the Iraq War Is About
don't think so! I do not think Bush or Cheney care even one little bit about
Israel. I do not think it is about peak oil, either. One day in an article
that impressed me was a simple saying that makes complete sense: "follow the
money." Well, when you try to do that it is impossible because a lot of the
money that goes to Iraq just vanishes. What I am saying is that that money
vanishes to companies that are colluding with Bush and Cheney. Money might
be made out of thin air but cannot just vanish there. That money went someplace.
~ Sparky Z.
is silly. Look at all the slavish declarations by the presidential candidates
to the defense of Israel, including Hillary's "obliteration of Iran." Look
at all the neocon writings and consider that the neocons filled every important
position to do with foreign and military policy and took control of U.S. intelligence.
Look at the media's slavish support of Israel and the lack of any criticism
or truthful reporting. Look at the demise of every U.S. politician who
ever offended the Israel lobby. Look at the Christian evangelical movement
with its Christian Zionists and rapture evangelicals. Millions of Americans
are slavish toward Israel, and the rest are completely in the dark about Israel's
responsibility for the Arab backlash.
There are plenty
of ways for politicians to make money without taking the risk of naked aggression,
a war crime.
Craig Roberts is the only commentator I have heard who is totally, fully awake,
with eyes wide open.
He sees the whole
sham for what it is.
he has started to call the American people to account as well. This is long
overdue. The massive crimes that are being perpetrated in the Middle East and
elsewhere cannot be laid fully at the door of just the Bush regime or the puppet
media. The American people are the enablers if only by doing nothing, and
caring about nothing.
I don't see this
malaise going away any time soon and people suddenly just snapping out of their
materialistic, celebrity-obsessed torpor.
So the sound of
Roberts' voice and of others who see the fabric of this American society
disintegrating has the distinctly sad echo of a lone man on a mountain
At least his conscience
will be clear when this rotten ship finally goes under.
~ Gordon Arnaut
agree with Gordon Arnaut that a people devoid of a moral conscience cannot
survive. A people indifferent to others end up devouring one another or being
devoured by the police-state bureaucracy that they accept in order to feel
"safe." It is difficult to see any future for liberty in America. What kind
of people are Americans that they can accept the destruction of two countries
because of lies told by their president?
to Paul Craig Roberts for another impassioned opinion piece.
I think his dismissal
of oil being a main motivation for the war is off the mark, however. Roberts
is far from being alone among commentators when he muddles the difference between
access to oil and control of oil.
As Roberts accurately
recounts, access to oil was never a serious concern for the U.S., as it is on
good terms with its principal suppliers and, regardless, has the wealth to purchase
from any potential supplier well into the foreseeable future. Even in times
of peak oil, the world's leading economy would be well-positioned against any
competitors to meet higher and higher oil prices.
Control of oil
resources is a whole other ballgame. You get to determine which oil fields
are developed, which companies get to bid, the setting of production rates,
who the purchasers will be, how profits will flow, what currency you will trade
in, and so on. Depending on how much oil you control, you can even directly
influence the price of crude. In addition to the vast fortune that you will
rake in (that otherwise would have gone to the governments sitting on top of
the oil), you have tremendous economic and political leverage over any competing
economies that badly need these resources (especially in a time of peak oil).
For me this seems
to be the real prize that was Iraq. The impact of the invasion on Israel's security
interests is no doubt seen as a desirable corollary but would not have been
sufficient motivation for a multi-trillion dollar "project."
~ Dr. Mike Gaspar,
reason that the U.S. has decided to target Sadr and the Mahdi Army is they
they want the coalition out of Iraq now, and they are likely to win the major
Shi'ite vote in the upcoming elections.
The U.S. wants
Iraqi oil, and it wants permanent Iraqi bases, so ironically, they have backed
Maliki and the Badr brigade, which have far closer ties to Iran but don't call
for the immediate removal of the U.S. The majority of the Iraqi people (in
polls) have said they want the U.S. out, the Iraqi parliament (in a non-binding
resolution) has said they want the U.S. out. If Sadr's followers got in power,
the U.S. media would find it hard to ignore the message as they have up until
Until the U.S.
vacates Iraq, there will be permanent war.
~ Julian Welch
like to thank the staff at Antiwar.com not only in its present but also its
past iterations (and Justin Raimondo
in particular) for helping me along, more than anything else, in reaching my
now coherent and rational understanding of American foreign policy.
If you Google"Nathan
Higgins antiwar backtalk" or any rearranging thereof, you'll find an
exchange between Mike Ewens and myself (the latter being 18 at the time
of publication). It concerns semantic minutiae over Nigergate, the substance
of which is somewhat embarrassing (Newsmax), but at the same time it is demonstrative
of the intellectual and, hell, emotional struggle that delivered my perception
from that of a fledgling Bush myrmidon to its present (permanent) position
as an unwavering advocate of international peace and nonintervention.
Living out the
great majority of my years in one of the redder states combined with the
moderate, but not severe, psychological trauma of the thirty-seventh Tuesday
in two thousand and one gave rise to an unfortunate mindset that I guess
I'd consider fitting for a junior camp counselor for a Bushite version of the
also had an insatiable thirst for "news" that germinated in the fallout of
the election before last, and being very much a child of the Internet and someone
who thrived on examining an opposing viewpoint to find ways to refute it, I
eventually ended up here at Antiwar.com (if memory serves, it was a random
url entry with no foreknowledge).
Exposure to ideas
so diametrically opposed to my own was somehow addictive, although at first
I didn't buy into any of it. In any case, I kept coming back and at some point
realized I was looking forward to Justin's column every other weekday, even
though in my mind I would at any perceived opportunity brush aside any sound
point I came across with some trite and failed attempt at sophistry. There was
a period where I was quite conflicted as to what I believed about Iraq and America's
role at large, couching my support for the war in absurd qualifications (the
timing wasn't right, etc.) that upon self-examination were flimsier than gossamer.
I can't pin down any point where I can be said to have crossed over entirely,
but I have unmistakably arrived by now.
I owe you a debt
of gratitude that I suppose I can back up with some
help during the next pledge week.
~ Nathan Higgins