiple private routes, include approaches to Richard Perle and to Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA’s former head of counter-terrorism, proposing to let several thousand U.S. troops and/or FBI agents into the country to search for the alleged WMD, to grant hthe United States rights over Iraqi oil, and even to hold internationally monitored elections within two years. But he CIA instructed Perle to reply, “Tell them we will see them in Bagdhad.”, and Cannistraro got a similar response: “There were serious attempts to cut a deal, but they were all turned down by the president and the vice-president.According to CNN and Associated Press, Saddam offered to leave Iraq peacefully. Bush could have had his regime change without bloodshed, but he chose war instead. Bush did not want simply to remove Saddam, we wanted to occupy Iraq.
~ Gwynne Dyer (born: 1943-03-17 age: 66), Future Tense page 185
A secret blueprint for US global domination reveals that George W. Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure ‘regime change’ even before he took power in January 2001. The plan shows Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power.
~ Neil Mackay Herald Scotland 2002-09-15
Bush has no interest in regime change, just simulating it. There are dozens of brutal dictators even worse that Saddam. But Saddam was the only one sitting on $20 trillion in oil.
The Defense Department claims 12 nations with nuclear weapons programs, 13 with biological weapons, 16 with chemical weapons, and 28 with ballistic missiles as existing and emerging threats to the United States. But only one of those countries sits atop the second largest oil reserves in the world. [Iraq]
~ Charles Peña , Senior Defense Policy Fellow of the Cato Institute, for The Chicago Tribune
Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe was a much nastier dictator than Saddam, but he was not sitting on any oil.
And what has Saddam Hussein got to do with the ongoing genocide in Iraq? Nothing! Saddam was captured long ago on 2003-12-13 (5 years and 10 months ago). Even considering violence prior to 2003-12-13, there is no way on earth that America’s killing or torturing kids contributed anything to Saddam’s capture. Again the majority of Americans failed to notice this motive was bogus. America wants to deceive itself, to pretend it butchered children for some desperate noble motive. But that is a lie. They butchered kids because they wanted to “shock and awe” the world with their brutality.
At the Azores summit, where Bush-Blair issued their ultimatum to the UN, they made it clear that they would invade even if Saddam and his gang left the country. So “regime change” cannot be sufficient motive either. Bush refused Saddam’s surrender. Bush could have got the elections, all of Iraq’s oil, an invasion force all without firing a shot had he so wanted. Bush chose Shock & Awe, atrocities, torture and child rape instead.
Republicans claim Bush compassionately wanted to liberate the Iraqis from the evil Saddam Hussein. US soldiers planted the American flag on Iraqi soil signifying conquering, not liberation. Bush bombed the water treatment plant in Basra in order to kill children and civilians. This is hardly the work of a compassionate man. His minions on the net and his soldiers are trained to scream “Kill all the ragheads”, “Kill all the sand niggers”, “Kill all the sand maggots”, “Kill all the sand monkeys” and “Kill all the Muslims”. Americans claimed to be liberating Iraq but they surely don’t sound as if they valued the lives of Iraqis in the least. The USA has killed 100,000 civilians mostly kids, not even counting Fallujah. This shows a callous disregard for Iraqis. Thus it is preposterous that Americans are giving a $300 billion gift to people they hate. “Liberation” thus fails to pass the laugh test. Further, killing all those civilians was totally unnecessary to take control of the country. It was motivated by a similar racist hated to that Hitler had for the Jews.
We are only killing arabs. Not like they are human. After all, I did kill 19 sand niggers in the first Gulf War and loved shooting each one.
~ Mark Johnson , goaliestar_2002@hotmail.com, 2008-02-18.
The US has not “liberated” any country since the end of WW II.
Since the Second World War, the US has bombed China, Korea, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Guatemala (again), Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Guatemala (third time lucky), Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia - in that order - and in not a single case did the bombing produce a democratic government as a direct result.
~ Terry Jones (born: 1942-02-01 age: 67)
So why should anyone trust the USA to start now?
