Slashdot Mirror

Bush and previous US presidents have been bullying the rest of the world for decades. Come live in south america for a couple of years, and maybe you'll understand.

You know, maybe you wouldn't need to stop terrorists if you didn't give them a reason to take on you. It's like you piss someone off, then when they are about to riposte, you try to stop them.. If Mr Bush, and previous administration really did care about their people safety more than they care about personal (economic/power) interests, they wouldn't have put the US in that situation. But no, they HAVE to rule the world, whatever the cost (check www.newamericancentury.org).
Trying to force everyone under your 'leadership' isn't a great way to stop them hating you, you know.. and it's not very democratic either, especially from those who use that word a zillion times a day to justify their involvement in other countries's affairs

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future
  
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values
  
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad
  
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
  

Here is a gem from their Statement of Principles

" We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

And another:

we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

I would be interesting to hear some American perspectives on this. What do you think?

Here is a gem from their Statement of Principles

" We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

And another:

we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

I would be interesting to hear some American perspectives on this. What do you think?

Sadly enough, USA have a big karmic responsibility to the world of being a role-model, and is failing horribly.

What are you talking about? The US isn't meant to be a role-model but instead a benevolent world hegemony. And, if you haven't noticed, everything is going according to plan!

Sadly enough, USA have a big karmic responsibility to the world of being a role-model, and is failing horribly.

What are you talking about? The US isn't meant to be a role-model but instead a benevolent world hegemony. And, if you haven't noticed, everything is going according to plan!

Well,

this site tells us that the article you posted in now way decribes conspirady theories (I saw you quotation marks, just wanted to additionally point that out.). Especially check the older articles (pre 2000) about Iraq/Middle east, and the people behind these articles. You might find names you know.

I think I've got a bit off the subject now, and we're no longer technically talking about fascists, but my point remains.

Want to know why US is at war now?

Two words: Wolfowitz Doctrine

Interestingly, that topic has been discussed more in non-US media. Our beloved CNN, Fox, and MSNBC seem intent to entertain us more than educate us.

This war is not just about oil or "liberating" the Iraqi people. This war is about maintaining the US's political, economic and military dominance in the world.

If we are succesful, the conflict won't end. There is a group who would see the US taking a first strike policy to keep our dominance, whether the rest of the world agrees or not.

--
hecubas

What's best for Iraq? or What's best for Bush's friends?

USA is not the only ones "paying" for this and yet there are no open tenders, even within the USA economy, stuff is going directly to the republican cronies of GW Bush.

Eg Cheney's company Halliburton has the oil well capping project already, nobody else got a look in.

Surely if the USA people are paying for this (which I dispute that they are the only contributors), then shouldn't they be getting the best value for money available - which usually means some form of tender process, even if evaluation is fast tracked. This stuff shouldn't be automatically awarded to Bush's mates.

So what the hell happened to the "best interests of Afghanistan" after they were "liberated"?

USA global domination manifesto These people want to stop anyone anywhere from acting against their interest. So the only interests allowed will be their own. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Presently the rest of us who are not "against the USA" will be paying tribute taxes just to be left alone.

Are you a fuckin moron?

That right wing "anti american" website was founded by the fuckin people who are in power now.

Scroll to the bottom of this page

Here, I will list them for you:

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

So while you call me stupid, cos you are an anon idiot. Its fine that you can rant away about your beliefs on why it is right to defend ourselves. but the facts are, these right wing whackos, while I will agree, are Anti American . They are also currently in charge of this country.

I dont see how you can refute this? Do you need more links?

Let me link you again idiot:

PNAC

NSS

Now instead of being a moron, how about backing up yer verbosity with some facts? or are you a typical conservative who comes to us sans factoid?

I will add to this if you please. The portion I am adding reads like a conspiracy theory. Its not. It has been documented in many places, including PBS and the White House itself.

I wont go into details here, I will allow one to read the material themselves. You can also watch the video as PBS online is currently hosting a story frontline did about the mess.

