News Uncovering the Hidden Motives Behind the Iraq War

[yu_wing_sin]

Is Iraq War a justice war?

According to our Asian political views, America invaded Iraq has following bad intentions:

1: Iraq is the world's second oil production contry, Bush wants to control Iraq's oil source to keep the economic of US.

2: USA wants to press Iran and Syria, and control the East Asia.

3: Bush wants to fame in history, so he used the pretext of terrorists to gain the fame. As Asian knows, Bush is a very cunning president, saying lies never feels shame, he made lies to deceive world's people for beginning wars.

To give Iraq a democratic gov is only Bush a pretext, robbing Iraq's oil source is just the right reason.

 

[Lisa!]

Somehow I'm happy Iraqis got rid of Saddam, but I'm not sure if their situation would be better now. Anyway it was an unfair war and Bush had no right to attack Iraq.

PS I totally agree with your reasons.

 

[outsider]

Interesting to hear about how the rest of the world views Bush. Does Asia think that America and Bush are the same? Or do they realize that Bush is acting on behalf of himself, his family, America's wealthy class and business people only?

 

[Lisa!]

Only Asia?

 

[Skyhunter]

Interesting to hear about how the rest of the world views Bush. Does Asia think that America and Bush are the same? Or do they realize that Bush is acting on behalf of himself, his family, America's wealthy class and business people only?

Unfortunately, now that he has been reelected, the rest of the world is probably less inclined to disassociate him from the rest of Americans.

 

[alexandra]

Interesting to hear about how the rest of the world views Bush. Does Asia think that America and Bush are the same? Or do they realize that Bush is acting on behalf of himself, his family, America's wealthy class and business people only?

It takes a great deal of sophisticated analysis to understand that what is in the interests of the wealthy is very often against the interests of ordinary people. Even highly educated people do not always see this.

Was 'the war in Iraq' in the interests of 'the American people'? Was it in their interests to finance such a huge military operation with both funds that could have been spent better in other areas and with soldiers' lives? Of course not. But do all ordinary US citizens understand this? I don't think so. It was certainly in the interests of: armament manufacturers, construction companies, etc, etc. that the US citizens finance this war and thus open up new 'markets' and subsidise the profits these companies would otherwise not have made.

If even US citizens don't understand this, I don't see that there is a great chance that people living elsewhere will. My guess is that most people would judge that 'Americans' are to blame. They are wrong - but nevertheless, this is probably what they would think.

 

[vanesch]

It was certainly in the interests of: armament manufacturers, construction companies, etc, etc. that the US citizens finance this war and thus open up new 'markets' and subsidise the profits these companies would otherwise not have made.

I still claim, that no matter what was the real agenda for Iraq, it failed.

 

[fourier jr]

here are bill blum's (www.killinghope.org) reasons:

Expansion of the American Empire: adding more military bases and communications listening stations to the Pentagon's portfolio, setting up a command post from which to better monitor, control and intimidate the rest of the Middle East.

Idealism: the imperial mafia fundamentalists remaking the world in America's image, with free enterprise, belief in a political system straight out of an American high-school textbook, and Judeo-Christianity as core elements. They assume that US moral authority is as absolute and unchallengeable as its military power. Here is Michael Ledeen, former Reagan official, now at the American Enterprise Institute (one of the leading drum-beaters for attacking Iraq): "If we just let our own vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to be clever and piece together clever diplomatic solutions to this thing, but just wage a total war against these tyrants, I think we will do very well, and our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Oil: to be in full control of Iraq's vast reserves, with Saudi oil and Iranian oil waiting defenselessly next door; OPEC will be stripped of its independence from Washington and will no longer think about replacing the dollar with the Euro as its official currency, as Iraq has already done; oil-dependent Europe may think twice next time about challenging Washington's policies; the emergence of the European Union as a competing superpower may be slowed down.

Globalization: Once relative security over the land, people and institutions has been established, the transnational corporations will march into Iraq ready to privatize everything at fire-sale prices, followed closely by the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization and the rest of the international financial extortionists.

