Posted on 08/27/2002 11:33:07 AM PDT by billybudd
"We must go to war!" This is the official position of the neoconservative press and the unofficial position of the Bush administration. For months now, war plans to attack Iraq have been leaking to the press and fueling speculations of a Gulf War II. It is no secret that the administration and many in Congress are in favor of bringing down Baghdad. Bush himself says he eagerly wants a "regime change" in Iraq. Members of Congress in both parties have been working the talk circuits daily warning Americans of the dire consequences of not toppling Saddam. While Bush claims he wants a "healthy debate" on the issue, it has become clear that it is not a matter of if we are going to attack but a matter of when.
As of right now, polls indicate that a majority of Americans will support war. The entire rest of the civilized world, however, is opposed to a new invasion. The only country standing with the U.S is the British government, albeit without the support of its own citizenry. What happened to the impressive coalition the first Bush presidency put together during Desert Shield? Why have our allies in our post-September 11th "war on terror" told us they will sit on the sidelines for this new war? Why are the American people the only people seemingly committed to war? The reason is quite simple. They have been exposed to Weapons of Mass Deception.
Prior to March 1990, most Americans never heard of Iraq. In a very short time America was convinced that Saddam Hussein was a Middle Eastern Hitler, and that Iraq had to be stopped lest all of civilization fall like Kuwait. The main reason we were fighting, we were told, was to free a small defenseless country against aggression. Like our later bombing of Serbia, this was a noble cause to protect freedom against an evil aggressive tyrant. We were also told that Iraq had to be stopped because it oppressed and murdered its own Kurdish minority. We also had to stop Iraq’s production of weapons of mass destruction, and destroy it’s military so Saddam could no longer threaten the free world.
In reality, we were not so much concerned about the Kuwaiti people as we were about Kuwaiti oil. Also, most Americans remained ignorant to the intricate Middle Eastern foreign policy in the Reagan administration during the 1980’s. It would still come as news to most Americans that during the 1980–1988 Iraq-Iran war, the official position of the Reagan administration was to "tilt" towards Iraq. While the U.S did not consider Iraq a haven of democracy, the memory of the Iranian hostage crisis was still fresh on everyone’s minds. Plus, a victorious Iran, full of radical Islamic extremism and Western hostility seemed more dangerous than a victorious Iraq, a relatively secular regime.
The main concern of the Reagan administration was that Iran would topple Iraq and later threaten Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iran controlling three of the largest oil producing nations spelled deep concern for the administration. The ideal outcome was both nations bruising each other, but with Iraq causing slightly more damage and securing its borders and hence avoiding an Iranian takeover of oil producing nations in the Gulf region. All ended well with both sides failing to accomplish their war objectives.
Even less known to the average American than this little bit of history is the active role the U.S took in supporting Iraq’s efforts against Iran. Aside from providing Iraq with sensitive intelligence information, the U.S maintained regular contact with Iraq through diplomats and government officials, including even current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. A recent little noticed New York Times article confirmed such activities took place.
But the most explosive charge in the Times article is that the U.S was well aware of the fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran and did not change its support for Hussein. According to the Times article:
"A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program."
The article went on to report:
"Though senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq’s employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, the American military officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq."
This report is being downplayed by the administration, and Colin Powell has said that the officers are "dead wrong" in their description of the program. Beyond that, the current administration, along with former members of the Reagan and first Bush administrations have kept silent. Given the government’s track record of secrets and lies on foreign policy, there is enough evidence to reasonably conclude that the U.S did indeed have direct knowledge of Iraq using "weapons of mass destruction."
In fact, one member of the program said the Pentagon "wasn’t so horrified by Iraq’s use of gas," and that "It was just another way of killing people whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn’t make any difference." According to the Times, even while the U.S condemned the Iraqi use of chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1988, it continued its support of the Iraqi war effort.
So what happened? Why was it was OK for Iraq to have chemical weapons in 1980’s but not in 1990? Also, how did Hussein go from an ally in 1988 to Great Satan in 1990? The reason is oil. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the U.S had the same kind of concern it had with Iran. The U.S did not want Iraq controlling Kuwait’s oil reserves and possibly threatening the oil reserves of the Saudi’s. Knowing the nation would not be very easily convinced that protecting oil interests were a good cause for war, the government subjected Americans to half-truths and misinformation and what I now call Weapons of Mass Deception.
The evidence seems to suggest that the fear that Bush I, Clinton and Bush II have tried to evoke in Americans regarding Iraq’s possession of chemical weapons is nothing more than a convenient excuse to go to war. Just as Iraq’s treatments of the Kurds and Kuwaitis was another excuse (some, like Jude Wanniski do not even support the claim that Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds). To go to war, the U.S had to convince the nation that Iraq was poised to launch a chemical, biological or nuclear attack against the United States at any time. They succeeded, and Iraq was pillaged and the lingering effect of economic sanctions on the Iraqi people remains to this day.
But that was not enough for some of the hawks in Congress and the keyboard warriors of the neoconservative press. They wanted Baghdad decimated and Saddam deposed or preferably murdered. Much of this goes back to the "national greatness" philosophy of the neoconservative movement. We must now finish the job that Bush I started, and show the world that the United States is a powerful force to be dealt with. Plus, after toppling Iraq we can spread democracy to other Middle Eastern nations, replace hostile Muslim rulers with friendly puppet governments, and have a greater control over oil prices and production.
However, Americans will still not support a war for oil or for neoconservative imperialist intentions in the Middle East. So we are left with the old excuses, only this time Iraq has not acted aggressively towards any nation. After pathetically trying and failing to link Iraq to the September 11th terrorist attacks, we are left with the excuse that we must stop Iraq because they are a threat to the region and America because Saddam is an evil man who has weapons of mass destruction.
Let’s not be fooled. Hussein is a power hungry dictator and tyrant who can not be trusted. It is true he runs a brutal regime, however, it is nowhere near as brutal as most of his Middle Eastern neighbors, including our great buddy Saudi Arabia. In fact, Iraq is one of the most tolerant countries of Christians in the Middle East and has been known to crack down on radical Islam. Iraq’s secularism and mild tolerance is much more preferable to the theocratic and tyrannical rule of the brutal Saudi’s (who the U.S continues to be say is a strategic ally no matter how many times they flip us off in front of the international community. The reason? You got it, oil).
So the point is conceded that Hussein is a bad man, but his elevation to Hitler status is a bit overblown and is certainly not a reason to invade a country, particularly when there are any number of evil rulers around the world. So we are left with the contention that Iraq possess weapons of mass destruction.
Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector of Iraq claims that Iraq has been disarmed and no longer possesses WMD’s. However, it is argued that Ritter is an Iraqi sympathizer and cannot be trusted. It may be the case that Iraq does indeed still possess or is trying to develop such weapons, but again, this is not a valid cause for war under current circumstances. As we have already seen, our outrage over chemical weapons is selective. Second, there is yet to be conclusive evidence that Iraq actually does have WMDs. And third, the contention that Iraq would try to use such weapons against the United States is silly, because Iraq neither has the capability to do so nor is Hussein that stupid.
"But Hussein is a madman and we cannot predict what he is going to do!" shout the War Party. Let us concede that Hussein is perhaps a madman, but he is also a cunning ruler who desperately does not want to lose power. He knows that the United States (or Israel) could obliterate his country at any given time, and he would lose power. This argument, when examined rationally, also falls on its face.
Then there are the countless questions that we have to ask ourselves if we did indeed invade. How many troops would we need? How many casualties could we face? What is the timetable for the war? Would toppling Hussein cause even greater destabilization in the region? If Iraq falls, will the northern Kurdish minority then seek to establish an independent state? If so, will Kurds in Turkey then try to break away and form their own government thus destabilizing Turkey?
Also, would Israel be dragged into the war? The American government has told the Israeli’s, that unlike 1991, they can retaliate against Iraqi retaliatory attacks in any future U.S-Iraq war. Such an action would certainly prompt a regional war – which was Hussein’s goal when he launched Scud missiles at Israel in the first Gulf War. This could lead to the Holy War that Islamic extremists desire – the Arab world versus the United States and Israel.
Finally, a unilateral invasion of Iraq against the will of the international community will only continue to fuel anti-American sentiment across the globe and particularly in Arab states. A new attack will certainly raise up many more "martyrs" to take up arms against the United States and Israel. Are we willing to take the chance to put America more at risk to terrorist attacks because of a desire to demolish Iraq?
This is only a small list of questions and concerns that the administration is obviously not taking very seriously. Instead, the administration, along with congressional sympathizers and heroic warmongering journalists will continue to try and scare Americans into a new war with their Weapons of Mass Deception. This new war will not be a cakewalk, and even a victory poses many more questions than answers. It is time to have a serious discussion about the real motives behind this war. It is also time to educate the American people about the history of this conflict and inform that they are giving sanction to a potential disaster, all courtesy of government and journalistic deception.
August 27, 2002
Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a freelance writer and is studying for the ministry.
Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com
I guess Lew believes in the NWO too (as if invasion of Iraq should be the case or a matter the international community should have a right to stop). Not bad for a pretending Libertarian.
I already argued earlier today that the constant appeal to "weapons of mass destruction" is misdirected. Either a nation is a threat to our citizens or it isn't. Anyone, building any weapons, that we think might be used against us (as opposed to say, the Brits, who have no intention of using them against us) is a candidate for "corrective action." That action must meet the "Reagan test:"
1) Attempt other methods at correction first (diplomatic). DONE
2) Have a concensus with the American people. Aside from this guy and Lew, DONE
3) Have a reasonable chance of success. More than DONE
4) When forces are committed, support them fully with the intention of winning. TRIPLE DONE, with W.
Cry havok and loose the dogs of war.
Well, Iraq had just invaded Kuwait and was threatening Saudi Arabia.
Wrong on both counts. Spending other peoples' money and ordering other people to go fight is not particularly trying.
Ask the Sudanese and the Serbians if Clinton did "absolutely zero." The Iraqis were bombed regularly during the Clinton administration and it was Mad Maddy who insisted the sanctions were justified, no matter how many Iraqi children died as a result.
The difference between "declaring war" and "making war" is?
I am sure you can remember what FDR told Churchill - the US being a neutral country at the time - and those convoys, that commitment of US armed support [ex parte Congress] regarding a certain Isthmus of Kra [viz., US blood and treasure for non-US territory] ...
Barnwell started almost every paragraph with something like, "American's never heard of Iraq.", American's didn't know this and Americans were ignorant of that, just like he believes we are the most ignorant and gullible collection of bumpkins that ever fell off a turnip truck, and landed on our heads at that. Then you come along after that rant, BB, calling us all morons.
Either you, or your alter EGO, Barnwell or both, made the statement during the rant, that we American's had to be conned into believing that the war would be about something other than oil, because we would never support a war over that-wrong! Oil is to the survival of our and the worlds economy, standard of living and even to survival, as is oxygen to the survival of our flesh. We will support a war over the access to oil, if we must, but this time despite your words of comfort and encouragement to our enemies, it is about removing a madman from a position from which he can destabilize the world.
Our allies are sheep, always have been-always will be. They didn't come to our aid in two world wars, we went to their's. They will sit out a war against Iraq or any other war if they can, they would rather turn their head into the herd and ignore the wolves eating their backsides, than to turn and fight.
Don't worry about our allies, they will all come to the victory party, and claim their share of the spoils peace time.
And, as billybudd predicted, the responses are completely ad hominem. Next will be the usual "Bush said it, I believe it, and that settles it."
Oh, sure, the people (the media) that we've been accusing of lying to us for years are telling us there's a reason and sure, the oil tycoons seem to think it's a good idea to take over this oil rich nation, but for some reason I have trouble seeing Saddam's aircraft carriers off the US coastline(?)
Of course the many hawks flying about accuse those of us who question this war of being "cowards"...but somehow the only thing I sense within myself is the voice of logic. And that voice says this idea of war against Saddam Hussein is not a good idea.
Barnwell started almost every paragraph with something like, "American's never heard of Iraq.", American's didn't know this and Americans were ignorant of that, just like he believes we are the most ignorant and gullible collection of bumpkins that ever fell off a turnip truck, and landed on our heads at that. Then you come along after that rant, BB, calling us all morons.
Either you, or your alter EGO, Barnwell or both, made the statement during the rant, that we American's had to be conned into believing that the war would be about something other than oil, because we would never support a war over that-wrong! Oil is to the survival of our and the worlds economy, standard of living and even to survival, as is oxygen to the survival of our flesh. We will support a war over the access to oil, if we must, but this time despite your words of comfort and encouragement to our enemies, it is about removing a madman from a position from which he can destabilize the world.
Our allies are sheep, always have been-always will be. They didn't come to our aid in two world wars, we went to their's. They will sit out a war against Iraq or any other war if they can, they would rather turn their head into the herd and ignore the wolves eating their backsides, than to turn and fight.
Don't worry about our allies, they will all come to the victory party, and claim their share of the spoils peace time.
Blowing up a major financial center and office complex, killing thousands and emotionally scarring millions, might also have something to do with it.
So what happened? Why was it was OK for Iraq to have chemical weapons in 1980’s but not in 1990?
CNN happened. The world became a much smaller place since then.
As I recall being told, Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda and the Taliban were responsible for the WTC attacks. If Iraq was behind it, what have we been doing in Afghanistan for the past 11 months? And whatever happened to "Osama, dead or alive?"
In reality, we were not so much concerned about the Kuwaiti people as we were about Kuwaiti oil.
If all we were interested in was oil, we would have simply cut a deal with Saddam. It would have been sure-fire and easy. But that was not the moral thing to do.
The article keeps quoting that discredited rag, the New York Times, as though the NYT were a credible news source? LOL. Poor timing. Poor choice of papers.
We had weapons inspectors finding one dangerous project after another. Saddam kicked them out for how long? Four years I think I heard once, but not sure.
I can't believe how many otherwise intelligent people saying, "When Saddam is two weeks away from having nukes, then we attack."
How can we be sure our intelligence networks would be aware if Iraq were two weeks away from being nuclear? Our intelligence networks are not that reliable.
Our intelligence networks are very fortunate to learn that Saddam could be two years away. However, what if they are off by a year? There are no guarantees. That's why I say, the sooner we disrupt Iraqi commerce, the better. And history has proven that when the going gets tough, the Iraqis turn against Saddam. He does not inspire self-sacrifice. Saddam is nothing like Winston Churchill. Freegards....
I'm sick of this bogus reply from libertarians! Have you not noticed there's been a change (however slight) in the administration. We're not talking about Madeline any longer. War is a MIGHT different than sanction bombing.(I did not support those bombings)Come out the clouds and get into the real world of things not being black and white and you MEN just might have to get your hands dirty. Life can be a bitch sometimes and it takes real courage to do something.
And, I wouldn't just assume that the Bush administration is bloodthirsty and just can't wait to kill people.
Instead, Bush took the dangerous path. War. Rather than benefit from it, we had to pay off a lot of allies.
We could have bought oil from Sadaam (Buchanan made that same argument at the time). But Sadaam taking over Kuwait was destabalizing to the many fragile and corrupt governments of the other oil nations in that region and we couldn't allow Sadaam to have too much power. We fought there because we feared for the stablility of the entire region. Balance of power, the stablilty of our corrupt elites who are our "allies" in the region, denying radical Islam a new "jihad" against Sadaam (Osama wanted to wage a holy war against Sadaam without help from the "infidels")- all of these were reasons- but the only reason we cared about any of this was? Oil.
If the administration was not taking these questions seriously, we would have blown Saddam off the map by now. As for WMD, see:
Center for Defense Information: WMD in Iraq
What has Saddam done to deserve this? Richard Butler laid out these reasons:
First, Saddam's Iraq is in violation of at least eight binding resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. To allow such a situation to persist deeply harms the authority of the unique law-maker in international law relating to peace and security. It is legal for the decisions of the Security Council to be enforced.
Second, Saddam has an atrocious human rights record. The UN human rights rapporteur has said his record is the worst since Hitler. He clearly should be on trial alongside Slobodan Milosevic, on multiple counts.
Third, Iraq is breaking key international treaties and undertakings in the field of control of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
The benefits that would flow from rectification of these three circumstances are evident and large. They would be keenly felt in Iraq, the Middle East and around the world. Saddam's removal could also bring an end at least to official Iraqi aid to terrorists.
War - Only for the Right Reasons
Also see:
Saddam Pays 25K for Palestinian Bombers
Iraq Buying Palestinian Loyalty
Iraq to join Palestinians in Israel attack?
FBI Overlooks Iraq's Connection to Anthrax Attacks
My point is that this population doesn't need much "scaring" right now. I think the New World Order Left is running scared right now, and are trying to dampen the feelings of many people about going to war. I think the Left is motivated more by feelings of insecurity that their lofty positions are at risk because the people are thinking and deciding for themselves on this one and are seeing through the usual hyperbole that the Left relies on. Those tricks won't work anymore.
-PJ
Since when is United States forign policy tied to or dictated by UN security Council resolutions? Why haven't we acted on these violations in the past 10 years? Are we going to wage war against every nation in violation of a Security Council resolution? What if we violate a Security Council resolution? Would it be legal for a group of nations to attack us to enforce "international law?"
Second, Saddam has an atrocious human rights record. The UN human rights rapporteur has said his record is the worst since Hitler. He clearly should be on trial alongside Slobodan Milosevic, on multiple counts.
The worst since Hitler? Is this a joke? Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Il Sung and Son? What about Sudan? Sadaam is clearly no Saint but to compare him to Hitler is insulting my and the world's intelligence. And on trial next to Milosevic? Is that a joke? Have you been following that "trial?"
Third, Iraq is breaking key international treaties and undertakings in the field of control of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Iraq is a signatory to those treaties? How many other countries are developing WMDs? Are we going to bomb and invade them as well? What about Syria? Do they have a WMD program? Or Saudi Arabia?
Laughable.
Saddam needs no declaration of war. He does need to be whacked.
It is simple logic. If Iraq took Saudi Arabia, it would have been even easier to form a coalition, would it not? Bush Senior would have had even more Aces up his sleeve. Leverage to deal with Saddam or to completely destroy him. Instead, Bush took the high road, liberated Kuwait, and thus protected Saudi Arabia. It was more difficult doing that. I'm glad he did do that. But I'm just saying, if you want to be cynical about someone, put yourself in his shoes, think like a heartless villain, and see if things add up. They don't add up in this case. Bush Senior was no more a villain than his son is. In fact, he was a hero. Freegards....
What was Somalia all about? Yes I know we lost, but that was because Warren Christopher didn't want them to be too warlike. "Why don't we just shoot them in the hand?"
But as for Bush going into Somalia, it was for a higher purpose. But dirty deals are a lot easier than wars. If someone is a sleaze and has a big army at his back, he can bully half the world without firing a shot. As for the other half that fights back, why bother with them?
Rather than contain Saddam, a true oil sleeze would cut deals with him. Freegards....
But you missed the point. We could have bought oil from Sadaam. He would have sold it to us as well. The war was about the bigger picture in the entire region. Sadaam's move into Kuwait threatened the survival of regimes that only exist through our maintence and support of them. If they were to fall they would be replaced by radical Islamic regimes- not democracies and secular western governments. We fought Sadaam not because he wouldn't sell us the oil he controlled but becasue his invasion could have destabalized the entire order we had been dealing with over there since Roosevelt.
YOu have to realize that we are percieved by the Arabs of the middle East to be just like the Soviets were seen by Eastern Europeons during the cold war- as supporters of repressive and corrupt regimes. But unlike Eastern Europe -the populations of the middle east don't dream of democracy and western style government as their saviour and future but they see rule by Islamic fundamentalism to be their deliverance.
LOST? Let me tell you something. We didn't lose sh1t. We had a mission. We accomplished that mission. During the mission, we took casulties, but the estimated Somali dead was over 1k. You call that a loss?
The fact that the American people allowed that POS scumbag Klintoon make us comeback instead of turning the Mog into one big f*&%king graveyard is an indictment against the American people, not the Rangers or the military.
Isn't that the truth!
But just to be formal, clear, and precise, let's amend the US Constitution to reflect this "post-nation" view. [And while we're at it - let's remove all impeachment language as that has been seen as a non sequitur.]
Also, enrollment in the World Court, ... and all things which a "post-nation" epoch requires.
ANY time the national security of the U.S. is at stake, the executive has direct authority to deal with it. If a Dec of War is needed, he can get one; but many (most!) conflicts have not required one.
Our wars have been about 50% declared, 50% undeclared.
You perhaps have me confused with another.
I only pointed to President Wilson and his visit to Congress to get a declaration of war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.