Friday, January 09, 2004
Do we know the reasons for the war???
"When war is declared truth is the first casuality." This Quote by Arthur Ponsonby proved to be true another time....
Recently I listened to a talk show. It was a disussion between democrates and republicans. Of course the major topic was George Bush and the reasons for the war in Irak. I don't know if this war is wrong or right. But what I know is that we don't know the true reasons for this war because the reaons which are mentioned to the public just don't make much sense.
One reason stated was to free the people of Irak from a crazy and evil dictator. Yet I just can't belive that George Bush would risk the life of so many soldieres (There have been 1,428 coalition deaths so far) and spend so much money for such an altruistic goal. On the contrary, the past governments of the US of A tolerated many Dictators which abused their people as long as their politics was conform with the interests of the US. In conclusion for some reason the politic of irak was not conform with the interests of the US. But why?
One possible reason stated was that the Irak owned weapons of mass destruction. But as we all know, weapons of mass destruction have never been found in Irak. Has George Bush really belived that the Irak owned weapons of mass destruction? The evidence presented before the beginning of the war that should support that the Irak posses weapons of mass destruction has been wrong. Only two expleinations exist for this. (1) US Intelligence sucks and was fooled by the Iraki government. Do you really belive that the intelligence of the US is really that bad? No! (2) the evidence presented by George Bush has been faked. Many sources demonstrate that this is true:
Recently I listened to a talk show. It was a disussion between democrates and republicans. Of course the major topic was George Bush and the reasons for the war in Irak. I don't know if this war is wrong or right. But what I know is that we don't know the true reasons for this war because the reaons which are mentioned to the public just don't make much sense.
One reason stated was to free the people of Irak from a crazy and evil dictator. Yet I just can't belive that George Bush would risk the life of so many soldieres (There have been 1,428 coalition deaths so far) and spend so much money for such an altruistic goal. On the contrary, the past governments of the US of A tolerated many Dictators which abused their people as long as their politics was conform with the interests of the US. In conclusion for some reason the politic of irak was not conform with the interests of the US. But why?
One possible reason stated was that the Irak owned weapons of mass destruction. But as we all know, weapons of mass destruction have never been found in Irak. Has George Bush really belived that the Irak owned weapons of mass destruction? The evidence presented before the beginning of the war that should support that the Irak posses weapons of mass destruction has been wrong. Only two expleinations exist for this. (1) US Intelligence sucks and was fooled by the Iraki government. Do you really belive that the intelligence of the US is really that bad? No! (2) the evidence presented by George Bush has been faked. Many sources demonstrate that this is true:
Because of the gravity of the subject and the President’s unique access to classified information, members of Congress and the public expect the President and his senior officials to take special care to be balanced and accurate in describing national security threats. It does not appear, however, that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice met this standard in the case of Iraq.
The only conclusion which can be drawn from this is that George Bush intentionally tried to fool the american people and the world. Governments before influenced the CIA to meet their intersts. Just think of Watergate. In conclusion, George Bush always knew that they would find no weapons of mass destruction in Irak.
May be the war against terror was the reason for George Bush was the reason to open fire on Irak. The timly association between 9/11 and the beginning of the war might suggest that the coward attack on the world trade center triggerd the war. Yet there an obvious connection between Irak and the terror of 9/11 has never been established. There is no link IMHO. This war doesen't even protect anybody form terrorism. On the contrary, the chaotic conditions in Irak which arised from the war more likely incresed this threat. Moreover, since no weappons of mass destruction have been found, it wasen't even a preemptive war.
Interestingly, George Bush blames the bad performance of the economy on the war. He denies that it was a result of his politics. But this doesen't make much sense because George Bush started the war...
The only reason for the war on Irak was a strategical one. It was to esablish a strategic advantage in the Near East. This war is a strategical milestone to destroy all regiemes which offend the US in the Near East and all over the world. The reason for this war was appearently a strategy paper of paul wolfowitz written in 1992. It's about controlling the Near East. And it's about converting the regimes of the Near East to be pro-american. It's about making an example of the determination of the US to take all kinds of action against offensive regimes. The hope is that all contries with a offensive politics toward the USA will fear the threat of military actions against them. This might pave the way to conrol the Near East and to eradicate terrorism in this area. Yet, this war is still illegal.
I'am shocked that this change in the strategy of the foreign policy of the USA was triggered by the terrorist attack of 9/11. I think terrorism should never have such an impact on political decisions of these dimenstions.
May be the war against terror was the reason for George Bush was the reason to open fire on Irak. The timly association between 9/11 and the beginning of the war might suggest that the coward attack on the world trade center triggerd the war. Yet there an obvious connection between Irak and the terror of 9/11 has never been established. There is no link IMHO. This war doesen't even protect anybody form terrorism. On the contrary, the chaotic conditions in Irak which arised from the war more likely incresed this threat. Moreover, since no weappons of mass destruction have been found, it wasen't even a preemptive war.
Interestingly, George Bush blames the bad performance of the economy on the war. He denies that it was a result of his politics. But this doesen't make much sense because George Bush started the war...
The only reason for the war on Irak was a strategical one. It was to esablish a strategic advantage in the Near East. This war is a strategical milestone to destroy all regiemes which offend the US in the Near East and all over the world. The reason for this war was appearently a strategy paper of paul wolfowitz written in 1992. It's about controlling the Near East. And it's about converting the regimes of the Near East to be pro-american. It's about making an example of the determination of the US to take all kinds of action against offensive regimes. The hope is that all contries with a offensive politics toward the USA will fear the threat of military actions against them. This might pave the way to conrol the Near East and to eradicate terrorism in this area. Yet, this war is still illegal.
I'am shocked that this change in the strategy of the foreign policy of the USA was triggered by the terrorist attack of 9/11. I think terrorism should never have such an impact on political decisions of these dimenstions.