In brief:

The Project for the New American Century is a DC based think tank that has imagined a world under complete US military and economic domination (or "freedom" as it were). They have fiddled with and written documents concerning a post cold war world where the USA has become the Worlds Only Superpower and what that means from a Strategic viewpoint.

In the early days, Paul Wolfowitz produced a document that detailed the expansion of the American empire that seemed too radical at the time and was cleaned up and rewritten and stowed away. Over time, and through the most recent Coup by this incredibly radical group of men, this updated document, with the help of the PNAC, became the National Security Strategy Of the United States. Most chilling about this turn of eventls and policy is the new found policy of "pre-emption". Which I think we are seeing now in the creation of the 51st state.

Also chilling (to me anyway) is the fact that this is the "official story", the one being reported by the obviously biased media.

Anyway.. some more links..

CBC.ca's take.

More Canadian Insight

The Frontline Special

This is insightful?

The flame war over the war continues! I say, To Arms!, fellow slashdotters, and flame on!

To rebut the parent's lunacy:

Nobody with any sense is suggesting that the US, or anybody else for that matter, should just do nothing. However, there are many other options in any conflict situation besides doing nothing and killing people. The US should try to address the problems which underlie the instability of the region, as well as those which underlie what is often called the "campaign of hatred" against the US by the Muslim world. The US should attempt to address these issues in a reasonable and civilized manner, instead of reverting to the basest barbarism, xenophobia, and might-makes-right mentality.

Oh wait...I guess the US should walk away and lift the sanctions. Then Saddam can do whatever he wants.

I fail to see how the sanctions were preventing Saddam from committing atrocities. Their purpose was clearly to soften up Iraq for this invasion, which has been in the works since before Sept. 11 (see the Project for a New American Century for an explanation of the real causes behind this war) and had nothing to do with preventing atrocities. In a very real sense the first Gulf War never ended, the US has been killing Iraqis ever since and shows no signs of wanting to stop. Violence and killing will never stop atrocities, only create new ones.

The US should indeed walk away and lift the sanctions, and then find other ways of dealing with the problem. There are some pretty smart people in the US, I'm sure they can come up with something more creative than this silly and pointless rerun of the same old shit they've been doing for the last century. Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT and staunch pacifist, for instance, has some pretty good ideas which at least bear consideration.

You can't change the past

No, but we can influence the future, and it is clear (as has been seen over and over again in history) that undertaking immoral actions such as war will more than likely have a strongly negative effect on the future. This is known as karma. If you do something wrong now, odds are, nothing good will come of it, regardless of the supposed benevolence of your intentions.

War is morally wrong and can never be justified. The US is just getting itself into a huge mess which will cause all sorts of horrible atrocities and further bloodshed, as we will all see soon enough.

If you are interested in my views on this, please see the thread linked to in my sig, which is a great debate on the issue of Pacifism vs. Jingoism in which I said most of what I have to say on the matter.

Funny thing, I thought Forbes was part of the people in charge...
Steve Forbes, President, CEO and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes, happens to be one of the people behind the 'Project for the New American Century', being a co-signee of it's Statement of Principles along with, among others, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Jeb Bush.

Funny thing, I thought Forbes was part of the people in charge...
Steve Forbes, President, CEO and Editor-in-Chief of Forbes, happens to be one of the people behind the 'Project for the New American Century', being a co-signee of it's Statement of Principles along with, among others, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Jeb Bush.

...a corrupt Iraqi government that delights in killing and torturing its people.

Who gave them that nerve gas? Donald Rumsfeld. Now morally, what difference does it make if Saddam is going to gas 1m Iranians or 1m kurds? Did Rumsfeld sell him the gas so that he wouldn't use it? Come on. They both knew what it was going to be used for.

Now, I'm not protecting France and Germany, I agree in the respect that they are merely horse trading. That's what the UN is, and always has been, a puppet. That's why I wouldn't have been in favour of a war even with a second resolution.

And if you don't believe that the US is trying to take over the world, you really are quite naive.

To the first two points have a look here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

PNAC is a rather conservative Think Tank who has interresting articles titled:

Richard Perl on Iraq

The UN trap?

