Hijacking Catastrophe - 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire

[TimeTraveler]

I don't know how many of you have seen this documentary but I wanted to discuss some important questions this documentary raises.

 

It's called: Hijacking Catastrophe - 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire

 

A Media Education Foundation Presentation

Written & Directed by Jeremy Earp & Sut Jhally

Narrated by Julian Bond

http://hijackingcatastrophe.org/

 

Here are a couple exerpts from the film:

 

"The failure to find Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction has raised serious questions about the legitimacy and legality of the ongoing war in Iraq. But as both American and Iraqi casualties escalate, and as the conflict becomes more chaotic and deadly by the day, debate within the United States continues to focus narrowly on whether American intelligence agencies provided accurate enough information to justify going to war. In the process, a larger question has been all but ignored. If the war was not about weapons of mass destruction, what is it really about? Pursuing this question forces us to consider a different story. It is a story that begins as the Cold War ends: a story about a group of self-identified radical conservatives at the right-wing extreme of the Republican party; a group of intellectuals and policy makers who saw the fall of the Soviet Union and Communism not as an opportunity to scale back America's Cold War military machine, but as an opportunity to build up its size and scale - to use military force more aggressively and unilaterally; to construct a new, unchallenged, American empire."

 

"When George W. Bush took office in 2000 [note: should be 2001'], he brought with him some of the most conservative foreign policy voices in the Republican Party. Chief among them were Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary for Defense Paul Wolfowitz. All of whom had served together previously in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Paul Wolfowitz, in particular, had long been recognized as the intellectual force behind a radical neoconservative fringe of the Republican party. For years, Wolfowitz had been advancing the idea that the United States should reconsider its commitments to international treaties, international law, and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations."

 

It's this kind of ideology which has grown up in the wake of the Cold War; propounded quite openly by what we are calling 'Neoconservatives' in America, that identifies the United States as a colossus athwart the world - a new Rome, beyond good and evil. We no longer need friends, we don't need international law. Like the old Roman phrase, 'It doesn't matter whether they love us or not, so long as they fear us.

 

The most notable statements in the draft advocated preemptive action and unilateral force. These were needed, the report explained, to "prevent the re-emergence of a new rival," and to "remain the predominant outside power in the [Persian Gulf'] region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil." The 46-page classified document circulated for several weeks at senior levels in the Pentagon until controversy erupted after it was leaked to The New York Times and The Washington Post. The White House ordered then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney to rewrite it.

 

"It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to 100 billion dollars, to deny other nations the use of outer space, and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and preemptively in the world. The elimination of states like Iraq figured prominently in this grand vision. But even these hard-line conservatives knew that the Wolfowitz Doctrine was likely too radical to win the support of the foreign policy establishment, their own Republican party, and the American people. In their defining document, written in September of 2000, a full year before 9-11, they acknowledged that the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one absent, in their own chilling words, 'some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.' One year later, that event would arrive.[/b']"

 

"In all of its previous incarnations, and long before 9-11 and the current war on terror, the Wolfowitz Doctrine had identified regime change in Iraq as a crucial first step toward global domination by force. In a widely-circulated letter to President Bill Clinton in 1998, the members of the Project for the New American Century challenged the President to act forcefully and militarily, to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Two years later, George W. Bush would hand pick many of these same neoconservatives for key foreign policy posts in the Pentagon and State Department. Once installed in government positions - as recent interviews with a number of former members of the Bush administration have revealed - the group maintained its long-standing focus on Iraq; a focus that intensified after the attacks of September 11th. "

 

The Wolfowitz Doctrine was a classified document, some parts of it were leaked to the Washington post and New York times... I have searched and searched and have not and most likely will not find the full document, but here are some parts from the papers written in 1992.

 

1) Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival' date=' either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power.

 

2) The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.

 

3) Like the coalition that opposed Iraqi aggression, we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished. Nevertheless, the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor.

 

4) While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.

 

5) We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others....We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.

 

6) [b']In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil.

 

The problem for the Bush Administration is that plans that already existed for regime change in Iraq had to be justified. They couldn't just go in without public support. The public support was created by connecting Saddam Hussein to those fears of terrorism.