Arms industry: As with each of America's endless wars, military manufacturers will rake in their exorbitant profits, then deliver their generous political contributions, inspiring Washington leaders to yet further warfare, each war also being the opportunity to test new weapons and hand out contracts for the rebuilding of the country just demolished. As an added bonus, Pentagon officers have jobs waiting for them with the same companies when they retire

Israel: The men driving Bush to war include long-time militant supporters of Israel, such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith, who, along with the rest of the powerful American-Israeli lobby, have advocated striking Iraq for years. Israel has been playing a key role in the American military buildup to the war. Besides getting rid of its arch enemy, Israel may have the opportunity after the war to carry out its final solution to the Palestinian question -- transferring them to Jordan, ("liberated") Iraq, and anywhere else that expanded US hegemony in the Middle East will allow. At the same time, Iraq's abundant water could be diverted to relieve a parched Israel and an old Iraqi-to-Israel oil pipeline could be rejuvenated.

 

[alexandra]

I still claim, that no matter what was the real agenda for Iraq, it failed.

Ah, vanesch - it is certainly looking shakey at the moment. It does seem to have failed (or at least, it was not easily achieved - has not yet been achieved). The problem is, when you start taking such gambles (as the US administration has done), you have to be aware that the gamble may not pay off. So, I would agree with you that the US admin's play has not yielded the expected/required results. And you may even be correct that they *have* lost (though the evidence is yet incomplete - the scenario has not yet been fully played out; it is, however, playing itself out right now as more and more US taxes are poured onto the gambling table). Let's see, heh? You're probably right, but the game hasn't ended yet...

 

[DM]

Was 'the war in Iraq' in the interests of 'the American people'? Was it in their interests to finance such a huge military operation with both funds that could have been spent better in other areas and with soldiers' lives? Of course not.

In order to ratify this statement and ideology, The Bush administration should've held a national referendum. The same applies for Britain, the majority of citizens did not wish to go to war but not having the choice to vote meant that Tony Blair would use our name in the 'War on terror'.

 

[vanesch]

here are bill blum's (www.killinghope.org) reasons:

Expansion of the American Empire: adding more military bases and communications listening stations to the Pentagon's portfolio, setting up a command post from which to better monitor, control and intimidate the rest of the Middle East.

Yes, we now see how Iran is shivering before Almighty US Army

Idealism: the imperial mafia fundamentalists remaking the world in America's image, with free enterprise, belief in a political system straight out of an American high-school textbook, and Judeo-Christianity as core elements. They assume that US moral authority is as absolute and unchallengeable as its military power. Here is Michael Ledeen, former Reagan official, now at the American Enterprise Institute (one of the leading drum-beaters for attacking Iraq): "If we just let our own vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to be clever and piece together clever diplomatic solutions to this thing, but just wage a total war against these tyrants, I think we will do very well, and our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Uh, still too early, but I don't hear them sing yet

Oil: to be in full control of Iraq's vast reserves, with Saudi oil and Iranian oil waiting defenselessly next door; OPEC will be stripped of its independence from Washington and will no longer think about replacing the dollar with the Euro as its official currency, as Iraq has already done; oil-dependent Europe may think twice next time about challenging Washington's policies; the emergence of the European Union as a competing superpower may be slowed down.

Well, Europe took itself down all by itself, didn't need the US for that , and yeah, the oil is flowing, the price in $ is plummeting

Globalization: Once relative security over the land, people and institutions has been established, the transnational corporations will march into Iraq ready to privatize everything at fire-sale prices, followed closely by the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization and the rest of the international financial extortionists.

As long as it respects the Sharia, there will be no problem

Arms industry: As with each of America's endless wars, military manufacturers will rake in their exorbitant profits, then deliver their generous political contributions, inspiring Washington leaders to yet further warfare, each war also being the opportunity to test new weapons and hand out contracts for the rebuilding of the country just demolished. As an added bonus, Pentagon officers have jobs waiting for them with the same companies when they retire

Until the Chinese will stop buying T-bills

Israel: The men driving Bush to war include long-time militant supporters of Israel, such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith, who, along with the rest of the powerful American-Israeli lobby, have advocated striking Iraq for years. Israel has been playing a key role in the American military buildup to the war. Besides getting rid of its arch enemy, Israel may have the opportunity after the war to carry out its final solution to the Palestinian question -- transferring them to Jordan, ("liberated") Iraq, and anywhere else that expanded US hegemony in the Middle East will allow. At the same time, Iraq's abundant water could be diverted to relieve a parched Israel and an old Iraqi-to-Israel oil pipeline could be rejuvenated.

Hope it is made of VERY THICK armourplate... and I wouldn't want to drink the water !

 

[alexandra]

In order to ratify this statement and ideology, The Bush administration should've held a national referendum. The same applies for Britain, the majority of citizens did not wish to go to war but not having the choice to vote meant that Tony Blair would use our name in the 'War on terror'.

The same thing happened in Australia, DM. Mass demonstrations were organised against the invasion, and really (because of the seriousness of this decision), it should have gone to a national referendum - but no... 'we' 'elected' (God) John Howard and 'gods' do as they please, don't they? I certainly don't agree with Australia's involvement in this mess - but then again, I wasn't given a chance to air my views, was I? And *this* is what we so proudly call "democracy". Ha!

 

[DM]

The same thing happened in Australia, DM.

Yes, indeed.

 

[yu_wing_sin]

Interesting to hear about how the rest of the world views Bush. Does Asia think that America and Bush are the same? Or do they realize that Bush is acting on behalf of himself, his family, America's wealthy class and business people only?

In Asian view, the Iraq War reflects the American essence, they think American essence is bad and arbitrary. Now also Europe abandons America, USA has not many friends, some "friends" are only pretended.

 

[yu_wing_sin]

Only Asia?

Also the European...

 

[Burnsys]

Also here in South america

 

[outsider]

In Asian view, the Iraq War reflects the American essence, they think American essence is bad and arbitrary. Now also Europe abandons America, USA has not many friends, some "friends" are only pretended.

You know, just due to the discussions on these boards and knowing human nature... I think this IS the essence of America... It's hard enough to convince individuals who are supposed to be thinkers... without a doubt, most of the the non-thinkers actually accept the stories we see on television. So the world does have a right in believing that Bush represents America as he certainly does. It important, though, to point out that NOT all American's share his sentiments. It is a great shame and irony that this so called FREE system does not fully permit for a means to oppose his actions. We are free to talk to deaf ears.

 

[pattylou]

You know, just due to the discussions on these boards and knowing human nature... I think this IS the essence of America... It's hard enough to convince individuals who are supposed to be thinkers... without a doubt, most of the the non-thinkers actually accept the stories we see on television. So the world does have a right in believing that Bush represents America as he certainly does.

Please don't lose sight of the fact that half of the vote went to Kerry, and kerry supporters were almost all very passionate in their dislike for bush.

In that sense, he doesn't represent America, only half of it. And many of them voted for him passionately, for a single reason such as his stand on abortion, or his tax philosophy, or his "straight shooter" stance. The war was very much ignored by the Bushies during campaigning. (This is my recollection and opinion, I don't have a source handy to reference this.) Domestic issues were given for why they supported him (read: Tax breaks) making the response to Katrina even more ironic.

 

[vanesch]

Please don't lose sight of the fact that half of the vote went to Kerry, and kerry supporters were almost all very passionate in their dislike for bush.

In that sense, he doesn't represent America, only half of it. And many of them voted for him passionately, for a single reason such as his stand on abortion, or his tax philosophy, or his "straight shooter" stance.

I would like to say that one shouldn't be too harsh on the US (administration and people) either ; it is just as wrong. I even give Bush the benefit of doubt that he *really* wanted to do something good. After all, I think in world history, the US has been the most "benign" superpower that has ever been ; most great empires in the past where MUCH MORE aggressive. I think that Bush's philosophy must have been "what's good for the US is good for the world" and in a way, this would have been true if it were an enlightened view.
The Iraq war was probably based upon a "hidden agenda" which had something "good" (in the above view) to it: ousting a dictator, removing threats, install a US-friendly democracy, etc... were seen to be good for the US AND good for the world ; ok and some stuff was especially good for the US and Cheney's buddies but that was the cherry on top of the cake.
The problem is that these people had in their book also that lying and cheating for the greater good was a perfectly acceptable thing to do, hence the stories about WMD, links to 9/11 etc... And getting angry at the rest of the weasly world for not taking up the courageous stance that would improve life for everybody.
The problem is that they screwed up dearly (and in fact ran into a trap that was set up for them by OBL!). And by the same book that allowed for cheating and lying in the first place, you also never admit you were wrong.
In doing so he brought more damage to the US (and slightly more to the rest of the world) than he ever intended. But once this crew will be gone, and the US will have gone through a kind of purgatory, things will improve.

