Why Iraq

Discussion in 'America Attacks!' started by Andrei, May 28, 2004.

  1. Andrei

    Andrei Member

    Why Iraq

    The Global Ambitions Behind the U.S. War on Iraq

    by Larry Everest

    Revolutionary Worker #1242, May 30, 2004, posted at http://rwor.org

    They said the war was for Weapons of Mass Destruction. But there were none. They said the war was about terrorism--but no ties to al-Qaida were ever found.

    They said the war was to end mass graves--but Bush's troops sent hundreds of Iraqi people in Fallujah to mass graves.

    They said the war was to bring "freedom and democracy" to Iraq--but all it brought was a brutal occupation--house to house searches, shutting down newspapers, postponing and controlling elections, jailing people for expressing opposition.

    They said the war was to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein--but now they are elevating former Baathist generals to be new warlords in areas of resistance.

    And they said the war was about ending "torture chambers and rape cells"--but now we all know that U.S. military intelligence and CIA took over the regime's prisons to carry out torture and rape.

    So can we now all, finally, talk about the real causes of this long-planned war?

    "Can we now finally talk.?" Revolutionary Worker,#1241, May 23, 2004
    *****
    There has been a deluge of media coverage, revelations, official statements, hearings, and near constant debate and analysis of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Yet the real motives for the U.S. war have largely been ignored, obscured, or deliberately covered up.

    If you don't understand why the U.S. is in Iraq--if you think this is just about George W. Bush and his cronies-- then there's no way you can understand the character of this war or make sense of the rapid march of events. Nor will you fully understand the urgency of the moment, the enormity of the stakes, or what must be done to resist the U.S. rulers' war on the world. You won't grasp the imperialists' deep vulnerabilities--including the real possibility of a major defeat in Iraq and the possibility of an intense political crisis right here in the belly of the beast. And you will not be able to see the immense potential for mass struggle and resistance from below to change the course of history--right now.

    IN A NUTSHELL,

    Overwhelming evidence proves that every U.S. government excuse for the war--to prevent attacks on the U.S., to disarm Iraq, to liberate the Iraqi people or to bring greater freedom to the peoples of the Middle East--has been a deliberate lie.

    In reality, the war of 2003 is a continuation of 80 years of U.S. imperialist intervention in the Middle East aimed at dominating and controlling this crossroads between Europe, Africa and Asia with 60 percent of the world's oil reserves.

    This war was also shaped by a new audacious global agenda implemented by the Bush administration after Sept. 11. Waged under the rubric of a "war on terror," this unbounded war is in fact a war of terror against the masses of people of the world intended to extend and deepen U.S. imperial global power for decades to come.

    Creating a pro-U.S. client state in Iraq was seen as pivotal to implementing this agenda of greater U.S. empire.

    The growing resistance and turmoil in Iraq are "embedded" in the predatory and unjust nature of the war and occupation, and in the staggering ambitions and real limits of U.S. power.

    ROOTS OF THE 2003 WAR

    What are the roots of the 2003 war? There has been an outpouring of books criticizing Bush and his administration--his lying, his family's ties to the CIA and various dictators and tyrants, his corporate connections. This shows how deeply troubled many people, with widely divergent viewpoints, are about the Bush regime, and much interesting information has been brought to light.

    But we need to dig much, much deeper. This war didn't emerge from the twisted personality, corporate connections, or family history of George Bush, Dick Cheney, or some gang of neo-conservatives. It has emerged from the deep, sordid depths of the current social order.

    This system, and the empire it has given rise to, are rooted in the exigencies of global capitalism or imperialism--a system which demands the worldwide exploitation of markets, resources and labor, and the political-military domination of vast stretches of the globe by a handful of powerful capitalist states. This is why today, the U.S. has $5 trillion invested overseas, does $2 trillion in foreign trade a year, and operates networks of manufacturing, finance and commerce that ring the planet. Some 500,000 U.S. troops are stationed at 700 military bases in 120 of the UN's 189 member states, and the U.S. spends over $450 billion a year on its military--far more than any other nation in history.

    Imperialism is a system which gives rise to bitter global rivalries between major powers--as we are witnessing today in the tensions between the U.S., Russia, France, and others. It is a system of organized greed backed by weapons of mass destruction, which constantly gives rise to interventions and wars.