The bill for the Iraq war as of 2008-03 is estimated at $3 trillion, about per American family. Bush borrowed the money and put the charges on the nation’s credit card so that generations, for perhaps centuries to come, will be stuck paying it off, and also paying off the compound interest which will dwarf the original amount. The USA is the stingiest western country in terms of foreign aid, so there absolutely no way on earth she would spend those kind of bucks for an altruistic venture. Americans balk at spending even mere millions on helping stop the spread of AIDS in Africa. It is preposterous to claim Americans would willingly spend 4000 times as much to help hated, brown-skinned, Islamic Arabs. (Afghans are not Arabs. However, Americans lump everyone in the middle east into the same category. With a straight face, pro-war Americans will tell you that the Iraq war is revenge for 9/11, even though no Iraqis were involved. The alleged hijackers were Saudi. What these Americans are doing is as foolish as blaming the USA for the crimes of France, because they are both nominally Christian nations. Americans are proud of their ignorance of geography.)
Even Barak Obama said he would have troops out by 2010 at the earliest. McCain said Americans would have a military presence in Iraq for another 100 years. This long term occupation is more in line with pumping oil than regime change or other motives. On 2009-06-24the truth finally came out. All off Iraq’s oil fields are to be sold off to private foreign-owned enterprise. The corpse is ripe. It is time for the vultures to feed.
“While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
~ PNAC (born: 1997 age: 12) (Project for the New American Century) the neocon website 2000-09, Rebuilding American Defenses
The Iraq war is largely about oil.Saddam and WMDs had bugger all to do with the Iraq war. The neocons even admit it.
~ Alan Greenspan (born: 1926-03-06 age: 83) former Reserve Board chairman, 2007-09-17
No matter what political reasons are given for war, the underlying reason is always economic.
~ A. J. P. Taylor (born: 1906-03-25 died: 1990-09-07 at age: 84), British historian
Bush wanted to appoint 18 regional committees to write Iraq’s new constitution. Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani demanded elections to choose the people to write the new constitution. Bush eventually capitulated, and held elections of a strange sort. It is the height of hypocrisy for Bush to take credit for the elections he tried to squash.
Further, despite the media hoopla, Bush did not bring anything remotely resembling democracy to Iraq with his elections. The candidates were secret. The party platforms were secret. There was no international monitoring. Bush was pushing Iyad Alawi, a.k.a. Saddam Lite, a former Baathist like Saddam, and a former member of Saddam’s secret police. Even Mikhail Gorbachev called the election “fake.” The election is of the same ilk as the 1967 election in Vietnam that “elected” the corrupt puppet dictator Nguyen Van Thieu. Bush has stated he has no plans to leave Iraq for at least two years, no matter who wins the election or what the Iraqis request. Bush refers to this slave colony status as “democracy”.
Bush stalled the elections as long as possible. The Iraqis themselves finally forced the elections with non-violent mass protests.
The elections of 2005-12 can’t be called democratic because members of the resistance could not run. Only those approved by the US Military occupation could run. So any candidate who seriously opposed the American occupation was excluded. Only collaborators, often called traitors to their country, were permitted to run. What sort of choice is that? If the US were serious about fair elections, they would have invited an international team to monitor the elections, as is customary in such situations.
The bogosity of this motive will become apparent as the USA continues the occupation after the elections.
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
~ George Orwell (born: 1903-06-25 died: 1950-01-21 at age: 46)
Since the Second World War, the US has bombed China, Korea, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Guatemala (again), Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Guatemala (third time lucky), Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia - in that order - and in not a single case did the bombing produce a democratic government as a direct result.
~ Terry Jones (born: 1942-02-01 age: 67)
Rumsfeld’s original plan for the overthrow of Saddam, did not call for democracy, but simply installing Chalabi as the new leader. The elections were not an American idea. Bush wanted to appoint the Iraqi councils. Ayatollah Sistani successfully twisted Bush’s arm to get the elections, flawed as they were. This means democracy could not have been a motive for the war, even though many of the military dupes fighting in Iraq imagine it is. The USA donates about $8 billion a year in foreign aid. It is absurd that the USA would spend $300 billion on an altruistic enterprise, about 40 times larger than anything ever attempted before. There had to be something in it for the USA to justify such a huge expense.