 

[outsider]

I would like to say that one shouldn't be too harsh on the US (administration and people) either ; it is just as wrong. I even give Bush the benefit of doubt that he *really* wanted to do something good. After all, I think in world history, the US has been the most "benign" superpower that has ever been ; most great empires in the past where MUCH MORE aggressive. I think that Bush's philosophy must have been "what's good for the US is good for the world" and in a way, this would have been true if it were an enlightened view.
The Iraq war was probably based upon a "hidden agenda" which had something "good" (in the above view) to it: ousting a dictator, removing threats, install a US-friendly democracy, etc... were seen to be good for the US AND good for the world ; ok and some stuff was especially good for the US and Cheney's buddies but that was the cherry on top of the cake.
The problem is that these people had in their book also that lying and cheating for the greater good was a perfectly acceptable thing to do, hence the stories about WMD, links to 9/11 etc... And getting angry at the rest of the weasly world for not taking up the courageous stance that would improve life for everybody.
The problem is that they screwed up dearly (and in fact ran into a trap that was set up for them by OBL!). And by the same book that allowed for cheating and lying in the first place, you also never admit you were wrong.
In doing so he brought more damage to the US (and slightly more to the rest of the world) than he ever intended. But once this crew will be gone, and the US will have gone through a kind of purgatory, things will improve.

i don't think the bush admn deserve your benefiy of the doubt... as you said.. there was a hidden agenda, and he is more preoccupied with his agenda than helping the poor... i believe the statistics say that louisiana has the highest concentration of poor blacks... they do not support bush,so that may be an explanation for the lack of priority... there should have been a reaction from the feds at latest by day 2... it was all over the news... what's with the hold up? anyhow, remember that colin powell left the team... what's the reason for that?

 

[Lisa!]

"The world should be at war, so the US will be at peace". Perhaps that's Bush policy!

 

[DM]

I would like to say that one shouldn't be too harsh on the US (administration and people) either ; it is just as wrong. I even give Bush the benefit of doubt that he *really* wanted to do something good.

Perhaps you'd like to explain that to the relatives of the killed innocent. Just as Bush and all of his allies support the argument "Iraq is an excuse for terrorism", your "benefit of doubt" is an excuse for all of the ignorance and neglect up to this date. There's no room for benefits of doubt in my opinion.

 

[Skyhunter]

Someone once told me that there is no black and white, it is all gray. I disagreed with the argument that somethings are black and white.

Examples;

You cannot be slightly pregnant.

Dead is dead.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Perhaps you'd like to explain that to the relatives of the killed innocent. Just as Bush and all of his allies support the argument "Iraq is an excuse for terrorism", your "benefit of doubt" is an excuse for all of the ignorance and neglect up to this date. There's no room for benefits of doubt in my opinion.

Vanesch is one of the more outspoken critics of Bush and his Admin here. Personally I'm glad to see that some of you are more objective and don't think Bush to be the personification of evil. Bush is a dupe. I don't understand how people can think him to be so much an ignorant embicile yet so very devious and clever at the same time.
I agree with Vanesch that these people in the Admin probably thought or think they are doing good but have a twisted perspective on the whole affair.

 

[Smurf]

I disagree with Vanesch. The cause of the invasions were to make money for the arms and oil companies. They were very much successfull in their goals.

 

[Smurf]

Vanesch is one of the more outspoken critics of Bush and his Admin here. Personally I'm glad to see that some of you are more objective and don't think Bush to be the personification of evil. Bush is a dupe. I don't understand how people can think him to be so much an ignorant embicile yet so very devious and clever at the same time.
I agree with Vanesch that these people in the Admin probably thought or think they are doing good but have a twisted perspective on the whole affair.

I don't really think it's worth trying to figure out exactly what Bush's personal role was. We can discuss the foreign policy of the US without needing to regard the personal roles of every individual behind it.

 

[Smurf]

My guess is that most people would judge that 'Americans' are to blame. They are wrong - but nevertheless, this is probably what they would think.

The population of the United States is perfectly responsible for the actions of the governing body that represents them. I can't see any way you could make a case against this, how can americans not be responsible?

 

[kat]

Government of the people...and by the people. Of course the United States people are responsible for the good and the bad.

 

[Smurf]

I take it all back, I never meant it! It was a joke!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I disagree with Vanesch. The cause of the invasions were to make money for the arms and oil companies. They were very much successfull in their goals.
--------------------------
I don't really think it's worth trying to figure out exactly what Bush's personal role was. We can discuss the foreign policy of the US without needing to regard the personal roles of every individual behind it.

As your former statement would indicate the goals of the individuals responsable for US foreign policy and their level of real influence and decision making are very important. However I don't agree that the purpose of the war was to make money for arms and oil companies. As Vanesch stated it was a sort of cherry on top. Those that stand to profit from an action are definitely more likely to support it but that profit isn't necessarily the whole reasoning for the action. I'm sure many of you may not agree but I believe there are some incredibly intelligent people working in the US government and military. These people are the ones that I believe come up with the ideas such as the Iraq war and they find ignorant and unintelligent people such as Bush to push their agenda for them. Most of those that are profiting monetarily are dupes essentially receiving a pay off for their complicity, in my opinion. This is why I think that it is important to recognize the players in the game for who they are.

 

[Smurf]

As your former statement would indicate the goals of the individuals responsable for US foreign policy and their level of real influence and decision making are very important.

Actually no, the idea that Americans are responsible for the actions of the US government is a macro-political view. This is almost opposite to the interactionist micro-political view that would examine individual's personal actions and reasoning.

 

[outsider]

Bush is a dupe. I don't understand how people can think him to be so much an ignorant embicile yet so very devious and clever at the same time.

Actually... the reason why he looks like such an imbecile is because he is being dishonest... the smartest crooks don't look like crooks at all... they seem to be the least likely crooks due to a foolish way about them... never get to the point and make light of situations when cornered. Highly deceitful as they will beg for mercy, then kill you the first chance they get. They will pretend to be your friend until the right time to snuff you out.

People who lie try to give reasons and explanations, but the reasons change over time and the story changes over time as the true intentions are still hidden. Now, this time it's oil. When the truth becomes apparent, a way of tying the lies with the truth are necessary... so there you go. Mastermind groups work together to plot and ploy... Amway was my experience. I've experienced my unfair share of dishonesty in my life...

this isn't my best writing, but it's hard to explain how the criminal mind works... it's a tangled web and all perceptions are skewed purposely... deny, deny, deny!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Actually... the reason why he looks like such an imbecile is because he is being dishonest... the smartest crooks don't look like crooks at all... they seem to be the least likely crooks due to a foolish way about them... never get to the point and make light of situations when cornered. Highly deceitful as they will beg for mercy, then kill you the first chance they get.[ect...]

I'm meaning he just isn't very smart at all. I'm sure you have heard about all of his failures and how he barely made it through school, he barely passed the test to enter the national guard, ect...

 

[Lisa!]

Well perhaps he's doing something good for his country, but I don't think anything in the world would be more valuable than humans' lives. He doesn't value his countryman life and his country's reputation in the world. If he wants to continue in this way, US hatred will increase more and more. And it has a negative affect on US's security and Americans' security in the world! We're always talking about how dangerous terrorism is, but we usually don't ask ourselves why terrorism exists. What's the terrorists' motivation.

 

[outsider]

I'm meaning he just isn't very smart at all. I'm sure you have heard about all of his failures and how he barely made it through school, he barely passed the test to enter the national guard, ect...

he doesn't work alone.

 

[vanesch]

I agree with Vanesch that these people in the Admin probably thought or think they are doing good but have a twisted perspective on the whole affair.

I think Bush made several errors:

1) he put his admin full of hawks and business linked people, so he should have expected a "slight push" from them from the moment there was a plan on the table to do stuff that would please these people for non-ethical reasons, such as corporate profit and military fun. He should have had the nerve to counter this pushing, or not have put these people in charge in the first place.

2) He followed the so-called neocon plan which is very macchiavellic: the aim justifies the means, even if that means lying, cheating and all that. He should have had the judgement that what he was doing was self-contradictory: he wanted to instore a democracy somewhere, while denying his own citizens their democratic rights of being correctly informed so that they can base their opinion on correctly reported facts. You believe, or you don't believe in democracy; you cannot do both at once. From this follows the entire disaster of lack of moral high ground. You cannot fight "the good cause" when you're lying and cheating ; there are not two moral standards.