A Necessary War

And much much more, read it, it is almost a blue print for the current US foreign policy.

"So what?" You might ask, it's a Think Tank they're supposed to do something like that. True but members of that Think Tank include:

Richard Cheney

Richard Perle

Both of them quite clearly influence american policy, wouldn't you agree?

Chirac said that under no circumstances would the use of force be appropriate, and they would oppose any resolution setting a deadline. That eliminated any incentive for Saddam to disarm or truly cooperate with inspectors. France also opposed a stronger inspection regime than the one led by Hans Blix, again weakening inspections.

Yes he did, because it was clear at that point in time that this was the only thing the US wanted: To use force.

The US also careered quite niecly around on what they actually wanted:

First it was inspections, then it was disarmament, then all of the sudden that wasn't good enough either and it was clear they wanted to oust Saddam.

Someone has agendas here and if you read on the PNAC website you'll realize that it is about power. Oil might not be the number one reason for them to go in, but I am sure it is a nice price once they get it.

To the first two points have a look here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

PNAC is a rather conservative Think Tank who has interresting articles titled:

Richard Perl on Iraq

The UN trap?

A Necessary War

And much much more, read it, it is almost a blue print for the current US foreign policy.

"So what?" You might ask, it's a Think Tank they're supposed to do something like that. True but members of that Think Tank include:

Richard Cheney

Richard Perle

Both of them quite clearly influence american policy, wouldn't you agree?

Chirac said that under no circumstances would the use of force be appropriate, and they would oppose any resolution setting a deadline. That eliminated any incentive for Saddam to disarm or truly cooperate with inspectors. France also opposed a stronger inspection regime than the one led by Hans Blix, again weakening inspections.

Yes he did, because it was clear at that point in time that this was the only thing the US wanted: To use force.

The US also careered quite niecly around on what they actually wanted:

First it was inspections, then it was disarmament, then all of the sudden that wasn't good enough either and it was clear they wanted to oust Saddam.

Someone has agendas here and if you read on the PNAC website you'll realize that it is about power. Oil might not be the number one reason for them to go in, but I am sure it is a nice price once they get it.

To the first two points have a look here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

PNAC is a rather conservative Think Tank who has interresting articles titled:

Richard Perl on Iraq

The UN trap?

A Necessary War

And much much more, read it, it is almost a blue print for the current US foreign policy.

"So what?" You might ask, it's a Think Tank they're supposed to do something like that. True but members of that Think Tank include:

Richard Cheney

Richard Perle

Both of them quite clearly influence american policy, wouldn't you agree?

Chirac said that under no circumstances would the use of force be appropriate, and they would oppose any resolution setting a deadline. That eliminated any incentive for Saddam to disarm or truly cooperate with inspectors. France also opposed a stronger inspection regime than the one led by Hans Blix, again weakening inspections.

Yes he did, because it was clear at that point in time that this was the only thing the US wanted: To use force.

The US also careered quite niecly around on what they actually wanted:

First it was inspections, then it was disarmament, then all of the sudden that wasn't good enough either and it was clear they wanted to oust Saddam.

Someone has agendas here and if you read on the PNAC website you'll realize that it is about power. Oil might not be the number one reason for them to go in, but I am sure it is a nice price once they get it.

To the first two points have a look here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

PNAC is a rather conservative Think Tank who has interresting articles titled:

Richard Perl on Iraq

The UN trap?

A Necessary War

And much much more, read it, it is almost a blue print for the current US foreign policy.

"So what?" You might ask, it's a Think Tank they're supposed to do something like that. True but members of that Think Tank include:

Richard Cheney

Richard Perle

Both of them quite clearly influence american policy, wouldn't you agree?

Chirac said that under no circumstances would the use of force be appropriate, and they would oppose any resolution setting a deadline. That eliminated any incentive for Saddam to disarm or truly cooperate with inspectors. France also opposed a stronger inspection regime than the one led by Hans Blix, again weakening inspections.

Yes he did, because it was clear at that point in time that this was the only thing the US wanted: To use force.