The elections were bizarre. The candidates were secret and the party platforms were secret. There was no UN monitoring. Bush managed to install his convicted embezzler and creator of false intelligence, Chalabi as the crucial oil minister. Months after the election Bush’s hand picked puppet dictator, Alawi, still holds power. He is a old Baathist Saddam crony. Little has changed in terms of democracy.
According to evangelist, Tony Campolo, Christians living in Iraq now have less religious freedom than they had under Saddam. Most had to flee the country. The American puppet dictatorship enforces shari’ia, Islamic religious law, and takes great delight in persecuting Christians. As he put it, "Its not a democracy unless it is safe to belong to a minority.” He finds it preposterous that America would sacrifice so much in money and lives to provide a level of freedom even worse than under Saddam.
Democracy is about compromise, not slaughtering those who disagree with you. Therefore you can’t teach democracy to people by killing them.
I ain’t got nothin’ against them Viet Cong. No Cong ever called me Nigger.
~ Muhammad Ali (born: 1942-01-17 age: 67)
Bush claimed self defense. Saddam had nukes and he had to be disarmed. Bush was
caught three times perjuring the USA an the UN presenting phony evidence that
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Inspectors found nothing after 300+
inspections. Saddam had not used nukes even after the US attacked, so it seemed
highly unlikely he had any. He could conceivably have a little poison gas left
that he bought on credit with Rumsfeld’s and Cheney’s blessing from
a Florida company prior to Gulf War I. People forget Saddam was installed by the
CIA and was America’s pit bull to fight Iran. Relations with Saddam were
friendly back then, even though he was a brutal dictator torturing his people.
Recall this famous photo 
taken in 1983-12-23 when Rumsfeld was sent to Iraq as
a special envoy of Ronald Reagan. Inspectors destroyed 95%
of Iraq’s remaining weapons at the end of Gulf War I. Iraq was never able
to kill even a single American in 12 years of sanction
bombings involving over 40,000 sorties. If Iraq
had such weapons, why didn’t they use them? They don’t even use them
when attacked, so surely they would not use them had they been left alone.
“We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th attacks.
~ George W. Bush (born: 1946-07-06 age: 63), 2003-09-17, audio.
In other words, the Iraq war had bugger all to do with fighting terrorism.
The 9/11 Commission found that there was “no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11” other than the limited support provided by the Taliban when bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan.
In other words the Iraq war had bugger all to do with combatting terrorism.
If a woman clawed the eyes out of a man attempting to rape her, then, in revenge, the rapist murdered her, Bush, as the rapist’s lawyer would plead “self defence”.
“But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
~ Ari Fleischer (born: 1960-10-13 age: 49), Press Secretary Press Briefing, 2003-04-10
If WMDs were what the war was about, the war should have ended as soon as it became clear there were no WMDs. It raged on even more fiercely indicating there was something else fueling it.
After the occupation, no WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) of any kind were found. Bush continued to insist he was “certain” the WMDs were there, then gradually waffled, to say that Iraq was merely planning to acquire them, which still justified the invasion. Wolfowitz even confessed this motive was just window-dressing.
“For reason that have a lot to do with US Government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction.
~ Paul Wolfowitz (born: 1943-12-22 age: 65) Vanity Fair, 2003-06
Bush was caught falsifying evidence three times. Even after the war started, and no WMDs were used or found, this did not dampen the enthusiasm for this deception one iota. America wants to deceive itself. After stating solemnly that this is the “single question”, Bush-Powell went on the next day to announce that it wasn’t the goal at all: even if there isn’t a pocket knife anywhere in Iraq, the US will invade anyway, because it was committed to “regime change.”
Bridges are burning all around us; bridges to responses that might have mitigated the already brutal (and just beginning) ravages of Peak Oil; bridges to reduce the likelihood of war and famine; bridges to avoid our selectively chosen suicide; bridges to change at least a part of energy infrastructure and consumption; bridges to becoming something better than we are or have been; bridges to nonviolence. Those bridges are effectively gone.
~ Mike Ruppert
I did not think so at first. But the US is incredibly dependent on oil, They wanted to secure oil in case competition on the world market becomes too hard.