3) he had a total misappreciation of the situation in the Middle East, the mentality of Arab people and all that, and he believed gullibly that Chalaby guy and others who told him that this would be a pleasure ride and a glorious moment. In fact, the same tricks he wanted to play on the American people were played upon him by true bastards.

At least, I'm still inclined to believe all this for the following reason: If it were true that Bush is a smart crook, he would have been smarter than this. He would not have worked himself into this deep ****.

The problem I have with him is twofold:
- when you hold such a high office as he does, making such mistakes cannot be allowed for. You cannot fly unpunished a 747 and admit that you never knew how to land an airplane.
- he should stop lying and cheating now. Enough harm has been done. It would be better for everybody (even himself) if he could bring himself in putting his true cards on the table.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

Somehow I'm happy Iraqis got rid of Saddam, but I'm not sure if their situation would be better now. Anyway it was an unfair war and Bush had no right to attack Iraq.

PS I totally agree with your reasons.

Well Saddam was goin to die oneday, and they were going to get rid of him, the thing is they knew how to deal with such a situation, they coped with it...And then they r not even a country now, they r a wreck of something that was a country 2 years ago...

Some people say that Bush is an extremetist anti muslims, and wants to extreminate them, and that's why he';s doing all this reasonless crap...

Of course this has given extra reasons for other side extremists to attack the world, to revenge...

Both cases are terrorism cases, wether the war on Iraq gets its legacy from the 2 countries that funded it from the 1st place, or the other illegal communities like al qaeda and stuff...

 

[BobG]

I think Bush made several errors:

1) he put his admin full of hawks and business linked people, so he should have expected a "slight push" from them from the moment there was a plan on the table to do stuff that would please these people for non-ethical reasons, such as corporate profit and military fun. He should have had the nerve to counter this pushing, or not have put these people in charge in the first place.

Fighting a war for oil shouldn't necessarily be considered just for corporate profit. The US has become dependent on a resource controlled by foreign countries and oil affects the lives of every person in America. People are pretty riled up about the high price of gasoline and over 60% think the President can affect oil prices. It was no coincidence that Bush's first reaction to Hurricane Katrina dealt with oil and natural gas before the people in New Orleans.

Invading a Middle Eastern country hasn't been the only way the US has dealt with a need for oil. Over the years, the US has tried to shift its oil imports to countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Canada and so on. The US uses too much oil to cut out reliance on the Middle East completely and now Asia's demand for oil is increasing to the point that it gets tougher for the US to get the oil it needs at the price it needs.

2) He followed the so-called neocon plan which is very macchiavellic: the aim justifies the means, even if that means lying, cheating and all that. He should have had the judgement that what he was doing was self-contradictory: he wanted to instore a democracy somewhere, while denying his own citizens their democratic rights of being correctly informed so that they can base their opinion on correctly reported facts. You believe, or you don't believe in democracy; you cannot do both at once. From this follows the entire disaster of lack of moral high ground. You cannot fight "the good cause" when you're lying and cheating ; there are not two moral standards.

Definitely. America would have never have supported an invasion for oil. We still see ourselves as being powerful enough that only noble ideals should motivate us. It's a real come down to see the US invade a foreign country with no provocation, simply to secure resources.

Democracy can be frustrating, especially if the majority don't see things the same way you do. It doesn't always do a good job putting long range goals over short term goals.

Still, you expect a democratically elected politician to understand and deal with the problems of democracy, not circumvent them.

3) he had a total misappreciation of the situation in the Middle East, the mentality of Arab people and all that, and he believed gullibly that Chalaby guy and others who told him that this would be a pleasure ride and a glorious moment. In fact, the same tricks he wanted to play on the American people were played upon him by true bastards.

I think carnies and shuysters have a saying, "You can't cheat an honest man" (the easiest person to cheat is someone looking to take advantage of an easy mark). The goal was to find evidence justifying an invasion of Iraq. The conclusion to invade was made before the search for evidence ever began. In that sense, it wasn't gullibility that lead the administration to rely on Chalabi - it's that accuracy just didn't matter.

Still, considering how things in Iraq have gone, Bush clearly did not have an appreciation of things in Iraq.

 

[Lisa!]

Well Saddam was goin to die oneday, and they were going to get rid of him, the thing is they knew how to deal with such a situation, they coped with it...And then they r not even a country now, they r a wreck of something that was a country 2 years ago...

Some people say that Bush is an extremetist anti muslims, and wants to extreminate them, and that's why he';s doing all this reasonless crap...

Of course this has given extra reasons for other side extremists to attack the world, to revenge...

Both cases are terrorism cases, wether the war on Iraq gets its legacy from the 2 countries that funded it from the 1st place, or the other illegal communities like al qaeda and stuff...

Yeah, I agree with you. You should't take me wrong and think I supports this war. I knew Bush didn't attack Iraq in order to help Iraqies to get rid of Saddam. I was just mentioning the only positive point of this war. I was upset for a long time because of this war and I don't accept any of US' excuses and reasons in starting this war. And I think Iraq's situation is even worse than before. You know some people say that US has to stay in Iraq now Otherwise Iraq's situation would get worse. I don't agree with them . I think US is trying to make us think like that.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

I understand u don't support the war Lisa, don't worry about it. I was saying that it's not even that positive to get rid of Saddam...There r many other negative aspects...

 

[Lisa!]

Yeah, it's nothing in compare with negative aspects.

 

[alexandra]

The population of the United States is perfectly responsible for the actions of the governing body that represents them. I can't see any way you could make a case against this, how can americans not be responsible?

Good question, Smurf. Here is my reasoning:

There are two reasons why I say US citizens are not to blame: firstly, a very large number of them seem to have wanted to change government, but for one reason or another their votes didn't count/do the job (they lacked the power). Surely you cannot hold these people, who are just as anti- the current foreign policy, responsible for what their government is doing?

Secondly, there is the other group of ordinary citizens... those who do not have a very good education and who don't really understand that this administration is ruling against their own interests. And here are the reasons why I think they can't see what's happening:

It seems to me that US citizens are subjected to huge (HUGE) amounts of pro-capitalist propaganda (this is just what I believe from my observation of the kinds of media channels they seem to have common access to and from readings I have done in sociology etc). The propaganda starts from birth. The US school system does not seem to teach critical thinking skills about some things, especially when it comes to questioning the US government itself (not that this is much taught in other countries either). The very fact that ID is even being considered for inclusion in the *science syllabus* in the US seems to point to the situation becoming worse (if science is being weakened in the science school syllabus, what hope is there that the new generation will learn to think objectively?).

Patriotism is pushed at all times - for sure, other countries (the ones I have lived in) are not at all as patriotic as the US seems to me to be. Patriotism is like religion: it is blind. People who have neither the tools (critical thinking skills) nor the freedom ("You're either with us or against us") to think cannot really be held responsible for the actions of their leaders. What they *are* responsible for is the fact that they don't somehow manage to see that they are being subjected to all this propaganda and that they don't somehow develop critical thinking skills by themselves. But it's a hard ask, isn't it?

Socialisation theory tells us that whatever values you manage to instill in children in the primary stage (between ages 0 and about 5 or 7) are most likely to become core values throughout life. What do US kids learn? They seem to learn to become consumers (one of my references: 'The Corporation' DVD, but I have read a lot about this issue too). TV advertising deliberately attempts to foster this: advertising companies even hire child psychologists to do research and tell them how to best 'nab' children and make them consumers from a young age - 'The Corporation' DVD has an interesting section on this issue. Individualism, competition, consumerism... these are the values. Not 'think for yourself' or 'justice'... People become what they are shaped to become.

All the above are my considered opinions - my interpretation (based on readings and general observations) of why things are as they are. I did not mean to offend anyone, and I hope no-one takes offence. I am merely presenting the case for my argument, as Smurf asked me to do.

alex

EDIT: To put my argument in more technical political terminology - the American working class has not developed a consciousness of itself as a class. It seems to be completely taken in by bourgeois ideology. But then look at all the powerful forces working against its ever developing its class consciousness... not to say that this can't and/or won't happen. It's just going to be hard.

 

[Art]

To put my argument in more technical political terminology - the American working class has not developed a consciousness of itself as a class. It seems to be completely taken in by bourgeois ideology. But then look at all the powerful forces working against its ever developing its class consciousness... not to say that this can't and/or won't happen. It's just going to be hard.

It's like when the conservative party get elected to power in England - I always likened it to turkeys voting for christmas.