- Robert Jensen, Professor of Journalism, University of Texas, Austin

 

"Soon after September 11th, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set up a small intelligence office in the Pentagon- the Office of Special Plans - to create the rationales for the already planned attack on Iraq, to convince people that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and that he was linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11. Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski worked in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia office. She witnessed how the Office of Special Plans issued talking points about Iraq for senior government officials, allegedly based on intelligence."

 

The information in there, drawn from fact - you could find pieces of fact throughout - but framed, articulated, crafted to convince someone of... what? Well, of things that weren't true! Things that weren't true. 9/11, Al Qaeda related to Saddam Hussein, possibly some involvement there. The very things that, a year later, President Bush himself denies and feigns his surprise, 'I don't know why everybody thinks that.' Well, I worked in a place where they concentrated on preparing this storyline. And selling it to everyone they could possibly sell it to.

- Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret)

 

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of Al Qaeda

- George W. Bush

 

We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September the 11th.

- George W. Bush

 

It wasn't the failure of intelligence, it was the manipulation of intelligence to achieve a political goal. They were disciplined, they stayed on message, they marshaled all of their forces in this relentless public relations campaign to convince the American people that there was a threat from Iraq.

- Robert Jensen, Professor of Journalism, University of Texas, Austin

 

United States knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Any country on the face of the earth with an active intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction

- Donald Rumsfeld

 

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

- Vice President Richard Chaney

 

Out of the President's mouth, Vice President's mouth, the same things that were being given to us to put into our superiors, our senior civilian leadership's mouths, these things were not based on intelligence that we saw, that anyone saw. These things were based on a very selective reading of intelligence and then a creative packaging such that you could push through these two big points that the President and the Vice President and the whole neoconservative community used to justify this preemptive war on Iraq.

- Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret)

 

The larger picture is being driven by the fact that that we're about to hit peak oil worldwide, that there's this sort of emerging global competition between us and China, there is the ongoing economic rivalries between us and Europe. And so Southwest Asia becomes geopolitically a lynchpin.

- Stan Goff, U.S. Army, 3rd Special Forces (Ret)

 

The major reason to take Iraq was a display of imperial power; was to show both the Arab world - not just them - but to show Europe, and the Far Eastern block - China and the Koreans - who was master.

- Tariq Ali, Author, "The Clash of Fundamentalisms"

 

"While it may have appeared to American T.V. viewers that 'Shock and Awe' was merely a catchy media label for the U.S. bombing campaign in Iraq, its actual origins, and a whole theory of warfare, are found in a 1996 advisory report published by the National Defense University. Authored by Harlan Ullman of the National War College, it argues that the aim of modern warfare is not merely to achieve military victory but also, by means of sheer intimidation, to inflict a deep psychological injury, to scare and terrorize potential rivals into submission. It is, in effect, the practical application of the Wolfowitz Doctrine of global domination through force. Describing 'Shock and Awe' as 'massively destructive strikes directly at the public will,' Ullman writes, '... intimidation and compliance are the outputs we seek to obtain ... The intent here is to impose a regime of Shock and Awe through delivery of instant, nearly incomprehensible levels of massive destruction directed at influencing society writ large ... through very selective, utterly brutal and ruthless, and rapid application of force to intimidate,' Ullman continues, '... The aim ... is to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary ... Without senses, the adversary becomes impotent and entirely vulnerable.'"

 

"To maintain the Bush Administration's war doctrine, massive increases in military spending have been required. The United States now spends more than 400 billion dollars annually on the military: seven times as much as the next biggest spender, and nearly equal to what the rest of the world spends combined. Such vast expenditures on military machinery and war, together with the largest tax cuts in history, have driven the Bush Administration's record budget deficits. They have also been responsible for deepening the national debt; which, by the end of 2004, figures to stand at over seven trillion dollars - more than five times the size of the debt of the entire third world.. Foreign countries hold the notes on about one third of this unprecedented U.S. debt."

 

"In the immediate aftermath of September 11th, the people of the United States came together in an unprecedented display of national unity. And the world rallied to their cause. Across the globe, people came together in a spontaneous and stunning display of unified support for the people of the United States. Yet, just two years later, in those same places and on those same streets, tens of millions of people would come together again; this time to march in outrage over the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq. How the American people interpret the meaning and importance of this dramatic and sudden shift is a question that has yet to be answered."