The US also careered quite niecly around on what they actually wanted:

First it was inspections, then it was disarmament, then all of the sudden that wasn't good enough either and it was clear they wanted to oust Saddam.

Someone has agendas here and if you read on the PNAC website you'll realize that it is about power. Oil might not be the number one reason for them to go in, but I am sure it is a nice price once they get it.

To the first two points have a look here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

PNAC is a rather conservative Think Tank who has interresting articles titled:

Richard Perl on Iraq

The UN trap?

A Necessary War

And much much more, read it, it is almost a blue print for the current US foreign policy.

"So what?" You might ask, it's a Think Tank they're supposed to do something like that. True but members of that Think Tank include:

Richard Cheney

Richard Perle

Both of them quite clearly influence american policy, wouldn't you agree?

Chirac said that under no circumstances would the use of force be appropriate, and they would oppose any resolution setting a deadline. That eliminated any incentive for Saddam to disarm or truly cooperate with inspectors. France also opposed a stronger inspection regime than the one led by Hans Blix, again weakening inspections.

Yes he did, because it was clear at that point in time that this was the only thing the US wanted: To use force.

The US also careered quite niecly around on what they actually wanted:

First it was inspections, then it was disarmament, then all of the sudden that wasn't good enough either and it was clear they wanted to oust Saddam.

Someone has agendas here and if you read on the PNAC website you'll realize that it is about power. Oil might not be the number one reason for them to go in, but I am sure it is a nice price once they get it.

Memory in particular. I seem to remember learning a few things in history classes that have something to do with the actual effects that war has on people and politics. I seem to remember something about the rise to power of the Nazi party and the way the German people went along with it. I seem to remember something about what happens when you let a country start invading other countries preemptively, detaining people of a certain race etc. Another image from history classes which comes to mind is that of a troupe of Japanese soldiers marching towards Hiroshima with their melted eyeballs running down their faces like tears. I seem to remember a few things about the last dozen or so wars, operations and police actions the US has been involved in, images of children torn limb from limb, entire populations displaced, cities devistated, explosions and fire and blood.

War is hell. There is no such thing as a just war. There's just war. It's always hell. It always has been, and it always will be. I read somewhere that half the population of Iraq is under 16. Do you think the bombs are smart enough to tell how old their target is?

"But it's OK, see the children bleed, it'll look great on the TV." --Pink Floyd.

Others have mentioned the PNAC document which outlines the real reasons for the war, but I knew all of that before I read it. Has anyone read any history? The US has been doing this kind of shit for most of the last century. They were never even remotely justified before. Do you think they possibly could be now? Do you imagine that any of the propaganda being used to justify the war is anything but lies and spin? Sure, Saddam is an evil bastard. The world is full of them. If we went to war every time an evil basterd was in charge of a country, we'd be at war all the time... oh yeah... never mind...

One of the great lessons of WWII was, just because your enemy is evil, that doesn't mean that you are good. Evil can fight evil too.

This is not a game of Doom, kids, this is real life. People are dying, dying horrible gruesome deaths, and we sit here and discuss it like it was a football game. It's horrible. War can never be justified, never be condoned, never be allowed by people of conscience.

I wouldn't be too sure of this. Sen. Robert Byrd made an excellent speech about this right before Congress signed away its part of the system of checks and balances. He was even waving a copy of the Constitution when he delivered it. Nobody listened. Nobody cared. The Constitution is dead.

we know that our tyrant will be held accountable by the voting public in 2 years

Or of this either. "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."

The real reasons for this war are outlined in this document, which basically says that US global strategic interests demand a strong military occupation of the Gulf, and they have to justify this somehow. Issues of oil and WMD are peripheral to the overriding strategic concern of maintaining and extending US global dominance.

Perhaps Saddam doesn't want to facilitate the spin being put on this illegal war? CNN cuts reports of Arab responses to the war and it shows scenes of peace and quiet in Bagdhad while buildings are burning.

An interesting discussion would be, what can/should the world do to punish America for this? They are flouting international law, they are intentionally discrediting and destroying the UN, and they are bombing a foreign country with nuclear waste with no provocation whatsoever.

In a simple world, it would be clear that we should demand that the US withdraws, destroys its weapons of mass destruction, and cease selling arms around the world. But it's not a simple world. Every member of the older generation has massive amounts of their retirement money tied up in the US, so they're not going to be inclined to do anything too disruptive. Facist America (aka Corporate America - learn) has its fingers in the industry of most nations around the world, and has always been pretty brutal about using its economic power to crush opposition. So doing something about America would require most countries to seize American ownership of business and infrastructure within their own nations and redistrbute it, while also dealing with the political and military aspects of the task... an expensive logistical nightmare.

That said, America is an ever growing threat to world peace. Take a look at www.newamericancentury.org ... The clearly stated intention of the American government is to crush any opposing leadership, destroy the UN, and control the world through economic and military might.

So what do we do? Cause it beats the hell out of me.

"Saddam is a bad guy." pretty much covers the pro-war position.

This document pretty well explains the real reasons behind the war. Basically, US long-range global strategic interests (i.e. world domination) demand a massively increased military presence in the Gulf. This means invasion and occupation. And they have to justify it somehow...

Just FYI, the U.S. Constitution allows for the Constitution to be suspended in times of national emergency -- effectively making the President into a dictator. I believe Abraham Lincoln invoked this at some point? Anyways, it's conceivable that a terrorist attack of sufficient strength could lead a modern-day president to do the same, IMO.

...and he used brutality from the very beginning,...

I agree, we're nowhere near that. But there's still danger in that direction -- look at what some people would've been happy to have us do to extract info from that high-level Al Quaeda guy we captured recently.

...and his STATED goal was to overthrow all of europe.

We're also far from that. However, look at PNAC. And note that a good number of Bush's key advisors (e.g. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) co-authored a seminal report by them, published in 1997 (I haven't verified this from their web site yet, but I've heard it). While it sounds good to promote democracy, they also speak of "American leadership" in the world. Which implies, to me, not a desire to *truly* promote democracy in countries like Iraq -- which would necessitate eventually getting *out* of such countries, and letting them truly come to their own decisions, even if hostile to the U.S. -- but to maintain at least some level of control, as well. This makes me nervous.

As the poster of the article pointed out, the point of this exercise is to look at similarites to this previous example, so we know what we definitely need to steer clear of. I'd say we better keep our hands tight on that steering wheel.

In a past life I was one of the guys who tested these puppies (Shrikes, HARMS, Cruise Missles, Mavericks, Smart Bomb guidance systems, etc.) at China Lake NWC. For Shrikes and HARMS we would setup dozens of "threat" simulators, each with slightly different modulation (CW, PRF, PW, jitter, spread codes, etc.) to simulate particular makes and models of radar, and each at different location to simulate real life deployment. You don't want to be near any source that is on a target signal profile list. One of my other duties included measuring the distance between the boresite and the missle's impact crater after a test. Often enough my simulators were damaged or destroyed by inert warheads alone :-). Let's just say the 100-hour 1st Gulf War wasn't much of a surprise - China Lake has geography a lot like Kuwait and Iraq.

It's certainly possible to discriminate targets well enough to avoid targetting TV satellite uplinks. It's even possible that journalist's military-supplied uplinks are provided with known spread code signals that are put on an avoid list. A warning and insistence on "equipment registration" may be CYA - unless they know the equipment's signature, there's still a small chance of a "mishap". However, unless they choose to target TV stations it would still probably be pretty safe (How many TV broadcasters does Iraq really have? Ah, maybe one? Compared to simply being shot by accident?) The spectral signatures of analog or digital TV are pretty different from radar (even spread spectrum radar).

<OffTopicWarning KarmaLock="disabled">

Despite my experience with this stuff, I'm still against this war and the facile justifications pathetically provided for it. If you don't see a patriot described above, you need to get your head examined!

This war is about extension of the Monroe Doctrine to the entire world and Manifest Destiny as a world hyperpower. It's spelled out on the PNAC web site. Note the founders include Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and other major hawks in the Bush Adminstration. Also note that the entire obsession with regime change and axis of evil predates 9-11 back to when Clinton was approached by PNAC with essentially the same Iraq/Axis of Evil plan. Clinton rejected it. Bush has embraced it. Linkage between Al Qaida and Iraq? Machiavelian fiction, nothing more. Weapons of Mass Destruction (worked on those too ;-| )? Doesn't add up in the context of post-War Iraqi infrastructure and economics, and especially not with forged documentery evidence provided by the US and UK intelligence agencies.

Creating a hegemon might not even seem so bad if you happen to be an American, but this type of foreign policy is certain to be mirrored in domestic policy: the beginning is Patriot I, Patriot II, TIA, CAPP and other recent laws and proposals.

For those who have read Linked, consider what a Bose-Einstein condensation of a geopolitical social network is in comparison to what it is for an economic social network. Consider that one of the desires of PNAC is to assure that the relationship between the US and each other country shall be stronger than the relationships between any pair of countries. What social network topology is that? Can you say: "All Roads Lead to Washington".

There are many active and reserve duty officers with similar concerns. I recently gave a speech about this subject where an officer I know, who is now serving in the Middle East, was in attendence. I was concerned about his reaction - these are scary ideas most people would prefer to ignore - but he approached me after the speech and was my stron

Roadmap for War on Iraq and the New American Empire brought to by:

Elliott Abrams , Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney , Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes , Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld , Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

xyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzy

Roadmap for War on Iraq and the New American Empire brought to by:

Elliott Abrams , Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney , Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes , Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld , Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

xyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzy

This is documented, in fact. Read the publications from the Project for a New American Century. It's a neo-conservative thinktank founded in 1998. Note the signatories to the open letters: Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, William J. Bennett, among others. Those guys sound familiar? Yup, they're the Bush foreign policy team.

Also note in particular the statement in the letter regarding Israel:

"Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel. Iraq has harbored terrorists such as Abu Nidal in the past, and it maintains links to the Al Qaeda network. If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors."

So to the skeptics out there I say, still think that Israel has nothing to do with it? If the Bush foreign policy team says in an open letter from a thinktank that removing Saddam will benefit Israel, is it wrong for us to conclude that removing Saddam is being done, at least partly, for Israel's benefit? And is it really going to be U.S. policy from here forward to throw aside strong commitments to organizations like the UN and NATO to fight proxy wars for minor nations?

This is documented, in fact. Read the publications from the Project for a New American Century. It's a neo-conservative thinktank founded in 1998. Note the signatories to the open letters: Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, William J. Bennett, among others. Those guys sound familiar? Yup, they're the Bush foreign policy team.

Also note in particular the statement in the letter regarding Israel:

"Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel. Iraq has harbored terrorists such as Abu Nidal in the past, and it maintains links to the Al Qaeda network. If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors."

So to the skeptics out there I say, still think that Israel has nothing to do with it? If the Bush foreign policy team says in an open letter from a thinktank that removing Saddam will benefit Israel, is it wrong for us to conclude that removing Saddam is being done, at least partly, for Israel's benefit? And is it really going to be U.S. policy from here forward to throw aside strong commitments to organizations like the UN and NATO to fight proxy wars for minor nations?

Interesting group of people...

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

And some more names you may recognize from the Statement of Principles page:

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

Bush is merely a puppet of this organization.

Here's a short list of the puppet masters:

Ronald Asmus, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Ivo H. Daalder, Thomas Donnelly, Peter Galbraith, Robert S. Gelbard, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Martin S. Indyk, Bruce P. Jackson, Robert Kagan, Craig Kennedy, William Kristol, Tod Lindberg, Will Marshall, Danielle Pletka, Dennis Ross, Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt, Walter Slocombe, James B. Steinberg, R. James Woolsey

Bush is merely a puppet of this organization.

Here's a short list of the puppet masters:

Ronald Asmus, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Ivo H. Daalder, Thomas Donnelly, Peter Galbraith, Robert S. Gelbard, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Martin S. Indyk, Bruce P. Jackson, Robert Kagan, Craig Kennedy, William Kristol, Tod Lindberg, Will Marshall, Danielle Pletka, Dennis Ross, Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt, Walter Slocombe, James B. Steinberg, R. James Woolsey

sorry. this.

Indeed. This was all planned by late 1996 at the latest. The right-wing Pentagon hawks tried to convince Clinton to give it a go back in early 1997.

PNAC

Google: Project New American Century

an interesting read: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeric asDefenses.pdf

Try this on and see if it's not about oil. I'm convinced now.

And what's this talk about keeping the Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil fields? Are you talking about conquest and empire-building? Some do want that -- Dick Cheney is a signer, for example -- but the first Gulf War was a war for liberation. Bush Sr. was a believer of noblesse oblige, not a megalomaniac.

...and then hold their hand as they struggle to sort out all the damage their ex-ruler did.

Are you kidding? Have you not heard anything about Afghanistan since they stopped being the 'evil enemy' who you morally 'saved'?

Since the war, there have been power struggles (inevitable), public bombings between factions, much of the country is controlled by random warlords, and some of the country is even back under control of the Taliban again!

But no, nobody seems to give a f*ck about Afghanistan anymore. Are CNN not covering it? Strange, that.

Just when will it stop? Who's next on your hitlist? Will you just go around killing everyone until everyone in the world bends over for the U.S.?

...The U.S. is planning to sit around and watch.

No, no. They're far too busy trying to take control of this planet.

However, we're not stupid enough to start a nuclear war by attacking a country that's ruled by a madman.

There seems to be a big fashion for people to call certain world leaders they don't like 'madmen'. Now, while I'll agree this is a nice easy way of demonising someone without having to explain it, you should also consider this.

I know of another country where, if you asked to inspect their weapons, you would go away with laughter spittle on your face. They are known to have chemical weapons, biological weapons and nuclear weapons. Hell, they even turned away U.N. inspectors, who they seem to be acknowledging as an authority right now. Not that this country believes in an idea of authority which is not them and only them.

This country has stuck its nose into foreign affairs, starting wars in its interest, at a rate of about 3 a decade, ever since the fifties.

This country is also led by a bunch of religious fanatics.

And they blatantly have an ambition to extend their control over the world.

And unlike other countries, this country is waving its weapons in a threatening manor.

You may have guessed that this country is the U.S.

Why am I naive?

Because I don't agree with attacking someone on a whim?

Why do I call it attacking? It's more like ritual slaughter.

What am I ignorant of?

I think the phrase more accurately describes you. You will be able to sleep better knowing that they are doing something about the nasty evil people.

You are the universe's sole guardian, after all. Who's next on your hitlist?

God bless America.

Yeah fucking right.

Please answer my questions, otherwise I will think you are some U.S. nationalist nut who believes in this kinda crap.

Very good. Bravo. You noticed that peoples' words were taken out of context. What gave it away? The stuttering? The jerky motions? The funky beats? It's not edited together to try to change what these people were specifically saying in the clips. The piece is using familiar faces and voices to make a point. It's the overall message that matters. Now, along the way, truncated statements might tweak an eyebrow. But I don't see much misconstruing going on.

And whether or not the viewers get lazy on their research, GNN certainly is not. They've had some great writing. Hell, there's some on their home page right now: check out Heather Wokusch's razor sharp analysis of Turkey's role in the upcoming Gulf War II or the bit about the adminstration's plan for the internet.

I mean, c'mon... Anyone who buys all this "war on terror" and "we gotta take out the madman" stuff is a grade A moron. But hell, don't take my word for it, get it straight from the horses mouth: here is the report in which all our current cronies, er, illustrious leaders, lay out their master plan for controlling the world's resources and "preserving American interests".... from Sept 2000. Be sure to browse the site and check out the roster: Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc.

Ya know, the GNN piece is entertaining, but it actually falls short. It was made right after 911 and was responding to a well founded concern that the war on terror would become the holy war to end all holy wars (and the human race too). But, ultimately, the guys running the show don't give a shit about religion or terrorism. It's all about the money and power.