 

[alexandra]

It's like when the conservative party get elected to power in England - I always likened it to turkeys voting for christmas.

That's a *wicked* sense of humour you have, Art.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There are two reasons why I say US citizens are not to blame:

There is a difference between responsability and blame.

 

[Smurf]

Good question, Smurf. Here is my reasoning:

There are two reasons why I say US citizens are not to blame: firstly, a very large number of them seem to have wanted to change government, but for one reason or another their votes didn't count/do the job (they lacked the power). Surely you cannot hold these people, who are just as anti- the current foreign policy, responsible for what their government is doing?

This is the major difference between our ideologies (marxism vs. anarchism). You view the people as victims of society, I view the people as being a part of society and having social responsibility, especially to direct democracy. It is not enough to simply say "I voted". That's not democracy, (rule by people) that's choosing your dictator. The American people, as a nation and general populous, are weak. This is not to say that because Joe Blog is an american, and therefor he is weak; but the American people, as a people, have utterly failed at defending their own country from tyranny (so far).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This is the major difference between our ideologies (marxism vs. anarchism). You view the people as victims of society, I view the people as being a part of society and having social responsibility, especially to direct democracy. It is not enough to simply say "I voted". That's not democracy, (rule by people) that's choosing your dictator. The American people, as a nation and general populous, are weak. This is not to say that because Joe Blog is an american, and therefor he is weak; but the American people, as a people, have utterly failed at defending their own country from tyranny (so far).

I look at it as a pass the buck mentality. If things don't go the way they want them all people do, for the most part, is say "That's not what he said in his campaign." or "I didn't vote for him." It's the same with paying taxes for social programs. They automatically assume that money will do what it is supposed to so now they don't have to help their community themselves. And ofcourse when it comes out that the money didn't go where it was supposed to it's time to pass the buck again. "It's not my responsability."

 

[Smurf]

I look at it as a pass the buck mentality. If things don't go the way they want them all people do, for the most part, is say "That's not what he said in his campaign." or "I didn't vote for him." It's the same with paying taxes for social programs. They automatically assume that money will do what it is supposed to so now they don't have to help their community themselves. And ofcourse when it comes out that the money didn't go where it was supposed to it's time to pass the buck again. "It's not my responsability."

It's the damn service economy, it doesn't solve problems any more, you just move them around

 

[SOS2008]

Bush wanted to remove Saddam before 9-11, and neocons in his administration (previously listed elsewhere, such as Wolfowitz) capitalized upon this. Bush is not the sharpest tool in the shed IMO, and as stated above this is concluded from his track record of failures in his life, very poor verbal skills, etc. I agree with TSA that he is manipulated, but at the same time I believe he has gone through life denying truth, acting the big man, etc. so contributes his fair share to the problem.

As for responsibility for the mess, the buck stops at the top, but at the same time plenty of Americans are to blame. The media is to blame, the neocons are to blame, the greedy multinationals are to blame, the fundamentalists are to blame, the apathetic are to blame, etc. I agree with posts above that socialization in America is part of the problem--that Americans don't invest much time and effort in learning what is going on around them and in the world, so don't recognize poor policies--often even when it it bites them in the arse. Those that they do try to 'question authority' are suppressed by "overweight Americans in patriotic jumpsuits" as the lyrics go--after all even discussing politics is not PC. There is a 'cultural problem' here IMO.

Since I believe the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged enough to help Bush win in these close elections, however, I don't feel these elections can be used as an indicator of American support of Bush and his policies. If we don't see improvement in the upcoming elections of 2006 and 2008, I'll have to see if someone will sponsor me so I can move to another country.

 

[Skyhunter]

I look at it as a pass the buck mentality. If things don't go the way they want them all people do, for the most part, is say "That's not what he said in his campaign." or "I didn't vote for him." It's the same with paying taxes for social programs. They automatically assume that money will do what it is supposed to so now they don't have to help their community themselves. And ofcourse when it comes out that the money didn't go where it was supposed to it's time to pass the buck again. "It's not my responsability."

Excellent observation.

One of the main reasons I feel we need a grassroots change in the way we elect our leaders. We need to motivate people to become involved in the process in a more meaningful way than voting every two or four years and then blaming the government for not living up to our expectations.

I know that I am one of the guilty parties here. It is so easy to just blame Bush and then have another latte.