 

One of the things that the exercise of power does is that it cuts both ways. So the U.S. exercises power in the world to create stability -- people who are on the receiving end of that power see themselves being oppressed. And so they resist. And as a consequence, this process of trying to pacify the world and get it to go along with what the United States wants actually creates the resistance that the U.S. is trying to quell. And so this is not the way that will actually get us forward out of the situation that we find ourselves in. It only makes things worse.

- Zia Mian, Science & Global Security, Princeton University

 

Spectatorship is an invitation to fear. Citizenship is how we fight the politics of fear. The politics of citizenship, the politics of engagement, taking responsibility is a much better way to deal with terrorism than hunkering down being spectators and allowing the government to rob us of our liberties, to rob us of our multiculturalism, in the name of protecting us.

- Benjamin Barber, Author, "Fear's Empire"

 

I recommend you see this film as there is much that cannot be layed out here, but the film asks you to consider alot of questions about the Bush administration and the motives behind whats happening.

 

Here is a link to some clips from the film: http://hijackingcatastrophe.org/index.php?module=ContentExpress&file=index&func=display&ceid=7&meid=1

 

I'm curious as to what you think of the film or the information and accusations presented in the film.

[Aardvark]

I'm curious as to what you think of the film or the information and accusations presented in the film.

 

Shock, horror. USA government plans ahead and develops strategy to promote own interests. Gasp, how wickedly cynical of them.

 

Yawn.

[syntax252]

Perish the thought !!

[TimeTraveler]

Shock' date=' horror. USA government plans ahead and develops strategy to promote own interests. Gasp, how wickedly cynical of them.

 

Yawn.[/quote']

 

You didn't mention if you seen the film or not so I am not sure exactly what message you are interpreting from this information, but the message you and I are getting seem to be very different.

 

America planning ahead to develop strategies based on it's own interests is one thing. I cannot think of a country that wouldn't do that. (Im sure there are exceptions but I cannot think of any)

 

However, intentionaly manipulation intelligence to decieve the American people into believing a plan of action and motives that are allegedly not the real motives, and the real motives come from 13 years ago when a plan to rid Iraq of Saddam's regime for purposes of global control through the use of force is a completely seperate issue.

 

If the allegations pan out to have any truth to them, which evidence has been presented but in my opinion is not enough at this point, we are talking about very criminal actions, we then began talking about real merits for impeachment, even possibly trials for war crimes. But that might be stretching things at this point.

 

Perish the thought !!

 

I ask you please to only respond if you have something to add to the discussion.

[Aardvark]

You didn't mention if you seen the film or not so I am not sure exactly what message you are interpreting from this information, but the message you and I are getting seem to be very different.

 

I saw most of it before giving up out of exasperation. A lot of overblown, lurid speculation, quotes totally out of context and seemingly paranoid opinions from professional Anti Americans. I'm sorry but i simply don't accept Tariq Ali as a realiable source.

 

Yes, it is clear that some in America suffer from hubris, but no, i don't accept the insinuations that the USA is somehow implementing a master plan of world domination. Taken at face value i am not in the slightest bit concerned by the so called Wolfowitz doctrine.

 

It strikes me that only truly decadent, deracinated Westerners could actually be so morally decayed as to be unhappy at the idea of their own country actively promoting its own interests rather than engaging in the orgy of maschocistic self recrimination that the psuedo intellectual progressives deem the only fit behaviour.

[TimeTraveler]

professional Anti Americans.

 

Actually it was made by mostly Americans, and most of the evidence was presented by Americans.

 

I'm sorry but i simply don't accept Tariq Ali as a realiable source.

 

Nor should anyone as he was clearly stating opinions, as were most in the documentary, however I don't think that would be any reason to discredit evidence.

 

Yes, it is clear that some in America suffer from hubris, but no, i don't accept the insinuations that the USA is somehow implementing a master plan of world domination.

 

Although the term world domination was used a couple of times thats not the impression I actually got from the evidence presented, more of global control with military force. Position our military in ways throughout the world for reasons of protecting valuable resources that are of importance to America.

 

Taken at face value i am not in the slightest bit concerned by the so called Wolfowitz doctrine.

 

Really? hrrm, I find the excerpts of the document quite disgusting, and the cheney re-written version just as displeasing. You do know that the bush doctrine that is in effect in America today is a revision of both these documents together. I had not known of the wolfowitz doctrine prior to seeing this film but I will say, regardless of anything the movie said to me I do realize how sick a couple of these individuals in the Bush administration are.

 

Since there is alot of opinions in the movie lets actually examine just the allegations described for a minute:

 

Soon after September 11th, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set up a small intelligence office in the Pentagon- the Office of Special Plans... Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski worked in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia office. She witnessed how the Office of Special Plans issued talking points about Iraq for senior government officials, allegedly based on intelligence."

 

She says...

 

The information in there, drawn from fact - you could find pieces of fact throughout - but framed, articulated, crafted to convince someone of... what? Well, of things that weren't true! Things that weren't true. 9/11, Al Qaeda related to Saddam Hussein, possibly some involvement there. The very things that, a year later, President Bush himself denies and feigns his surprise, 'I don't know why everybody thinks that.' Well, I worked in a place where they concentrated on preparing this storyline. And selling it to everyone they could possibly sell it to.

- Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski (Ret)

 

In hearing this accusation I have to do some research on who she is and what she says, I found the following:

 

Here in this paper she begins telling part of her story:

 

http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html

 

I think the claims presented warrant an investigation.

 

I think us Americans, and everyone for that matter need to at least question the motives of this war with an open-mind. If a conspiracy such as being presented has any basis of truth, we need to do something about it.

 

I will continue to search for information.

 

*edit* posted wrong link, here is link to Karen Kwiatkowski's story: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_i...iatkowski1.html

[Aardvark]

Actually it was made by mostly Americans, and most of the evidence was presented by Americans.

 

 

I'm aware of that. It is curious that some of the most vocal professional anti Americans are themselves American, which is what provoked me to point out the decadence inherent in these pseudo intellectual progressives.

 

The idea of global control through military force sounds a lot like world domination to me. I'm not sure if we are disagreeing here?

 

Interesting link to Goebebels but what is the direct relevance to this discussion?

 

As to the accusations of Kwiatkowski, i'm afraid that sort of behaviour sounds like everyday spin in politics. Seeing the way Blair can plant a story in the media at arms length and then massage it , the general manipulation of the media and public opinion i'm no longer shocked in the slightest. It's depressing but not news.

[TimeTraveler]

I'm aware of that. It is curious that some of the most vocal professional anti Americans are themselves American, which is what provoked me to point out the decadence inherent in these pseudo intellectual progressives.

 

I wouldn't call them anti-americans, I would just call them anti-american-abuse-of-power. I for one would like to see the world become a better place, and don't believe bombing 'the bad guys' without cause is adhering to any form of American ideals. Plus this movie is co-produced by Sut Jhally, whom I feel is the best documentary producer of all time so I am a bit biased. (have you ever seen Advertising and the end of the world? Its great.)

 

The idea of global control through military force sounds a lot like world domination to me. I'm not sure if we are disagreeing here?

 

I'm not sure, . When I think of global domination I think of control over other countries politics, basically running the show where they disagree with the current political body. When I think of global control through military force, I think of protecting resources and interveining when conflict arises as to 'break it up'. Thats the difference from my point of view.

 

 

Interesting link to Goebebels but what is the direct relevance to this discussion?

 

Gah. Sorry about that, I found that link and was going to post it, then I decided it was not relevant so I erased it... I thought, but I erased the link I wanted to post, which is here, it is a three part article:

 

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-kwiatkowski1.html

 

Seeing the way Blair can plant a story in the media at arms length and then massage it , the general manipulation of the media and public opinion i'm no longer shocked in the slightest. It's depressing but not news.

 

Well if it can ever be proven that the American public was lied to to get them to back the war under false pretenses Bush will find himself spending alot of time with Saddam.

[TimeTraveler]

It called on the United States to increase the military budget by up to 100 billion dollars, to deny other nations the use of outer space, and to adopt a more aggressive and unilateral foreign policy that would allow the United States to act offensively and preemptively in the world. The elimination of states like Iraq figured prominently in this grand vision. But even these hard-line conservatives knew that the Wolfowitz Doctrine was likely too radical to win the support of the foreign policy establishment, their own Republican party, and the American people. In their defining document, written in September of 2000, a full year before 9-11, they acknowledged that the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one absent, in their own chilling words, 'some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.' One year later, that event would arrive."

 

Another thing to note is this revision of the doctrine was written in 2000, a year before 9-11. The Bush administration was seeking pre-emptive war with Iraq and 9-11 gave them that opportunity, by being able to tie them to terrorism, a tie which has been admitedly false.

[TimeTraveler]

Came across some other interesting articles:

 

Accusations against Cheney's alleged involvment with 9-11:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050119084227272

 

Accusation and lawsuit, which has been now thrown out:

http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm

 

"Stanley Hilton's $7 billion federal class action lawsuit against the Bush Administration for its complicity in the attacks has been thrown out. The suit was not dismissed because of lack of evidence, but rather because the judge reasoned that U.S. Citizens do not have the right to hold a sitting President accountable for anything, even if the charges include premeditated mass murder and premeditated acts of high treason. The ruling was based on the "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity."

 

What is the "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity." And can anyone confirm or discredit this information?

 

I am starting to be convinced that something deeper is going on here, and it is scaring the hell outta me.

[Tetrahedrite]

All very disturbing indeed!

[Aardvark]

What is the "Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity." And can anyone confirm or discredit this information?

 

I am starting to be convinced that something deeper is going on here' date=' and it is scaring the hell outta me.[/quote']

 

Soveriegn immunity is a pretty established concept. Basically a head of state can do things which for anyone else to do would be illegal. It's a get out of jail free card.

 

As for worying about anything deeper. The US government has taken a look hard cynical look at its interests and has decided to aggressively promote them. For instance by eliminating or neutralising unfriendly regimes in areas of great strategic importance. This inevitably involves massaging of public relations, deniable leaks, emotive appeals and all the rest.

 

As the US government has apparently come to the conclusion that the old policy of supporting comliant despotisms is to be changed to that of transplanting democracy to these important areas there may be generally benign results from this cynical exercise of realpolitic.

[Aardvark]

Well if it can ever be proven that the American public was lied to to get them to back the war under false pretenses Bush will find himself spending alot of time with Saddam.

 

 

A case of wishful thinking on your part?

[TimeTraveler]

A case of wishful thinking on your part?

 

No, if there is a case made that Bush (and co.) intentionaly lied to the american people, and had any connection in letting 9-11 happen, to further their agenda, he would be fried. Although I think it is something that will be very difficult to establish even if an investigation were to take place.

 

Its one thing to talk about deception, misleading people ect... but now some of these allegations are pointing to involvment in and with al qae'da and 9-11, that seriously changes things dramatically.

 

Im just home for lunch, I will elaborate on my post later tonight.

[Tetrahedrite]

No' date=' if there is a case made that Bush (and co.) intentionaly lied to the american people, and had any connection in letting 9-11 happen, to further their agenda, he would be fried. Although I think it is something that will be very difficult to establish even if an investigation were to take place.

[/quote']

If any evidence of a link was found I'm sure that the guilty parties would be able to worm their way out of it by several means, eg discrediting the source, calling it liberal propoganda, via Fox News et al., by creating false evidence that contradicts the source, by downplaying the evidence's importance etc etc.

[TimeTraveler]

If any evidence of a link was found I'm sure that the guilty parties would be able to worm their way out of it by several means, eg discrediting the source, calling it liberal propoganda, via Fox News et al., by creating false evidence that contradicts the source, by downplaying the evidence's importance etc etc.

 

Well it seems alot more people are asking alot of questions lately, which is a start. I really hope none of this is true, but we need to find out and not 'just let it go'. It's like a puzzle, and alot of pieces are starting to fit together in a way to make me start to believe this scenerio, however there are alot of pieces still missing.

 

If anyone comes across any information to discredit or add to this thread please do, I don't have alot of time to research but I want to stay on top of all this.

[Tetrahedrite]

Well it seems alot more people are asking alot of questions lately' date=' which is a start. I really hope none of this is true, but we need to find out and not 'just let it go'. It's like a puzzle, and alot of pieces are starting to fit together in a way to make me start to believe this scenerio, however there are alot of pieces still missing.