    Where does Iraq fit in? Control of the Middle East--including Iraq--and its vast oil reserves has been key to global power for nearly 100 years.

    What is this oil connection? This was an issue the Bush team carefully avoided even mentioning before the 2003 war. They came up with a veritable parade of pretexts--from anthrax to WMD to al-Qaida to liberation--so many it was hard to keep track of their "excuse du jour." Yet they would never mention the word "oil" in connection with Iraq.

    In fact, control of global energy supplies was an objective in the 2003 war, as it's been a central U.S. strategic objective for decades. This is not because Americans drive SUV's or because Bush and Cheney are "oil men." Rather, the entire corporate capitalist ruling establishment are all "oil men": oil is a key instrument of their global hegemony; whomever controls the global flow of petroleum has a stranglehold on the global economy, as Dick Cheney once put it.

    Petroleum is an essential economic input whose price impacts production costs, profits, and competitive advantage- -not just of oil companies, but capital generally. It is an instrument of rivalry: controlling oil means exercising leverage over those who depend on it and over the world economy as well. It's impossible to project military power globally without abundant supplies of oil. And the heart of the world petroleum industry lies in the Persian Gulf, which contains 65 percent of the world's known oil reserves, 34 percent of the world's natural gas reserves, and now accounts for nearly 30 percent of the world output of each.

    This is what has driven the U.S. to maneuver, intervene, threaten, bully, wage war--even threaten nuclear war--for decades in the Middle East--no matter which party, Democrats or Republicans, sat in the White House.

    This is why in the 1960s the U.S. actually supported Saddam Hussein's rise to power; why in the 1970s the Nixon administration cynically used, then betrayed, the Kurdish people, causing the deaths of thousands and the forced exodus of tens of thousands; and why during the 1980s the U.S. government was complicit in the very crimes--the invasion of Iran and the gassing of the Kurds and Iranians--it cited in 2003 as reasons for removing Saddam.

    The point isn't just official hypocrisy. History shows that U.S. actions in the region have always been guided by concerns of empire, never liberation; that they have resulted in countless atrocities and enormous suffering; and that they have led to rising anti-U.S. anger and resistance. Understand this history and you'll choke with outrage whenever you hear anyone utter the words "United States" and "liberation" in the same breath... continue this article @ http://rwor.org/a/1242/larryeverest_iraq_global%20ambitions.htm
     
  2. LaughinWillow

    LaughinWillow Member

    EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY!

    AWESOME ARTICLE!
     
  3. MaxPower

    MaxPower Kicker Of Asses

    Those "facts" are about as realistic as a Michael Moore documentary. And besides, 90% of the article is purely opinion (and the exaggerated opinion of a nonpartial, hardcore leftists at that). Anyone who believes this should go do some of their own research (real research, not spending an hour or two on Google) instead of taking for gospel truth everything that comes out of Spun Half-Truths Weekly Edition.
     
  4. m6m

    m6m Member

    As critical as the article appears, it's really quite tame compared to the historical record of Western Colonial exploitation of the Mesopotamian peoples from 1918 on.

    To understand that record is to understand why the Arabs feel that Oil is their curse.
     
  5. MaxPower

    MaxPower Kicker Of Asses

    If you don't know what he's lying about, how can you know what atrocities he has committed?

    I realize I'm going to get flamed as a Bush-loving hatemongering fascist here, but whatever. The atrocities commited by Bush over the course of a few years don't even begin to measure up to the atrocities commited across the world by people over the course of decades. Why does everyone here have such a one track mind? Open up your eyes to the big picture people, not just what's going on in your backyard. The real evils are in the concentration camps of North Korea, the killing of protesters and forced sterilization in China, opressive governments in the Middle East where women can't drive, vote, go outside without a man, and where not having a head scarf on is punishable by a heavy fine or a prison sentence, and so on. Yeah Bush is bad, in fact he sucks, but the extreme hatred that some people have toward him is wrong and stupid considering there is so much worse going on in the world.
     
  6. Sera Michele

    Sera Michele Senior Member

    Well American citizens are obviously going to be pushing for change in their country, before attacking the problems of another.
     
  7. MaxPower

    MaxPower Kicker Of Asses

    Obviously we should change things here first before solving problems elsewhere, my point is that Americans actually believe that their civil liberties are being taken away and that Bush is bent on imperial domination, which is bullshit. You want to see where people really don't have civil liberties? Look at a place like China, "civil liberty" is an oxymoron. Hardline Bush haters make it out to be like America is becoming a totaliritarian dictatorship, devoid of free speech and waging a nonstop crusade against all who oppose us, which quite honestly, is what makes me ashamed to be American, not prisoners on leashes (which comes in at second). What I'm trying to say is wake the fuck up, we live in one of the greatest countries (if not THE greatest), and even though Bush sucks, he's still 1000 times better than someone like Kim Jong Il. If you want to share your dislike or loathing of a political figure than by all means do so, but do it in a way that is informed and realistic considering how much worse things are elsewhere, and dosen't make you look like a dipshit.
     
  8. brothersun

    brothersun Member

    Nice post Andrei. Its sad how so many are decieved. If anyone lives in canada or has access to CBC. Wednesday nite at 9pm the news program The fifth Estate is showing a documentry on the bush administration its connection with the middle east, bin laden and iraqi. That is est time zone
     
  9. Herbert

    Herbert Member

    Amen brother!
    Speaking as someone outside the U.S. (hell, I´m outside the first world), I find it truly amazing how much is focused on Bush/Cheney and how much is ignored from around the world. <SIGH>
     
  10. DarkHippy

    DarkHippy Member

    atrocities *scratches his head*

    uhhhh what atrocities? U mean the prisoner abuse scandal? He almost certainly did not know anything about it.

    Lets list his "atrocities"
    1. Responds with lethal force to murderers of 5000 innocent civilians
    2. Liberates two opressed peoples
    3. Removes an evil dictator from power
    4. Inspires the world to attack the murderers of innocent civilians
    5. Helps both the people to establish their OWN government, at considerable cost to him.
    6. Fought for what he thought is right.

    Bush does not know ALL of what goes on in his government. HOW COULD HE??? What, do you all think one man could know what hundreds of thousands of people are doing?

    And even if there were no WMDs, the US was justified in removing a genocidal maniac from power. He used chemical weapons to exterminate 40,000 kurds. INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

    HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU HATE BUSH FOR THE GOOD HE HAS DONE IN IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN?
     
  11. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    1. Responds with lethal force to murderers of 5000 innocent civilians

    By attacking a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers.

    2. Liberates two opressed peoples

    In Afghanistan the US removed the taliban from power and put in the warlords so the US liberated the people from oppression then gave then up to other oppressor. Women complain that for them things are the same or even worse and NGO’s that could work there during the taliban regime are pulling out because the situation in most of the country is more dangerous now.

    In Iraq I do hope the US will allow the people to be really free.


    3. Removes an evil dictator from power

    Saddam was an evil dictator for the many years that the US supported him, in fact they were supporting him when he was at his bloodiest. Only after he did something the US didn’t like did they call him ‘evil’.


    4. Inspires the world to attack the murderers of innocent civilians

    The US and American citizens have supported the killing of innocent civilians for years they have supported terrorists, evil dictators, and brutal regimes.


    5. Helps both the people to establish their OWN government, at considerable cost to him.

    I’m afraid that in such places US support more often as not depends on the country not opposing US interests the same policy that it followed in such places as Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua etc.


    6. Fought for what he thought is right.

    That means nothing, Hitler fought for what he thought was right but that in my opinion doesn’t make him people should admire.


     
  12. brothersun

    brothersun Member

    I agree with you 100% Balbus. The U.S was supplying iraq with weapons during the iraq/iran war. And sadam did use chemical/bio weapons on iranians and his own people, did the U.S condemn it. Not that i'm aware of. But now they use it to justify a war that was about WMD or Sadams link to terrorists. Now its about liberation to a once inslaved peoples. If they are there for liberation, what about countries like Sudan where genecide been going on for years. I guess there is no benefit to go in there helps those oppressed people. No oil, no strategic location. So they will go on dying and our western media will go on ignoring it.
     
  13. MaxPower

    MaxPower Kicker Of Asses

    Except that Saddam was training terrosrists to kill Americans and Europeans. They weren't linked to Al-Qaida, but they were just as bent on killing innocent people as Al-Qaida is.

    Point made.


    You see, at the time the US supported Saddam, there was this little thing called the "Cold War", I'm not sure you've heard of it. See, we were up against the USSR, which was trying to spread communism throuout the world. If they had their way, there would have been Soviet spheres of influence in Iraq and all over the Middle East, meaning more power for them and more nukes for the Iraqis. Sadaam hated communism, so we teamed up with the lesser of two evils (Saddam) to stick a thorn in the side of the greater evil (the USSR). Would you rather there have been a nuclear war, instead of Saddam becoming leader of Iraq?


    Same thing. And what exactly do past presidets' actions have to do with this one?


    None of those places fund terrorist training camps (that we know of).

     
  14. Mainman

    Mainman Member

    Once again, everything is a conspiracy!


    Yep, our president has family ties to the CIA. He must be evil. Everyone in the CIA is evil. Every military leader is evil. Every corporate official is evil. Every government official is evil. There's a box on the application for a government job that says "are you evil? - check yes or no."

    Come now, if your dad worked for the CIA does that make you a bad person? Does that compel you to lie to everyone you meet? Lets try to find some arguments based on logic and fact.

    For one thing, the concept of imperialism was around long before weapons of mass destruction were even concieved of.

    For another, imperialism as an accepted form of international relations is dead. It was mainstream for big countries until around WWI. It is no longer practiced by anyone. Most of the territories taken by countries in their imperialist phases have been returned to the native people. Others have voted to remain territories of those respective countries (Greenland, Guam, etc). Nither the US nor Israel, nor any western power would even think to adopt a policy of imperialism today.

    If we wanted to make a war for oil we would have invaded Saudi Arabia. Its got over twice the amount of oil that Iraq does, and its military is far smaller.

    And again the whole 'corporate capitalist ruling establishment are all "oil men"' argument is nothing but another absurd conspiracy theory.

    Like MaxPower said, we were in the middle of the Cold War. And then he decided he liked the Soviet Union better. And we did not give him weaponry. If we had, we would have seen it in all the wars Iraq has been involved in. In fact, all the tanks, SAMs, SCUDs, aircraft and small arms used in those wars were Soviet built (the only exeption being a few old French built planes and missiles).

    We actually supported Iran far longer, and they have a few F-14s to show for it.

    I would point out that the only reason we had to go war in Iraq a second time was that the UN did not want us to head to Bagdad the first time. Bush Sr. and the rest of the coalition followed the UN's suggestion and turned around.

    Was Afghanistan a strategic location? Was it about oil? No, it was about a government that supports terrorism. I dont know much about Sudan, but if they support terrorism, and don't end that support, they will be on the list. But you can't do this all at one time. That supposedly enormous spending on the military (which Clinton slashed all to hell) does not allow for enough forces to operate in so many places. And obviously getting the world, and indeed our own people to see the sound reasoning behind it would be pretty damn hard. I would be willing to bet a fortune that if we went in to liberate Sudan, you, brothersun, would be bitching about it just like you are right now. Unless perhaps Gore were president. then it would be okay.
     
  15. Great article, Andrei....thanks for posting it. I'm in GA too! **waves a big hello**
     
  16. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    Max

    Except that Saddam was training terrosrists to kill Americans and Europeans.
    Can you put forward your evidence please?

    They weren't linked to Al-Qaida, but they were just as bent on killing innocent people as Al-Qaida is.

    Well come on the US has been ‘linked’ to terrorists that have killed innocent people. The School of the Americas, Operation Condor, Contras, mujhadim.

    **

    You see, at the time the US supported Saddam, there was this little thing called the "Cold War", I'm not sure you've heard of it. See, we were up against the USSR, which was trying to spread communism throuout the world. If they had their way, there would have been Soviet spheres of influence in Iraq and all over the Middle East, meaning more power for them and more nukes for the Iraqis. Sadaam hated communism, so we teamed up with the lesser of two evils (Saddam) to stick a thorn in the side of the greater evil (the USSR). Would you rather there have been a nuclear war, instead of Saddam becoming leader of Iraq?

    Evil is evil it is not a concept that should be brought up in a situation like this if you are then to invoke ‘realpolitik’.

    My point here is the hypocrisy on the part of many Americans over the invasion of Iraq. There have been many here that talk about the US saving the world form an evil dictator one moment but then argue that evil dictators have to be supported if they do as the US wants. By that argument (the one you support) Saddam if he had continued to do as the US wanted would have been allowed to carry on in his brutal and evil ways just as he had when he had done when the US did support him.

