2006-10-14

Bush's Ever-Changing Rationales for the Charlie Foxtrot in Iraq

Every few months George Bush changes the reasons we are in war in Iraq. As the AP notes in the article linked above:
Initially, the rationale was specific: to stop Saddam Hussein from using what Bush claimed were the Iraqi leader's weapons of mass destruction or from selling them to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups.

But 3 1/2 years later, with no weapons found, still no end in sight and the war a liability for nearly all Republicans on the ballot Nov. 7, the justification has become far broader and now includes the expansive "struggle between good and evil."

I don't know why he won't just tell the truth: The US is in Iraq to install a puppet regime, control the nation's oil, to get rich off the revaluing of the Iraqi Dinar and to create several new permanent military bases that will allow the US to keep tabs on the flow of oil throughout the Middle East.

Would coming clean make Bush look more imperialistic than he already does? He changes the explanation every few weeks. It's no wonder our troops don't understand what their mission is.

Nobody buys the "creating a democratic state in the Middle East" nonsense except the right-wing pundits at Reformed Leftist. We know those cats are "drinking the neocon Kool-Aid", but no one else is.

But honesty isn't Bush's strong suit, is it?

3 comments:

Paul Hue said...

Every claim you have made here, Nadir, is incorrect. Bush has not changed his rationale for invading Iraq and facilitating the erection of a civilized government. Some people only cared about one one plank in his rationale, the WMD angle, and only paid attention to that. These people, like everybody else, assumed that Hussein had WMDs, and only because of this did they support invasion.

Bush invaded to impliment the cease fire agreement from 1992, of which Hussein's government had constantly violated several stipulations, including full submission to UN weapons inspectors. Bush's letter to congress only mentions two reasons:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

1. Enforcing that decade-old resultion, of which Hussein had never honored.
2. Taking action against international terrorists. Hussein's government qualified due to its continuous support for terrorist acts inside Isreal's border.

This letter does not mention WMDs. The cease-fire UN agreement mandated that Hussein's govertnment have no WMDs, which Bush's invasion did not find, but also mandated several other stipulations, which Hussein constantly violated, including a failure to comply with UN weapons inspections.

The reason Bush chose to finally impliment this cease fire agreement, as he and his representatives have stated many times before the invasion, includes guaranteeing against WMD in the hands of a devoted US enemy (Iraq, especially important as the US military conducts operaions in Afgahnistan) and overt supporter of anti-Isreali terror, and also giving muslims a living example of prosperity and freedom, as an alternative to achieving prosperity via islamic crusader terrorism. (I assume you are familiar with the koranic passages mandating "terror" -- Mohammad actually uses this word! -- against infidels.)

If you read any of countless neocon and free market documents you will learn that these people believe that US businesses make more money off of free trade with democracies which control their own resources and have a prosperous people with money to spend than they do with impoverishied dictatorships who give away national resources. Your accusastion about stealing Iraq's oil derives only from your imagination, not any facts that you can cite. Please demonstate how US business interests are stealing and controlling petro from Iraq's Kurdish area.

Your claim about stealing oil also contradicts your claim about a scheme to profit off of the dinar valuation. The dinar's value will reflect the security and prosperity of the Iraqi people. It will not, and cannot, become valuable within the context of an impoverished people with natural resources getting stolen by foreign puppetteers. Please find such a nation on this earth that enjoys a valuable national currency.

Your suspicion about US military bases is preposterous, given that US military bases exist in many nations who enjoy independant democratic governments, and free, prosperous people, including: Italy, Germany, France, South Korea, and Japan. The US military also has a perminant miltary base on the soil of US enemy Cuba, while offering zero threat to that nation's totalitarian government for over 40 years (and only failed threats prior to that). All these prosperous nations demonstrate conclusively that US military bases do not interfer with a people establishing independant, democratic nations (to the contrary, the US military assisted in erecting and maintaining such governments), and Cuba demonstrates that US military bases do not stop dictators from ruining the lives of their people.

Paul Hue said...

Nadir: what does CF (Charlie Foxtrot) mean? It sounds like one of your dad's favorite ballroom dances.

Paul Hue said...

The reason that the troops no longer understand their mission is that such a large fraction of Iraqis in 2/3 of the country have turned out to be retarded homicidal lunatics that US troops no longer know who to fight. It is no longer a war that a modern civilized military can win.