 

If anyone comes across any information to discredit or add to this thread please do, I don't have alot of time to research but I want to stay on top of all this.[/quote']

When you step back and actually review the accepted facts surrounding the invasion of Iraq, and without patriotism and political bias blinding you, straight away you realise that something extremely fishy must be going on. What I can't get over is that the reasons given by our leaders to invade Iraq were first and formost because Saddam had WMD's and that he was assisting terrorists. Any other reasons given were only secondary, and not enough by themselves to prompt an invasion. Not even one WMD has been found after extensive searching, and the US itself admits Saddam had no links to terrorism.

 

This unnacceptable, surely!! Why is everyone just willing to forget about these facts.

I don't know about anyone else, but when you tell me that the combined intelligence power of the CIA, MI5/6, and ASIO could get it so wrong, I start shouting conspiracy. It's just not feasible!! Why have our leaders got off the hook so easily for this??? Just talking about it makes me angry beyond at the politicians and at the majority of the population who can't think for themselves!!!!! :mad:

[Aardvark]

When you step back and actually review the accepted facts surrounding the invasion of Iraq, and without patriotism and political bias blinding you, straight away you realise that something extremely fishy must be going on. What I can't get over is that the reasons given by our leaders to invade Iraq were first and formost because Saddam had WMD's and that he was assisting terrorists. Any other reasons given were only secondary, and not enough by themselves to prompt an invasion. Not even one WMD has been found after extensive searching, and the US itself admits Saddam had no links to terrorism.

 

I think it was always clear that Saddam was irreconciably opposed to the West. Therefore he had to go. Arguments about WMD or terrorism were ephemiral, not the core reasons at all. Maybe he had WMD, maybe not, maybe he would develop them in future. The point was that there was no way he was ever going to be able to normalise relations with the West. He was hostile and that hostility was not going to be dealt with diplomatically.

 

 

This unnacceptable' date=' surely!! Why is everyone just willing to forget about these facts.

I don't know about anyone else, but when you tell me that the combined intelligence power of the CIA, MI5/6, and ASIO could get it so wrong, I start shouting conspiracy. It's just not feasible!![/quote']

 

Well, MI6 and ASIO never confirmed that Saddam definitely had WMD and neither of them suggested links with terrorism. It was the politicians who 'spun' that with suggestions and innuendo. Not straight answers that they could be pinned down on.

 

Why have our leaders got off the hook so easily for this??? Just talking about it makes me angry beyond at the politicians and at the majority of the population who can't think for themselves!!!!! :mad:

 

Considering how ready people are to have their opinions pre-made for them, to accept without question whatever the prevaling orthodoxy is i sometimes think humans have a closer link to sheep than chimpanzees.

[TimeTraveler]

Bush's state of the union speech last night:

 

In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades. The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom.

 

He seems to really believe that war will prevent hatred... is he serious?

 

In the last line he says "The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom." I would contend that the main force powerful enough to give rise to tyranny and terror, and replace hope with hatred, is the force of global domination through war.

 

The United States has no right, no desire and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one -- (applause) -- that is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens and reflect their own cultures.

 

"The united states has no right, no intention and no desire to impose our form of government on other people". Again, is this guy for real? What the hell did we just do in Afgahnastan and Iraq?

 

He says that they wish to expand an empire of oppression. Are we not trying to expand an empire of control by force, is that not oppression too?

 

To promote peace in the broader Middle East' date=' we must confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass murder. Syria still allows its territory, and parts of Lebanon, to be used by terrorists who seek to destroy every chance of peace in the region.

 

You have passed, and we are applying, the Syrian Accountability Act, and we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom. (Applause.)[/quote']

 

Sounds to me he is laying in the second steps of the outlined plan of global domination outlined in the Wolfowitz doctrine. In that document it says elimination of states like Iraq, Syria, Iran.... That was written 13 years ago. I think we really need to seriously question and ask for proof and not let this president take us to war without that proof showing that syria has WMD's and does pose a threat to the world. I for one am not going to just take his word for it. Ever... again.

 

Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you. (Cheers, applause.)

 

Step 3....

 

Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq. That country is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there. Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.)

 

It's important to mention, and he must have forgotten to, (silly Mr. president) that Iraq is also a vital front in any global domination effort, and is a vital front in protecting oil for our way of life. It is vital in the first objective outlined in the wolfowitz doctrine:

 

1) Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power.

 

If he cannot get the people to back him up on the real underlying motives of his campaign then he has to manipulate them into backing him.

 

Seriously, my fellow citizens of America.... wake the hell up!!!!

[Tetrahedrite]

I think it was always clear that Saddam was irreconciably opposed to the West. Therefore he had to go. Arguments about WMD or terrorism were ephemiral' date=' not the core reasons at all. Maybe he had WMD, maybe not, maybe he would develop them in future. The point was that there was no way he was ever going to be able to normalise relations with the West. He was hostile and that hostility was not going to be dealt with diplomatically.

[/quote']

No offense, but that arguement is similar to those used by Bush et al. after no weapons were found, and I think its BS. At the time, WMD's and links to terrorism were not ephemiral, they were the justification. Just being opposed to the west and its (sometimes jaded) ideals is no justification for the invasion of a sovereign nation, either morally or under international law. There are plenty of countries that are irreconcilably opposed to the west and probably represent a bigger threat from WMD's and links to terrorism (North Korea, Iran etc)

When it came down to it, we were told that he was an iminent threat (from his WMD's) and that's what everyone believed. And that's what "we" were going there to do, make the world a safer place. The exact opposite has been achieved.

If the above arguement were true then Mr Bush would be knocking at Iran, Syria and North Korea's doors, ready to invade. It just isn't going to happen.

[TimeTraveler]

If the above arguement were true then Mr Bush would be knocking at Iran, Syria and North Korea's doors, ready to invade. It just isn't going to happen.

 

Knocking on Syria's doors and Iran's has already happened, this whole thing is unfolding in such a predictable way. N. Korea does not play a major role in the overall goal, so for now they will be left alone.

 

Just watch over the next few weeks and months, demands to Syria and Iran will become a key issue in the media, the issues about fixing social security will be drowned out by the trumpets of war. The plan is a slow process they have to wait for things to settle in Iraq, so they can use the turn around in Iraq as a bargaining chip in the manipulation of the people to gain support.

[TimeTraveler]

And so it begins, round 2.

 

Syria and Iran respond to Bush

 

Bush's crystal ball, err I mean intelligence committee can prove these claims Bush makes I hope?

 

Edit: This just in... The Bush admin. pumping info into the media to claim Iran poses a threat, picture perfect. Whoever is writing this script must have also wrote the one for Iraq, its identical.

 

US intelligence claims Iran is making nukes

 

Iran is testing some parts of machines that can be used to make the fissile core of nuclear warheads, despite a pledge to freeze such activities, diplomats said Thursday citing U.S. intelligence. The revelations dealt a fresh blow to hopes Iran will scrap uranium enrichment.

 

EDIT #2:

 

The propaganda is taking off sooner than I had anticipated.

 

Rice says it, so it must be true!

 

Iran's approach to human rights and its treatment of its own citizens is loathsome, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday. While saying Iranians deserve better leaders than "unelected mullahs," America's new chief diplomat stopped short of demanding their ouster.

 

"I don't think anybody thinks that the unelected mullahs who run that regime are a good thing for the Iranian people and for the region," Rice said

 

To sum it up she said: C'mon guys lets bomb them!

 

It's funny to look back and think this is the same damn script we fell for the first time.

[Aardvark]

No offense, but that arguement is similar to those used by Bush et al. after no weapons were found, and I think its BS. At the time, WMD's and links to terrorism were not ephemiral, they were the[/b'] justification.

 

You completely misunderstand me.

 

I am pointing out the difference between the justification and the true reasons. The talk of WMD was justification, but the true reasons were deeper matters of geopolitics. I think this is a point we can agree on.

 

Just being opposed to the west and its (sometimes jaded) ideals is no justification for the invasion of a sovereign nation, either morally or under international law. There are plenty of countries that are irreconcilably opposed to the west and probably represent a bigger threat from WMD's and links to terrorism (North Korea, Iran etc)

 

And as Mr Bush openly announces, he's going after those countries as well.

 

 

If the above arguement were true then Mr Bush would be knocking at Iran, Syria and North Korea's doors, ready to invade. It just isn't going to happen.

 

According to your posts, yes it is.

[syntax252]

Not finding the intellectual responses here that pique your lust for battle?

 

Try..........http://glocktalk.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=57

 

You will find that you have more than enough in the way of opposition.

[TimeTraveler]

Interesting group of folks over there. Thanks for the link, I think I will pop in and make a post, see what they think.

 

Not many here who seem to interested in discussing it.