    **

    It is a simplistic and short term policy that is liable to cause blowback. If for many Americans ‘evil’ only comes to be applied to brutal dictators and regimes that are anti-American, then Americans are going to be associated with some very bad regimes.

    For example look into the US involvement in the recent history of Iran.

    **

    As to the ‘cold war’

    Americans were so anti-Communist that anything left wing or even slightly socialist was labeled as a ‘red menace’. This meant they often supported US government policies that helped suppress any type of social reform and by association were involved in the killing of the leaders in such things, social democrats, union workers, aid workers even nuns and priests. If someone spoke of wanting to help ‘the people’ they were often accused of being a soviet puppet. A lot of things that would have helped a lot of people were halted the protection of workers rights, land reform, proper control over domestic resources etc.

    For example look into the history of US involvement in Guatemala and the United Fruit Company.

    **

    Same thing. And what exactly do past presidets' actions have to do with this one?

    None of those places fund terrorist training camps (that we know of).


    You will need to clarify.

    __________________

     
  17. Autentique

    Autentique wonderfabulastic

    The US doesn't care about the ppl, they would support any dictatorship as long as their interests are fullfilled. They took Salvador Allende out of Chile because he was a communist (he was elected by the people) and supported the dictatorship of Pinochet.. yeap he was a lot better. An uncle of mine who's an historian once told me.. (don't remember who said it) That in a conversation about Pinochet.. some US congressman, politician.. something, can't remember what. Said : Yes.. he's a son of a bitch, but his OUR son of a bitch. That really shows the American way of thinking.

    And as they supported that one.. they have supported many. One example I know very well. Is in my country they fully supported the dictatorship of Rafael L. Trujillo here in Dominican Republic, were many were abused, were many were killed.. and they supported him because they didn't want a communist goverment to rise. So people could die here, and have no liberties as long as they didn't do anything to bother them.

    And it was the same with Irak.. US was Saddam's friend until it wasn't convenient for them to be their friend.
     
  18. SpaceJesus

    SpaceJesus Member

    No, Allende was not elected legally since the Chilean constitution specifies an absolute majority vote for one to become president. Allende did not acheive this number, thus the military rebelled. And yes, Pinochet was much better than any Soviet puppet leader; today Chile is the most prosperous nation in South America. The average annual income in Chile dwarfs that of communist controlled Cuba.

    And a communist regime would not have done the same things if not worse to those who did not want to be communist or wipe the ass of of the USSR?


    the US had no major quarrel with Iraq until they invaded Kuwait without any provocation and the ENTIRE world rallied to fight them in Operation Dessert Storm.
     
  19. Balbus

    Balbus Members

    "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."
    Henry A. Kissinger


    "The average annual income in Chile dwarfs that of communist controlled Cuba."

    Chile hasn’t been under blockade for 40 years.

    As to Pinochet’s economic policies they are widely seen by most economists to have been a disaster look up information about the ‘Chicago boys’. As to the social cost it was very high and the reason why many in Chile still want to prosecute those responsible.

    **

    The problem has always been that many Americans still cannot tell the difference between those that wanted social reforms and ‘communists’ (Guatemala). This is due it seem to a gullible acceptance of their self interested media and government propaganda this could be rectified by actually thinking for themselves and some do but many it seems only wish remain ignorant.

     
  20. Autentique

    Autentique wonderfabulastic

    The thing is they were not allowing us to have elections, they need to let people choose whatever they want. It has nothing to do with them if what we wanted back then was a communist goverment or just something else. Not like the dictatorship they supported for so many years an in which many atrocities were done. Too many for such a small country. So after Trujillo gets killed, and Juan Bosch gets elected as president. He´s doing a great job, giving rights that benefit all the nation.. not only the rich people as it used to be. The US comes and invades us(1965).. because they would not allow a communism to arise. And he wasn't even a communist he was just starting to build a real democracy in this country.

    What the US needs to do is concern their own affairs, and stop filling people minds with . ohh we are just helping them. Because if is not for the US best interest, they wouldn't do anything. Iraq is all about OIL. The person who cannot see that, is perfectly blind.
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice