Thanks for another thoughtful post. I’d agree with most what you said.
I believed for some time the attack might be related with saving dollar. However, many facts doesn’t follow this. PNAC were pushing on Clinton with demands to attack Iraq since 1996. Attacking Iraq was the prime subject of the first and the second National Security Meeting ten days after Bush’s inauguration.
link Chaney’s talks about importance of getting a control over Afghanistan and Iraq in nineties. It leads me to believe it was just a questions of time for attack – all they had needed was getting on power and a good persuasive reason for the domestic and global public to get a support. Soon they got one with 9/11 and the action could be started.
For the same reasons I wouldn’t believe too much in other reasons.
Protecting Israel? BS. Iraq/Afghanistan were not a thread for them neither for the USA.
Rooting out terrorism? Saddam would be (and was) the best coalition partner in that fight, no matter in what relationship he was with the USA. If fighting against terrorism would be their goal, their actions would be quite different. Wouldn’t catching the No.1 enemy be one of the prime goals?
("I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." — GWB, Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002) .
Oil? I guess not. The US were most interested in forcing embargo against Iraq’s oil. Saddam would be glad if he could sell it and it wouldn’t matter if to the USA only. Does anyone believe otherwise? +There was plenty of oil available on the market. +The price of oil in any circumstance wouldn't be as high as it became with war (and it’s expenses).
Spreading democracy? I wonder who’s that naïve to believe that could be the reason. The US work much better with dictatorships, especially in that region. Would they really want democracy in Iraq? Who would believe that occupation of Iraq would have a positive influence regarding spreading influence in the region? BS. They knew it will be very negative. And they knew it Muslim extremism/terrorism will rise only.
Just because of removing Saddam? Another BS. They would want a dictator like Saddam. They work easily with dictators. If pressed enough, Saddam would be willing to let the power to someone else. If not, they would remove him without a war as they did several times before elsewhere around the globe. The fact is Saddam was very vulnerable after years of embargo, they could press over him and demand almost anything from him and would get that. And Saddam would be a good fellow once again as he was before his invasion on Kuwait. Again, it would be naïve to expect they couldn’t agree with changing euros back to dollars again with him.
Geopolitics? Not likely. Middle East is extremely important region. Growing unstability in Pakistan/Saudi Arabia. Would they need a large permanent military base there? Probably. But wouldn’t it be easier to get them in friendly Pakistan? They would get more control over their government and their nuclear weapons. Didn’t they only rise the unstability in nuclear Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Does anyone believe the whole region is more stable nowadays? Or that it might become in case of prolonged occupation of Iraq? Or that Israel is safer today than it was several years ago? Wouldn’t it be enough just a large base in Saudi Arabia which has 43% of global oil reserves (with Kuwait and UAE) and where regime is extremely cooperative?
Iran threat? Not really. There are US friendly regimes all over Iran. Iraq would be a coalition partner again as Saddam hated religious extremism as much as he hated USA. But an attack and occupation of Iraq had another negative consequences against this reason. Naturally it had bring Iran into need of ‘as soon and as good as possible’ modernization of their weaponry. What else would one expect, they are in danger now. Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to attack it first if that was a reason, when it was still unprepared than maybe tomorrow? They had a public support then and world’s opinion would be against it too much. Again, this has changed in time.
So, whatever reason I could think of, I just can’t find any reasonable explanation why Iraq rather than personal gain of the elite. Attack didn’t help America. USA is more vulnerable today, World opinion is very bad towards US initiatives, China/Russia are even faster modernizing their weaponry/technology, demands for a self-defense in EU is growing, South America is leaning left, not to mention a bad influence in all Muslim Countries especially in the whole Middle East. Anything good for the USA here? Not to mention again millions of victims of the US attack, ten thousands of crying Americans and trillion of dollars spent again. They just don’t care about that.
Global government as a goal for the future? Global tyranny would be a better word. I agree corporatism on global level causes all the problems. And it leads to a police state nobody wants to live in.
I’d say probably not all presidential candidates would be admired by their game. So, the good question is – how far do you think they would go to remain on the power? Could it happen another 9/11 this year? A war with Iran in spring 08? According to their actions in the past nothing could be easily ignored IMO. They don’t care about anything. Give them another mandate and there’s no hope for escape or comeback for decades to come.
I believe the next elections (IMO one the most important elections in history of the USA) are crucial for your (our) freedom and lives of our kids and grandchildren. Give them a chance. Do you feel the same about importance of the next elections?
"The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." - Mussolini
"Corporations have been enthroned An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people .. until wealth is aggregated in a few hands . . . and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." - President Franklin D. Roosevelt
"The concentrating [all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government."
~ Thomas Jefferson
"I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insideous forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." – GWB, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005
"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006