A financier friend that works for one of the largest investment firms in our country told me. There is not enough of anything in that country to justify going in there and spending trillions of dollars in this lost cause.
Not enough Oil, dates or any things, except...
So what is it to be?
Iraq is to be a staging ground for a major offensive against Iran and the other Islamic states, but not just that alone! We have the sleeping giant and the Bear, China and Russia. The US doesn't have a military base in the region.
It a Staging Ground Alright!
AIIZ
What is the truth about the Iraq war?
-
Apollonaris Zeus
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am
I too work for one of the largest financial institutions in-the country, I would disagree with your friends analysis! As long as we are dependent on foreign oil it would pay dividends to control Iraq. That being said I think it would be naive not to see the strategic value in the geography of Iraq. I hate our involvement in Iraq but I hate even more that George Bush missed an opportunity to succeed from the United nations Pryor to going in to Iraq & failed to define our needed goal in order to declare victory and exit this war gracefully! In my opinion the likely hood of cost recovery from raw materials is still viable, yet not likely under this administrations policies.
Objects behind you may appeare larger than reality!
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
Actually, the real truth is that we invaded Iraq for Disney. Once things settle down, they are going to build The Mother Of All Theme Parks and boy, wait till you see the firework show!
The entire Euphrates river will be diverted to create a paradise in the desert consisting of thousands of square miles of condominiums, hotels, resorts and golf courses.
Visitors will begin their experiance at the Baghdad airport which will be transformed into a magic castle. Legions of dwarfs will be hired to attend to your every need. As you enter the darkened customs area lit by UV "blacklight", you will notice a gentle sprinkling of fluorescent "pixy dust" drifting from above. Once through customs, visitors will enter a train that is in reality the world's longest theme park ride where you will be wisked to your hotel (some 200 miles away) while being treated to an array of scenes like no other on earth. Projected scenes inside the underground tube will give passengers a surrealistic experiance as they look through the transparent walls of the cars. They will be waited on by Snow White and other Disney characters as they ride in airconditioned comfort.
Upon arrival to the main Disney station, they can transfer to the final destination of their stay. Never Never land is currently planned to sprawl over a million acres of what is now currently desert but will be transformed into a complete paradise with the most appealing flowers and live fruiting trees where a meal can be picked right off the tree. All fees are included in your admission so there is no need to carry cash. Children may pluck cotton candy from bushes and dip freshly picked strawberries from fields seeming to stretch forever into a chocolate fountain in the town square.
Any more questions?
The entire Euphrates river will be diverted to create a paradise in the desert consisting of thousands of square miles of condominiums, hotels, resorts and golf courses.
Visitors will begin their experiance at the Baghdad airport which will be transformed into a magic castle. Legions of dwarfs will be hired to attend to your every need. As you enter the darkened customs area lit by UV "blacklight", you will notice a gentle sprinkling of fluorescent "pixy dust" drifting from above. Once through customs, visitors will enter a train that is in reality the world's longest theme park ride where you will be wisked to your hotel (some 200 miles away) while being treated to an array of scenes like no other on earth. Projected scenes inside the underground tube will give passengers a surrealistic experiance as they look through the transparent walls of the cars. They will be waited on by Snow White and other Disney characters as they ride in airconditioned comfort.
Upon arrival to the main Disney station, they can transfer to the final destination of their stay. Never Never land is currently planned to sprawl over a million acres of what is now currently desert but will be transformed into a complete paradise with the most appealing flowers and live fruiting trees where a meal can be picked right off the tree. All fees are included in your admission so there is no need to carry cash. Children may pluck cotton candy from bushes and dip freshly picked strawberries from fields seeming to stretch forever into a chocolate fountain in the town square.
Any more questions?
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
What is the truth about the Iraq war? You gotta be kidding?
I posted this many times on eplaya for years. I dont think anyone wants to hear the truth really:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
statement of principles
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
I posted this many times on eplaya for years. I dont think anyone wants to hear the truth really:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm
statement of principles
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
mdmf007
- Moderator
- Posts: 5340
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:32 pm
- Burning Since: 1996
- Camp Name: ESD
- Location: my computer
If for no other reason - how about the fact that Iraq was run by thugs who brutalized, raped and murdered their own citizens.
With "The butcher of Baghdad" being tried for crimes against humanity and his 2 evil sons rotting in hell maybe the people in Iraq can now have real elections, get educations and live semi-normal lives without fear of their own government brutalizing them.
Everything aside - I believe in dignity for all.
just my 2 cents
With "The butcher of Baghdad" being tried for crimes against humanity and his 2 evil sons rotting in hell maybe the people in Iraq can now have real elections, get educations and live semi-normal lives without fear of their own government brutalizing them.