~ Dr. Hans Blix (born: 1928-06-28 age: 81), head UN Weapons Inspector 2005-04-07
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr, pointed out out that top Bush administration figures, including the President and the Vice President previously worked in the field of oil production. Halliburton, the company that pays Cheney residuals, is the leading oil well service firm. Oil figures doubtless understand that the expansion of economies in developing nations, especially China and India, will cause a big increase in the demand for oil. It is therefore logical for the US to want to control major supplies of oil. Iraq is one of the leading suppliers of oil. It is therefore logical that the US would consider invading Iraq — to grab control of its oil.
Control means more than just stealing for American use, it means controlling the amount of oil reaching the market to manipulate world crude oil prices for the benefit of he oil company near monopolies. As Americans discovered in 2005, the oil companies could make spectacular products in times of artificial shortages.
The US had, it appeared, manufactured new enemies to replace the Soviet Union. And it was using these new enemies to justify the invasion and occupation of nations in the Middle East and Central Asia and the building of large permanent military bases in those regions.
~ Richard Heinberg (born: 1950-10-21 age: 59) The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies page 91.
Iraq is sitting on $20 trillion in oil reserves. Bush wants to control them, guarantee low or high oil prices as politically expedient, and cut out the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese who were buying the oil prior to the war. Bush wants not only to keep all the Iraqi oil for himself, he wants to cut off all potential rivals from all oil supplies.
The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overrun the established political or economic order. We must maintain the mechanisms for deterring competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.
~ Neocon Manifesto (born: 1997 age: 12) written by Donald Wolfowitz, officially known as Pentagon Document Defense Planning Guidance on Post-Cold-War strategy 1992-02-18, reported in the Washington Post.
There are five big advantages that accrue to the USA and to Exxon and friends in gaining control of Iraq’s oil.
Bush had plans in place even before 9/11 to invade Iraq and divvy up the oil. Bush telegraphed Iraq and divvy up the oil. Bush telegraphed his motive with Operation Iraqi Liberation or OIL (name changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIF, without explanation). The BBC and Greg Palast exposed this in a documentary. You can watch it online with Real Audio, or read a transcript of the Greg Palast interview on NPR’s Democracy Now. The economic victims of the war are France, Germany, Russia and China who will have their oil supply stolen by the USA. $20 trillion is an astounding amount of money, $70,000 for every man woman and child in the USA, though of course only a handful of billionaire oil investors will get their hands on it. Bush has already given Halliburton, Cheney’s company, the go ahead to rebuild Iraq’s oil equipment. He did this without going to public tender. Iraq will be paying through the nose to Cheney to repair the damage that Bush did. Talk about adding insult to injury. The Iraq war has been in the works since 1996. Cheney even tried to sell the idea to Clinton in a letter dated 1998-01-26. Various key players even wrote books about their imperialist plans long before Bush took office.
The Defense Department claims 12 nations with nuclear weapons programs, 13 with biological weapons, 16 with chemical weapons, and 28 with ballistic missiles as existing and emerging threats to the United States. But only one of those countries sits atop the second largest oil reserves in the world. [Iraq]
~ Charles Peña , Senior Defense Policy Fellow of the Cato Institute, for The Chicago Tribune
Cheney’s company, Halliburton, got the contract without tender to rebuild Iraq. Conflict of interest? What does that mean? The heist will net America $20 trillion in oil deposits, enough to repay the national debt three times over. Yet the majority of Americans piously pretend it is not about the oil. What hypocrites! They are the beneficiaries of the crime, $70,000 each approximately. No wonder the all play innocent OJ Simpson and smilingly expect he rest of the world to play along just because they are so darn lovable. Americans know perfectly well this motive is the true one, however, accepting it would be very painful. The mirror would show them to be a nation of muggers and child abusers. Even on the anniversary of the Iraq war, the majority of Americans, even informed Democrats, continued to support the war effort, even after the WMD and democracy excuses were proven bogus. The entire nation will forever bear a shame similar to the Germans who failed to oppose the Nazis.
