Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

'The real reason we're in Iraq'

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

> d

> Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:20:12 EDT

> 'The real reason we're in Iraq'

>

>

> Harley Sorensen: 'The real reason we're in Iraq'

> Monday, September 13 @ 09:41:11 EDT

>

----

 

> By Harley Sorensen, San Francisco Chronicle

>

> We should get out of Iraq immediately. Let me

> explain ...

>

> But, first, bear in mind why we're in Iraq. It has

> nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, and

it has nothing to do with the brutal dictatorship of

Saddam Hussein.

>

> It has a lot to do with ambition.

>

> Before we invaded Iraq, our politicians told us that

> Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in great

quantities. Secretary of State Colin Powell even went

to the United Nations and described Iraq's cache in

> detail, down to the pound of certain weapons.

>

> Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told us that

> not only did Iraq have these weapons but he knew

exactly where they were.

>

> This is why I seriously doubted that Iraq had

> weapons of mass destruction. What our government

told us defied logic and common sense.

>

> The United Nations had inspectors in Iraq looking

> for weapons. They couldn't find any. Logic and

common sense, then, would have dictated that our

government tell those inspectors where to look. After

all, if we knew, why wouldn't we share our knowledge

with

> the inspectors?

>

> We wouldn't, of course, because we didn't know. Our

> government explained its unwillingness to help by

explaining that it didn't want to compromise

confidential sources.

>

> How much sense does that make? Saddam has enough

> weaponry to attack the western world, and we can't

lead the UN inspectors to it because we don't want

Saddam to know how we got the information? Give me a

> break!

>

> (As a footnote, it should be noted that a favorite

> trick of pathological liars is to " protect " their

nonexistent sources of information.)

>

> We now know for certain that Saddam did not have the

> weapons we used to go to war against Iraq.

>

> And common sense tells that we didn't attack Iraq

> because Saddam is a brutal dictator. He was a brutal

dictator back in the days when we played footsie with

him as he fought Iran. (Do a Google image search

> for Rumsfeld and Saddam, and you'll find pictures of

> Rummy and Saddam shaking hands.)

>

> Historically, the United States has always been

> friendly with brutal dictators if it's to our

financial advantage.

> Currently, there are other dictators afoot; Saddam

wasn't the only one.

>

> And anyone who can read knows that Saddam had

> nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks

of Sept. 11, 2001.

>

> So why did we go to war with Iraq?

>

> The short answer is " oil. " But that's not the whole

> story.

>

> Briefly, we went to war with Iraq because an

> influential group of conservatives (now known as

" neo-cons " ) convinced President George W. Bush that it

was in America's best interests to conquer Iraq as a

> first step toward dominating the oil-producing

> nations in the Middle East and eventually the world.

 

>

> Not insignificantly, these same neo-cons wanted to

> eliminate Iraq as a threat to their darling ally,

Israel.

>

> Their plan is laid out in detail on the Web at

> http://newamericancentury.org.

>

> So we invaded Iraq not to save ourselves from

> weapons of mass destruction, not to rid the world of

a brutal dictator and not to avenge the murders of

Sept. 11. We invaded Iraq because Bush and his

> pals think America should rule the world.

>

> That's why we can't win. The rest of the world isn't

> going to let us win. The rest of the world might

admire us, but they do not want to be dominated by us.

 

>

> And that's why we should get out of Iraq today. Not

> tomorrow, not next week, not a year from now, but

today.

>

> Try as we may, we are not going to turn Iraq into a

> model democracy. The Sunnis don't want democracy.

The Shiites don't want a democracy. The Kurds don't

want a democracy.

>

> The Saudis do not want a new democracy as a

> neighbor. Nor do the Kuwaitis. Nor do the Syrians.

None of the countries in that region with despotic

rulers want us to succeed. And don't think for a

moment

> they're above slipping terrorists into Iraq to kill

> Americans.

>

> The plan to conquer Iraq was half-baked from the

> start. Our troops were not properly trained or

equipped to do the job given them. (Sent to the desert

in jungle fatigues? Not given body armor? Completely

> untrained in handling prisoners?)

>

> There was no " exit plan " because we never intended

> to exit. The plan was, and is, to build military

bases in Iraq and stay there forever as cock of the

walk in the Middle East.

>

> Many of our European friends, who have a sense of

> history, knew better than to get involved in such a

fool's mission.

>

> Bush may be the idealist other people think he is,

> but his grandiose plan for controlling the world has

at least one fatal flaw: it depends, childlike, on the

good will of all involved.

>

> Yet, not even the U.S., the alleged " good guy " in

> this mess, has demonstrated purity. Our leaders see

Iraq as a place to make money.

> So Bush & Co. have set up their friends to cash in

> on the rebuilding of Iraq, a job that should be

done (for pay) by the people who built it in the first

place: Iraqis.

>

> We can't win in Iraq. Hardly anybody wants us to.

> The longer we stay there, the more Iraqi children

end up maimed or dead, the more of our young men and

women die.

>

> Clearly, our government lied to us, and to the

> world, to get us into this war. That alone should

tell us it's wrong.

>

> Several years ago, George W. Bush made a decision to

> quit drinking.

> As one of my e-mailers suggests, we would have been

> better off if he had decided, instead, to quit

lying.

>

> It's not too late, George.

>

> Harley Sorensen is a longtime journalist. E-mail him

> at harleysorensen.

>

> ©2004 SF Gate

>

> Reprinted from The San Francisco Chronicle:

> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?

> file=/gate/archive/2004/09/13/hsorensen.DTL

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...