Everything aside - I believe in dignity for all.
just my 2 cents
One of the Meanie Greenies (Figjam 2013)
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
geekster wrote:Bullshit, DVD. I was talking to Tinkerbell just the other day. All I have to do is believe and that's right from the horse's mouth. So THERE!
So uuummmm.....like uh that being the case.....why did'nt the U.S. invade North Korea or Sudan or so many other places that oppress their people?mdmf007 wrote:If for no other reason - how about the fact that Iraq was run by thugs who brutalized, raped and murdered their own citizens.
With "The butcher of Baghdad" being tried for crimes against humanity and his 2 evil sons rotting in hell maybe the people in Iraq can now have real elections, get educations and live semi-normal lives without fear of their own government brutalizing them.
Everything aside - I believe in dignity for all.
just my 2 cents
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
mdmf007
- Moderator
- Posts: 5340
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:32 pm
- Burning Since: 1996
- Camp Name: ESD
- Location: my computer
Many reasons.
North Korea - China
Sudan - Not nearly enough press (but a lot is being doen there)
If i were in charge there would be a lot more whoop ass being dealt.
but, I am not in charge - so I get to sideline quarterback as much as anyone else. - Just my opinion though; which is like an asshole everyone has one.
later
North Korea - China
Sudan - Not nearly enough press (but a lot is being doen there)
If i were in charge there would be a lot more whoop ass being dealt.
but, I am not in charge - so I get to sideline quarterback as much as anyone else. - Just my opinion though; which is like an asshole everyone has one.
later
One of the Meanie Greenies (Figjam 2013)
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
If you want to get real, you can probably blame the whole thing on Chirac. We gave Iraq a peaceful option all along, right up until the last minute. Saddam could still be partying with his boyz (when they aren't torturing the soccer team and raping the local chicks) and running his little dictatorship today. Chirac convinced Saddam that we would not invade without an explicit UN invasion resolution (notwithstanding the unanimous "grave consequences" resolution that had already passed) and promised to block any such resolution. So Saddam was engaged in a game of chicken while he is riding on a Kawasaki dirt bike against a tractor trailer (us). He was convinced by Chirac that we would run out of gas before we got to him. So he ignored the ultimatum for complete and open inspections (and if you want some resources to recently translated captured docs that show explicitly that A: Iraq was hiding stuff from the inspectors and B: Blix knew about it, it can be provided or you can google around using such terms as DocEx).
This served French interests in two ways ... sort of eating two squab at one sitting. First Chirac knew we weren't going to back down but France knew Saddam had to go, they just didn't want to spend the resources to do it and knew we would. Secondly, at the time there was this great debate going on in Europe about the EU constitution and Chirac was trying to play up Europe as a counterbalance to the US in world policy end events. So his bit of treachery served to both see that Saddam was removed without expenditure of European resources and make the US look like the bad guy. Wonderful for France ... until he lost the EU constitution vote and his popularity started to sink faster than Bush's did. Chirac currently has the lowest domestic approval ratings of any major Western power. He will be gone next year.
Now to address the post-invasion situation there are two issues. Number of troops and plan to secure the peace after invasion. First of all, and what I believe is the crux of the entire thing, we assembled only enough force to make a credible threat that we COULD invade if Saddam did not give in to the inspection regime that we desired. I believe the plan was that Saddam would never really be stupid enough to play that game of chicken and he probably wouldn't have if Chirac hadn't been whispering in his ear. As for the post-war plan, I believe again that we didn't really believe we would need one and only made a general outline of what we thought we might do in that contingency. This also presents an interesting double-bind politically because if you do develop a detailed post-war civil affairs plan, one could draw the conclusion that it was the plan all along to invade and use such a highly developed plan as an indicator of that intention. The lack of any such detail is another indicator to me that invasion was not the desired outcome. The desired outcome was the demand that was stated all along, that Saddam would have to submit to a more open and complete inspection regime.
The forces arrayed against Saddam were pretty minimal. Basically we had what used to be the 18th Airborne Corps when I was in the Army and a unit with which I served, backed up by the 4th Infantry which was supposed to attack from the North but because of Turkey (kissing France's ass because they want in the EU something fierce) was enroute to Kuwait to unload from ships at the time of the invasion. The 18th Airborne Corps is basically the standard US off-the-shelf all-purpose quick reaction force. It includes (or included back when I served with the unit) 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne (Air Assault), 3rd Infantry Division (formerly 24th Infantry), a Ranger battalion, and some assorted other support and special purpose units. It was what formed the old Carter "Rapid Deployment Force" back in the 1980's.
Those units sat in the Kuwait desert for months. When we invaded we were in the position where we either had to go in or pull them back home and try again the next year because the weather was getting to a point where conditions would not be favorable for the vigorous activity needed in the course of an invasion. If we pulled out, any further threat of force would ring hollow. In other words, we were not likely to ever get what we wanted if we pulled out and we couldn't invade if we stayed any longer in the Kuwaiti desert.