When the troops arrived in Iraq the 1st thing they secured were the oil wells and the Oil Ministry Building in Baghdad while hospitals were being looted of medicine to treat the incoming civilian casualties and the priceless museum was looted. What was the priority, liberation or oil?
The war is not just about acquiring oil, it is about controlling the access of others to it. Bush wants all of it for America. Bush imagines he can militarily dominate the world if he can control the oil access of rival countries such as China, India, Russia, EU, Brazil etc. As a result of the war, France, Germany and Russia lost their access to Iraq’s oil. Previously they had half between them and the USA had the other half. The war is an interim term strategy since the end of oil will be on us by 2030. Further, global warming means we have to stop burning oil now.
The following table goes a long way to explaining US foreign policy. America concentrates nearly all its efforts controlling countries that have big oil reserves.
| Oil Reserves as of 2001 | ||
|---|---|---|
| rank | Country | Reserves
in billions of barrels |
| 1. | Saudi Arabia | 261.7 |
| 2. | Iraq | 112.5 |
| 3. | United Arab Emirates | 97.8 |
| 4. | Kuwait | 96.5 |
| 5. | Iran | 89.7 |
| 6. | Venezuela | 76.9 |
| 7. | Russia | 48.6 |
| 8. | Libya | 29.5 |
| 9. | Mexico | 28.3 |
| 10. | China | 24.0 |
| 11. | USA | 21.9 |
You might wonder why the USA took an interest in Somalia, which has no oil. If you cherk a map you will see it contols the entrance to the long thin Red Sea through which oil is shipped.
Consider that Bush’s cabinet is loaded with Zionists, people with a divided loyalty between the USA and Israel. They may be thinking of Iraq’s oil as a gift to Israel with a pipeline to Haifa. This would ensure Israel’s prosperity even if America’s generous foreign aid were to dry up.
Leonid Shebarshin, ex-chief of the Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service said that on the pretext of fighting international terrorism, the United States is trying to establish control over the world’s richest oil reserves. Further it is using the anti-terrorist cause as a cover to occupy Afghanistan, Iraq and will soon move to impose their “democratic order” on the Greater Middle East. He says the U.S. has usurped the right to attack any part of the globe on the pretext of fighting the terrorist threat.
You might wonder why anyone would start an expensive war to steal oil when they could buy it much more cheaply. Because of this, historian Gwynne Dyer suspects oil is not the primary motivation for the Iraq war. Further, surely the neocons realised all their opponents needed was a $1 stick of dynamite and a camel to blow up a pipeline that took two weeks and millions of dollars to repair. Not a drop of oil has made it through the northern pipeline since the war started, yet ironically Iraq was selling the USA half its oil right up to the eve of the invasion. There are two plausible reasons for going ahead anyway with blood for oil:
| Value of Iraq’s Oil Reserves | |
|---|---|
| Price of Oil
per barrel in US dollars |
Value of Iraq’s oil
in US dollars |
| $50 | $5.6 trillion |
| $100 | $11.2 trillion |
| $200 | $22.5 trillion |
| $500 | $56.2 trillion |
| $1000 | $112.5 trillion |
“There’s a lot of money to pay for this [the Iraq war] that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people, and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.“
~ Paul Wolfowitz (born: 1943-12-22 age: 65) Deputy Defense Secretary, House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 2003-03-27
Nobody knows just how high the price of oil will go as it runs out. Oil is sold at auction. The price will rise to the point the poorer bidders drop out of the bidding war and go without oil, enough to balance supply and demand.
Even at $50 a barrel, the oil booty would be a bargain at only $300 billion spent so far to get it. The catch is of course, no matter how much he spends, Bush will never get the oil, since the Iraqi resistance (or anyone with a vested interest in higher oil prices) can blow up the pipelines faster than he can repair them. Bush was over confident in his ability to terrify the Iraqis into leaving the pipelines alone.
The connection is 100%. It is absolutely overwhelming.Consider that the war is run by Republicans, the people who happily put widows and orphans out on the street or allow them to freeze to death in their homes in order to finance a tax holiday for themselves. With Republicans, it is always about money. They always do what makes them the most money. They don’t care if it is immoral or illegal, the bottom line is God. Altruism is not even in their dictionary. To the Republican mind, investing $300 billion of someone else’s money to steal $13.5 trillion of raghead assets is the sweetest of all possible deals. It does not give them the slightest pause that tens of thousands of people will die hideous deaths in the process, so long as it is not them. They just want to make sure they profit off the war suffering too.
~ Michael Meacher (born: 1939-11-04 age: 70), UK environment minister, 2005-05-20, when asked whether the war in Iraq was about oil.
The USA is looking for ways to hang onto its world hegemony. Like the USA, the EU, China and India all depend on imported oil from the middle east. If the USA can gain military control of the middle east (i.e. the oil fields of Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia) they could, if they wanted, at any time cut the flow of oil to one or more of its rivals. The USA does not actually have to do this, just hold the implied threat, as blackmail to get what it wants. By controlling the Straits of Hormuz, which Iran currently controls, the USA could block the shipping of a huge proportion of the world’s oil. This is why Iran attracts double interest, for its oil, and for its strategic position.
 |
recommend book⇒Blue Gold: The Fight to Stop the Corporate Theft of the World’s Water | ||
| paperback | hardcover | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ISBN13: | 978-1-56584-813-9 | 978-1-56584-731-6 | |
| publisher: | New Press | ||
| published: | 2003-04 | ||
| by: | Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke | ||
I went to a lecture by Maude Barlow the chair of the Council of Canadians about water, which she calls “blue gold”. A few things from her lecture stuck in my mind.
| |||
Several top Bush administration figures previously advised Israeli candidate Netanyahu in his campaign to be president of that country. They wrote a paper advising him to assert that Israel should reject the “land for peace” approach and instead should expand Israeli territory, creating a “clean break” from the past policies. In that paper they wrote that Israel should expand into Syria, but that to do that it would first be desirable to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. They said “the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad”.
Thus many top Bush officials believed that it was in the best interest of Israel that Saddam be overthrown. It is logically possible that these people, working in Israel before, value the welfare of Israel and wanted the US to invade Iraq not to defend the US — but to bolster the welfare of Israel.
As another favour to Israel, America is building a pipeline from Iraq to Israel. Israel then gets Iraq’s oil and American blood and money pays for it.
Our enemies are out there. If they see we are capable of this, they will know we are capable of anything.
~ Reese Wilkerson Malcolm In The Middle’s stupid older brother, played by Justin Berfield.
Bush picked on Iraq, an unarmed, tiny country to demonstrate his military might. He let fly with every dirty trick in the book, violating all the Geneva conventions, committing atrocities even Hitler passed on as too brutal, and torture. He killed mostly children. Bush even went so far as to order anal rapes on young Iraq boys to terrify the world with American brutality. Why? To establish dominance and compliance among all the other nations of the world. Historian Gwynne Dyer believes this to be the primary motive and argues his case in Future: Tense, The Coming World Order.
When a new crime boss takes over, he may have some hapless victim publicly and brutally beaten. This establishes his authority. The PNAC (Project for the New American Century) plan is for America to dominate the world through military intimidation. Iraq was a good choice for show intimidation because she was utterly defenseless, having been disarmed by the UN. Rebuilding American Defenses
“We will emerge victorious against the world’s greatest military [Iraq].
~ George W. Bush (born: 1946-07-06 age: 63)
Bush lied to the American people claiming that Iraq had a military superior even to America’s so that his deed would look more powerful. The actuality was that, before the Iraq war, Iraq ranked #35 not #1 as a military power, and America spent 283 times as much each year on the military as Iraq.
Never in human history have such genocide and cruelty been witnessed. Such a genocide was never seen in the time of the pharaohs nor of Hitler nor of Mussolini
~ Mehmet Elkatmi , head of Turkish parliament’s human rights commission on Bush’s genocide in the Iraq war. 2004-11-28, originally reported in the Sunday Times of Australia, since withdrawn.
What does Elkatmi mean? He clearly does not mean Bush has already killed 6 million people as Hitler did. He is referring to the cruelty. Even Hitler refused to use poison gas. Hitler and Stalin only used a handful of tortures. Bush has concocted over 70. Bush is a torture and atrocity gourmet. Further, Bush’s systematic extinction of the Iraqi people apparently has no motive. It is violence for the sake of violence.
Bush is a sadist who enjoys homosexual S&M kink. He has turned all of Iraq into his private dungeon for his fiendish atrocities and tortures including anal rape of children. According to Seymour Hersh, Bush not only knew about all this atrocity, he ordered it. In other all this horror is the result of his perverted, twisted imagination. Watch Hersh explain some of what Bush has been doing in Iraq in this video.
 |
recommend book⇒Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib | |||
| paperback | hardcover | kindle | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISBN13: | 978-0-06-095537-3 | 978-0-06-019591-5 | B000FC290C | |
| publisher: | HarperCollins | |||
| published: | 2004-09-13 | |||
| by: | Seymour M. Hersh | |||
| Bush was told via Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld in 2002 and 2003 about the sexual torture going on in Abu Ghraib prison, but he refused to do anything to stop it. This book explains why Bush himself is responsible, not some underlings. Read his summary article in the New Yorker. This book only briefly covers the Bush porn videos of little Iraqi boys screaming as they were anally raped. The book also covers the failure of intelligence prior to 9/11. You get a feel for what Perle, Rumsfeld, Bolton and the other neocons are like as people. Seymour Hersh is the Pulitzer prize winner who broke the Mai Lai massacre atrocity story in the Viet Nam era. He broke the CIA dirty tricks scandal. He broke the Richard Perle Trireme conflict of interest story. He broke Bush’s plans to attack Iraq. He writes for the New Yorker. Surprisingly, Hersh is a gung ho, pro-military guy, who gets his information talking military people. | ||||
Bush has videos made of the rapes and tortures for his own depraved masturbatory pleasure.
“And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
~Revelation 18:2: Bush’s bible prophesy manifested.
“The future? We’ll all be dead!
~ George W. Bush (born: 1946-07-06 age: 63) to Bob Woodward in an interview.
Another reason for the invasion was a need to move US troops from Saudi Arabia.
~ Dr. Hans Blix (born: 1928-06-28 age: 81), head UN Weapons Inspector 2005-04-07
PNAC says that the reason for the war is to create military bases in Iraq for use in further wars in the middle east.
“While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.Prior to the war, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in an interview said that Saudi Arabia was evicting US forces from Saudi Arabia, and that the need to find another location for them in the middle east justified an invasion of Iraq.
~ PNAC (born: 1997 age: 12) (Project for the New American Century) the neocon website 2000-09, Rebuilding American Defenses
He also argued that different parts of the US government supported one reason for invasion or another, and that weapons of mass destruction was chosen because it was the one reason which could draw a consensus. Thus it might be that the real reason for invasion was something else, but that WMD were used as a “front” reason to get consensus among the bureaucracies.
In 2005-05 every single senator voted to continue the Iraq war, even the supposedly anti-war senators. A possible explanation for this astounding unanimity is the vindictive Zionist lobby threatening to destroy any senator who stepped out of line.
Invading Iraq was not in the interests of the United States. It was in the interests of Iran and al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Saddam for his invasion of the country in 1980. For al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans.Bush’s ratings in the polls shot way up. War always helps boost an unpopular or incompetent president’s popularity. It takes the spotlight off his scandals and incompetence with the economy. Hardly anyone notices the dollar’s free fall, the record deficits, the record debt, the record trade deficits, the negative job growth, the deliberate outsourcing etc. In 2006 he tried the same trick sabre rattling at Iran, but it just sent his polls plummetting to 33%, because people did not want another pointless war.
~ William Odom (born: 1932-06-23 died: 2008-05-30 at age: 75), General 2006-05-04
“He [Saddam] tried to kill my dad.Funny, I could have sworn it was Bush Sr. dropping bombs on Saddam not the other way around.
~ George W. Bush (born: 1946-07-06 age: 63) 2002-09-27, reported by CNN
“That SOB [Saddam] tried to kill my dad.
~ George W. Bush (born: 1946-07-06 age: 63) reported 2003-03-29 by New York Daily News
This gives a personal motive for the war. It makes not much sense to sacrifice 1400 men to neutralise on an empty threat. Further the threat was old, and clearly had no teeth. This motive is related to Bush 43’s desire to play wild west cowboy hero.
bin Laden was a Saudi Wahabi fundamentalist Muslim. Saddam was an Iraqi secular ruler. Proposing a conspiracy between these two makes about as much sense as a conspiracy involving the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland. They hate each other intensely. On at least two occasions bin Laden’s organisation tried to assassinate Saddam. There is no evidence the two ever were in cahoots. Bush even admitted that.
“We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th attacks.
~ George W. Bush (born: 1946-07-06 age: 63), 2003-09-17, audio.
So killing Iraqi citizens in revenge for 9/11 makes about as much such as kicking the dog because the cat peed on the sofa. Racists don’t care; any excuse to kill brown skinned people will do. Bush has all but abandoned his search for bin Laden.
“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.
~ George W. Bush (born: 1946-07-06 age: 63) 2001-09-13
“I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.
~ George W. Bush (born: 1946-07-06 age: 63) 2002-03-13
Bush hired a consultant to concoct tortures that would be particularly humiliating to Muslims.
Terrorism : killing civilians with the intent of changing their political affiliation.Terrorists are people who kill civilians. Americans have killed the most civilians in Iraq, so properly speaking the term “terrorist” applies much more accurately to Americans than Iraqis. Even in the early stages of the war the American had killed over 100,000 civilians dwarfing the suicide bombings of Sunni against Shi’ia and Shi’ia against Sunni. This improper tarring of the Iraqi resistance with the term “terrorist” fools the population into thinking Iraq is full of people who at any moment will be flying planes into US office towers. It is nonsense. The average Iraqi earns only a month. They have not killed a single American civilian other than mercenaries in Iraq aiding the invasion.
~ Caleb Carr (born: 1955-08-02 age: 54), military historian
“As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests.
~ Gore Vidal (born: 1925-10-03 age: 84)
“Current estimates suggest the cost of the war in Iraq could exceed $700 billion.
~ Representative Jan Schakowsky (born: 1944-05-22 age: 65) (D-IL),As of 2008-08 is it about $3000 billion and climbing. It is a debt so large it can never be paid off. Future generations will pay interest in perpetuity.
“The cost of the Iraq war will be a maximum of 1-2% of GNP (about $100-$200 billion).
~ Lawrence Lindsay (born: 1954-07-18 age: 55) White House economic advisor, 2002-09. MD Director Mitch Daniels subsequently discounted this estimate as “very, very high” and stated that the costs would be $50-$60 billion.
“Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that’s something under $50 billion for the cost.
~ Donald Rumsfeld (born: 1932-07-09 age: 77), secretary of War, 2003-01.
“When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year… $10, $15, even $18 billion… this is not a broke country.
~ Richard Armitage (born: 1945-04-26 age: 64) Deputy Secretary of State, 2003-03.
As of 2008-08 is it about $3000 billion and climbing. It is a debt so large it can never be paid off. Future generations will pay interest in perpetuity.
“I sincerely believe… that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
~ Thomas Jefferson (born: 1743-04-13 died: 1826-07-04 at age: 83) to John Taylor 1816.
These low-ball estimates suggest to me the hawks were lying in order to sell their war.
The essential problem is that the $3 trillion spent on the Iraq war went into pockets that have a vested interest in continuing that flow. The beneficiaries of war, (e.g. Bechtel, Blackwater, Halliburton…) do everything in their power to try to convince people that killing kids is either:
 |
You can get the freshest copy of this page from: | or possibly from your local J: drive (Java virtual drive/mindprod.com website mirror) |
| http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqmotives.html | J:\mindprod\politics\iraqmotives.html | |
 |  Please email your feedback for publication, errors, omissions, typos, formatting errors, ambiguities, unclear wording, broken/redirected link reports, suggestions to improve this page or comments to
Roedy Green :
 | |
| Canadian Mind Products | ||
| mindprod.com IP:[65.110.21.43] | ||
| view Blog | Your face IP:[38.107.191.107] | |
| Feedback | You are visitor number 59,358. | |
