> Before I begin let me identify my primary positions which are
> 2 of 3, MI complex and Pro-Israel, now you can feel justified
> to automatically discount anything I say in the following ...
Please understand one thing: I don't have a problem with 'special
interest groups' per se. They are everywhere, and we'll members of some
subset or the other.
My problem is that these particular interest groups have grown too
powerful, have deceived us, and today we face terrible consequences for
what they've done.
We were led into launching a pre-emptive invasion for "reason list A"
when morphed into "reason list B", while all along there was a "reason
list C" that still evades the light of day.
And we're not talking school pranks here, this is world class deceit.
The guy who burned a dumpster is sitting in jail today, but the folks
who unnecessarily rained terror on an entire country are not only scot
free, but ruining our freedom to boot. This is a terrible situation, but
as with so many things, we can't really fix a problem until we really
understand it.
How do we do that? Here's one way: call it the OMI War, an acronym for
the Big 3 that happens to rhyme with "owe me".
> So you categorically reject that we did Iraq for 'defensive'
> purposes? In your rejection, I will reject the notion or
> reason for your rejection as being, Iraq under Sadaam's
> control could not militarily in direct confrontation hurt
> America. That is obvious to the casual observer.
>
> However, in the very complicated world of terrorism, Iraq
> represented a real threat and I'm not saying that Iraq
> participated in the 9/11 attack, nobody has said there was
> direct participation, there is some alleged indirect
> participation if not even for basic logistical purposes.
Are you saying this is all it should take for us to spring into action?
Whooooaaaa! There's a whole lot of them out there! Wanna spend your and
your kids lifetimes in a war zone? That is what you're talking about -
you know?
> Saying this, I'm well aware of the fact that OBL did not have
> a special love for SH, but America represented a deeper
> significant threat to both organizations at the time to
> warrant a loose if not winking alliance.
Sure. We all know that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Remember that
we sided with Stalin and Saddam for this very reason.
> I suppose Sadaam's ambitions and successful execution of
> milking the UN for funds under their own program and well
> documented in the Duelfer report doesn't account for much
> either, just the fact that no WMDs were found is good enough
> to discount the unseating of SH and his repressive
> government. Correct?
It wasn't what we did, it's how we did it that matters so much. I
completely agree that Saddam was a bastard, and he needed to be brought
to justice for his well-deserved punishment. Where we part company on
this is how it actually played out. Instead of using that case as a
catalyst for reinforcing a system for International justice, we allowed
these interest groups to seize the moment for their special purposes. We
hesitated while they grabbed the ball and ran with it. Then we had a
so-called chance to change things, and discovered the alternative was
even worse. Now, over 4 years, they've purged "naysayers" and
consolidated power. Recently Bush has said words to the effect that the
military is in charge of making plans to defend America. Whether those
were his exact words or not, the bottom line is that he is CLEARLY not
in charge and pulling the strings of the Pentagon and Intelligence
agencies, it's the other way around.
So - we had Event 'A' fire method 'B', but 'B' had been hijacked.
> Because you are assured that Big Oil,
> MI complex interests and Israeli Support is the entire rationale.
Best I can figure, these are the prime movers.
Put it this way: show me someone in the tank building business who
doesn't believe building his industry is super important. Show me a Big
Oil man who doesn't lust for ME oil. Show me a pro-Israeli who doesn't
think Israel's security is the world's #1 priority.
If you have a different set of groups, fire away.
Consider this about the "we made a mistake" explanation sometimes
whispered about. The multi-billion dollar intelligence machine doesn't
make such colossal mistakes. Important information travels at the speed
of thought, and for that entire system to have missed such prominent and
relevant information about Iraq in the days leading up to the invasion
simply didn't happen. They absolutely knew the facts, but the facts were
manipulated - and then uncontested.
This has been documented. Here's an excerpt from an article by Ray
McGovern (whose character I'm sure has since been assassinated):
"A face-saving solution of this kind, however, would be impossible to
achieve absent willingness on the part of the president's current
advisers to abandon the real aims of the war. Those aims have little to
do with weapons of mass destruction or ties between Iraq and
terrorists-and still less with 9/11 or exporting democracy. They have
everything to do with the neoconservatives' determination to dominate
strategic, oil-rich Iraq, implant a permanent military presence there,
and-not incidentally--eliminate any possible threat to Israel's
security. On the latter point, several months before the war, Philip
Zelikow, a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
from 2001 to 2003, pointed explicitly to the danger that Iraq might pose
to Israel as "the unstated threat-a threat that dare not speak its
name.because it is not a popular sell."
-Ray McGovern (rmcgovern At slschool .D.O.T org) was a CIA analyst for 27 years,
serving from the administration of John F. Kennedy to that of George H.
W. Bush.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0510-08.htm
Why commondreams? Well, a quick search on "mcgovern nytimes" gets 0 hits
is 1 thing to say about that.
> I wonder how you would feel if we didn't take this course of
> action, continued concentration of Afghanistan and let's say
> Bush wasn't elected in 2004, Patriot Act was watered down and
> this year another attack was made in New York City by
> container explosion on board a ship in the New York harbor
> spreading nuclear waste? Not many casualties initially but a
> whole bunch of people inhale a lethal dose of Strontium-90.
I think you're missing something real important here: today we're at
even greater risk than before. There are lots of aggrieved people out
there, with no path to justice. What we're telling them is that we have
the biggest guns, so they have no choice but to listen.
Just in on the News: "they're not afraid"
A fly on the wall in the Pentagon listens ...
"What? How could they not be afraid of my BIG GUN?"
"They see things differently"
"Well, let them see things different in Hell then!"
"Booom ... Booom .... Booom"
"What was that?"
"Oh, shit!"
You remember the children's game of rock/paper/scissors? It's sort of
like that today, except now the scissors can blow up.
-------
Let me go off on human nature for a moment:
Human nature is predisposed - defined by - the "opposites". It's not
just you and I disagreeing here, but all of mankind is characterized by
this "basic force of nature". The opposites, whatever their roots, are
healthy, good to have around, because they fuel tension, produce
friction, and that in turn produces progress. It's clearly in our nature
to progress, and tension pushes it along. But when carried to the
extreme, too much tension produces neurosis, which is the paralyzing
inability to decide among conflicting beliefs. You say you don't believe
in murder, but then you send soldiers to commit murder. If you think
about it, that's such a conflict, and it has produced more than one
neurotic.
--------
What to do? On the short list, we've got to get America back on track to
being worthy of a leadership position. We need a "Project for the New
American Century" alright, but one based on the building, not
destroying.
Example: imagine had we spent that 1/3 TRILLION dollars to completely
eliminate starvation throughout the entire planet, and used the spare
change to wipe out AIDS. Imagine a world that loves America for it's
accomplishments instead of one that loathes it for it's abuses of power.
> Of course, this is speculation and you charge me with fear mongering.
I don't recall charging you with anything. And, if anything, I tread
lightly because I'm not against the military. It's the management.
Bill
> v/r
>
> //SIGNED//
> Stephen S. Wolfe, GS-11, DAFC
©2005 Bill Arnold |
|