Bush then made what I believe was a fundamental mistake at that point. Rather go on previous Clinton Administration findings that Saddam was already in breech of the ceasefire agreement and just about every single UN resolution passed since then, he caved and in order to appear to give diplomacy one last chance, sent Powell to the UN to give a speech in support of a measure sponsored by Spain, Italy, and the UK giving an explicit invasion authorization. This got people sidetracked. Clinton had already found Saddam in breech of the agreements and resolutions when he pulled the inspectors out the first time and began a three day cruise missile party across Iraq along with begining the process of mobilizing the 18th Airborne Corps but amid political pressure that he was "wagging the dog" in the midst of the Lewinsky scandal (mixed in with the same talk concerning his actions in the former Yugoslav republics), he stood down and settled for the passage of a resolution stating that "regime change" was the official policy of the United States and kicked the can down the road for the next administration to deal with. But I digress. Anyway, here we are with troops on the border, Saddam has been delivered the inspection ultimatum, Spain sponsors the war resolution and Powell takes to the podium at the UN all for naught because France and Germany (the core of what would be a EU government) say they won't vote for it. We didn't even need to do that. We had all the authorization we needed. We could simply dish out the "grave consequences" the previous resolution promised. Basically that entire exercise managed to change the subject and distract everyone from the main issue which was inspections, yes or no ... period.
Anyway, that propsed resolution falls flat, Chirac gives Saddam a nudge and a wink and so basically for Chriac's games, thousands are dead when if he had simply told Saddam we really ment business, Saddam would have caved, we would have had the inspections, there would have been no invasion and things would be just peachy-keen!
Current Chirac approval rating with the latest numbers I can find (June) is 23% If Sarkozy is elected next year, watch out. He is a big Tony Blair fan.
This served French interests in two ways ... sort of eating two squab at one sitting. First Chirac knew we weren't going to back down but France knew Saddam had to go, they just didn't want to spend the resources to do it and knew we would. Secondly, at the time there was this great debate going on in Europe about the EU constitution and Chirac was trying to play up Europe as a counterbalance to the US in world policy end events. So his bit of treachery served to both see that Saddam was removed without expenditure of European resources and make the US look like the bad guy. Wonderful for France ... until he lost the EU constitution vote and his popularity started to sink faster than Bush's did. Chirac currently has the lowest domestic approval ratings of any major Western power. He will be gone next year.
Now to address the post-invasion situation there are two issues. Number of troops and plan to secure the peace after invasion. First of all, and what I believe is the crux of the entire thing, we assembled only enough force to make a credible threat that we COULD invade if Saddam did not give in to the inspection regime that we desired. I believe the plan was that Saddam would never really be stupid enough to play that game of chicken and he probably wouldn't have if Chirac hadn't been whispering in his ear. As for the post-war plan, I believe again that we didn't really believe we would need one and only made a general outline of what we thought we might do in that contingency. This also presents an interesting double-bind politically because if you do develop a detailed post-war civil affairs plan, one could draw the conclusion that it was the plan all along to invade and use such a highly developed plan as an indicator of that intention. The lack of any such detail is another indicator to me that invasion was not the desired outcome. The desired outcome was the demand that was stated all along, that Saddam would have to submit to a more open and complete inspection regime.
The forces arrayed against Saddam were pretty minimal. Basically we had what used to be the 18th Airborne Corps when I was in the Army and a unit with which I served, backed up by the 4th Infantry which was supposed to attack from the North but because of Turkey (kissing France's ass because they want in the EU something fierce) was enroute to Kuwait to unload from ships at the time of the invasion. The 18th Airborne Corps is basically the standard US off-the-shelf all-purpose quick reaction force. It includes (or included back when I served with the unit) 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne (Air Assault), 3rd Infantry Division (formerly 24th Infantry), a Ranger battalion, and some assorted other support and special purpose units. It was what formed the old Carter "Rapid Deployment Force" back in the 1980's.
Those units sat in the Kuwait desert for months. When we invaded we were in the position where we either had to go in or pull them back home and try again the next year because the weather was getting to a point where conditions would not be favorable for the vigorous activity needed in the course of an invasion. If we pulled out, any further threat of force would ring hollow. In other words, we were not likely to ever get what we wanted if we pulled out and we couldn't invade if we stayed any longer in the Kuwaiti desert.
Bush then made what I believe was a fundamental mistake at that point. Rather go on previous Clinton Administration findings that Saddam was already in breech of the ceasefire agreement and just about every single UN resolution passed since then, he caved and in order to appear to give diplomacy one last chance, sent Powell to the UN to give a speech in support of a measure sponsored by Spain, Italy, and the UK giving an explicit invasion authorization. This got people sidetracked. Clinton had already found Saddam in breech of the agreements and resolutions when he pulled the inspectors out the first time and began a three day cruise missile party across Iraq along with begining the process of mobilizing the 18th Airborne Corps but amid political pressure that he was "wagging the dog" in the midst of the Lewinsky scandal (mixed in with the same talk concerning his actions in the former Yugoslav republics), he stood down and settled for the passage of a resolution stating that "regime change" was the official policy of the United States and kicked the can down the road for the next administration to deal with. But I digress. Anyway, here we are with troops on the border, Saddam has been delivered the inspection ultimatum, Spain sponsors the war resolution and Powell takes to the podium at the UN all for naught because France and Germany (the core of what would be a EU government) say they won't vote for it. We didn't even need to do that. We had all the authorization we needed. We could simply dish out the "grave consequences" the previous resolution promised. Basically that entire exercise managed to change the subject and distract everyone from the main issue which was inspections, yes or no ... period.
Anyway, that propsed resolution falls flat, Chirac gives Saddam a nudge and a wink and so basically for Chriac's games, thousands are dead when if he had simply told Saddam we really ment business, Saddam would have caved, we would have had the inspections, there would have been no invasion and things would be just peachy-keen!
Current Chirac approval rating with the latest numbers I can find (June) is 23% If Sarkozy is elected next year, watch out. He is a big Tony Blair fan.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
I neglected to mention the Marine expeditionary force that was also deployed in the intial invasion force. My sincere apologies to any Marines out there. Still we are talking about a small force. A light infantry division (82nd), an air assault division (deploys by helicopter) 101st, a mechanized division (3rd ID), a MEF, with a heavy division (4th infantry ... formerly 2nd Armored division) in reserve. I believe if we were dead set on invasion and if invasion had been the ultimate goal all along, we indeed would have gone with a larger force and we would have had a more detailed after-action plan.
I still blame Chirac. Had he been on board, there would have been no war. And that is what I truly believe in my heart of hearts.
I still blame Chirac. Had he been on board, there would have been no war. And that is what I truly believe in my heart of hearts.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
The truth about the Iraq war? It wasn't started to rob Iraq at all, it was started to rob America. Extracting wealth from a nation at war is damn hard, when that wealth is in the form of oil in the ground. Getting it out of the ground requires some political stability to support the acquisition and deployment of expensive capital resources. Try building that big ass pipeline now, when the place is a frickin' powder-keg, to illustrate the point.
No, the Iraq war was about stealing from the U.S. population via tax policy, no contract bids, and so on. It was all about creating a situation wherein the upper classes in the U.S. could profit at the expense of the middle and lower classes. Transfer wealth from the majority to the minority via war time expenses, taxes, and big military contracts. Combine that with some thoughts of ego, revenge, and religiosity in the white house and boom, you get the Iraq war.
The kicker? Us here in the states refuse to face the truth about the war. Tell us it's about weapons of mass destruction and we go OK. Then tell us it's about getting rid of dictator and we go OK. Then tell us it's about creating a front away from the domestic U.S. and we go OK. Then tell us it's about creating and promoting democracy and we go OK. Then tell us it's about creating a stable government in Iraq and we go OK.
The truth is that we the people are too disengaged, uninformed, and uncaring to face the fact that our tax dollars are being used to pay for rape, torture, and murder in the middle east, while the profit margin is being skimmed off by Haliburton and friends. Just as happened in Central America the opportunity for the powerful few in our country to profit, combined with jingoistic and short term thinking, with a heavy dose of voter disengagement thrown in for good measure has produced a lethal combination. We'll be living with the violent results of our errors for generations, I'm afraid, and ignorant all the while.
Ron, the optimist. :)
No, the Iraq war was about stealing from the U.S. population via tax policy, no contract bids, and so on. It was all about creating a situation wherein the upper classes in the U.S. could profit at the expense of the middle and lower classes. Transfer wealth from the majority to the minority via war time expenses, taxes, and big military contracts. Combine that with some thoughts of ego, revenge, and religiosity in the white house and boom, you get the Iraq war.
The kicker? Us here in the states refuse to face the truth about the war. Tell us it's about weapons of mass destruction and we go OK. Then tell us it's about getting rid of dictator and we go OK. Then tell us it's about creating a front away from the domestic U.S. and we go OK. Then tell us it's about creating and promoting democracy and we go OK. Then tell us it's about creating a stable government in Iraq and we go OK.
The truth is that we the people are too disengaged, uninformed, and uncaring to face the fact that our tax dollars are being used to pay for rape, torture, and murder in the middle east, while the profit margin is being skimmed off by Haliburton and friends. Just as happened in Central America the opportunity for the powerful few in our country to profit, combined with jingoistic and short term thinking, with a heavy dose of voter disengagement thrown in for good measure has produced a lethal combination. We'll be living with the violent results of our errors for generations, I'm afraid, and ignorant all the while.
Ron, the optimist. :)
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm