Real reason for Iraq war

[KJS]

This is one of the most interesting stories I have read about the influence of neoconservatives in the Pentagon. I need to read up a bit more on the woman in question, but she seems very intelligent and passionate about the fact that the administration lied to Congress about why an Iraq war was necessary. And her hypotheses about other possible theories why the neocons wanted an Iraq war were enlightening to me.

KJS

"After two decades in the U.S. Air Force, Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, now 43, knew her career as a regional analyst was coming to an end when--in the months leading up to the war in Iraq--she felt she was being 'propagandized' by her own bosses."

Full Story:
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php

Excerpt from Interview:

So if, as you argue, they knew there weren't any of these WMD, then what exactly drove the neoconservatives to war?

The neoconservatives pride themselves on having a global vision, a long-term strategic perspective. And there were three reasons why they felt the U.S. needed to topple Saddam, put in a friendly government and occupy Iraq.

One of those reasons is that sanctions and containment were working and everybody pretty much knew it. Many companies around the world were preparing to do business with Iraq in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions. But the U.S. and the U.K. had been bombing northern and southern Iraq since 1991. So it was very unlikely that we would be in any kind of position to gain significant contracts in any post-sanctions Iraq. And those sanctions were going to be lifted soon, Saddam would still be in place, and we would get no financial benefit.

The second reason has to do with our military-basing posture in the region. We had been very dissatisfied with our relations with Saudi Arabia, particularly the restrictions on our basing. And also there was dissatisfaction from the people of Saudi Arabia. So we were looking for alternate strategic locations beyond Kuwait, beyond Qatar, to secure something we had been searching for since the days of Carter--to secure the energy lines of communication in the region. Bases in Iraq, then, were very important; that is, if you hold that is America's role in the world. Saddam Hussein was not about to invite us in.

The last reason is the conversion, the switch Saddam Hussein made in the Food for Oil program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11, in November 2000--selling his oil for euros. The oil sales permitted in that program aren't very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving to the euro.

The U.S. dollar is in a sensitive period because we are a debtor nation now. Our currency is still popular, but it's not backed up like it used to be. If oil, a very solid commodity, is traded on the euro, that could cause massive, almost glacial, shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar. So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May [2003] switched trading on Iraq's oil back to the dollar.

[bigpooch]

[MattHatter]

The US needed to topple Saddam because after all thhose atrocities they helped him carry out in the 80s while they covered for him at the UN and supplied him with the military info and means to do it.

He went and started offering Oil contracts to FRENCH and RUSSIN companies?!?!?!?!?

HOW DARE HE!

Boom.. You're a bad guy now.

I would suggest that Saddam got the wink and the nod from the US to invade kuwait. I've read somewhere that Iraq had brought up the Kuwait issue (they were slant drilling into Iraq for oil (so they say)) and when Saddam mentioned he wanted som satisfaction in this issue... The officel line from the US was something to the effect of... The affairs of the middle easter states are thier own concern.

Weathe or not they gave the green light.. They were so closely tied to the US at the time.. theres NO WAY the US didn't see it coming. I mean he did need to amass the army.

Would he really do it if te CIA would have mentioned... ah.. you do it and we crush you you know. No WAY. I think he had the go ahead. Th US had let him grow into a regional superpower.. and then he started to defy thier will by giving the oil profit/control of the resources to the wrong countries.

If you read some policy docs from the US you will see that in thier opinion IRAQ is basically the most important nation (from a strategic resources point of view) on the planet. And after they took all that heat they took at the UN and internationally at the time for enabling the Butcher of Baghdad.. he let the russians in.


Matt


PS: at the time the US was basically the only place the had effectively censored the news of what the US was doing with Saddam. (the 80's) They tried to confuse the issue at the UN suggesting it was IRAN that was using the Gas.. (even thought they had military advisors helping IRAQ plan the attacks).

[ThaSaltCracka]

would you mind providing us with some documentation of these "facts", if its not to much to ask. I would love to read the pub. that said the U.S. gave the green light to invade Kuwait. This sounds better than going to the movies!

[nicky g]

It was the US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaispie (sp?), that told Saddam in the run-up to the invasion that US would not intervene in "inter-Arab border disputes". Whether she had Washington backing for saying that I can't say; it's hard to imagine ambassadors making such decisions by themselves. One version of what happened is that the US only expected Saddam to take some territory, a few islands here and there, and were genuinely surprised when he invaded the entire country. Another version I've heard is that the situation was deliberately engineered; Kuwait (along with the UAE) was flouting its OPEC quotas at a time when Iraq needed prices to stay as high as possible, which was the Iraqi rationale for invading in the first place, and tHere's some evidence to suggest that Kuwait was receiving the support of other US-friendly OPEC states in its over-productionm and rumours that the US guaranteed it protection from Iraq so it could carry on. no solid proof, of course. Of course it could just be that the US wanted low oil prices, though Egypt - another US client - then scuppered peace talks that were on the brink of success. The US then refused to allow Saddam 48hrs to withdraw, which would suggest it was bent on war no matter what.
I'm hazy on the subject but I think a lot of this is discussed in Said Aburish's biography of Saddam, which is very much worth reading anyway.

[MattHatter]

[ QUOTE ]
would you mind providing us with some documentation of these "facts", if its not to much to ask. I would love to read the pub. that said the U.S. gave the green light to invade Kuwait. This sounds better than going to the movies!


[/ QUOTE ]


OK.

Start with this from the national security archive at George washington University.
U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm)

heres a sample:

"Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).
"

"The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats."

"During the spring of 1984 the U.S. reconsidered policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program, and its "preliminary results favor[ed] expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities" [Document 57]. "



And heres the topper:

"When asked whether the U.S.'s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have "any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations," the department's spokesperson said "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq" [Document 52]."



Here is where the FACT thay the US helped plan the attacks is alluded to:

"Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, in Washington for the formal resumption of ties, met with Secretary of State George Shultz. When their discussion turned to the Iran-Iraq war, Aziz said that his country was satisfied that "the U.S. analysis of the war's threat to regional stability is 'in agreement in principle' with Iraq's," and expressed thanks for U.S. efforts to cut off international arms sales to Iran. He said that "Iraq's superiority in weaponry" assured Iraq's defense. Shultz, with presumed sardonic intent, "remarked that superior intelligence must also be an important factor in Iraq's defense;" Tariq Aziz had to agree [Document 60]."


I will look to find the actual documents that prove the US helped plan the attacks.. a fellow on the National (on CBC) had them right in fron of him during the news report on the subject. I just need to look harder.

Any opposition the US expressed to CW use was purely to help save face internationally. In reality they were doing everything they could to enable and encourage EXACTLY this. Forcing supplies to move through 3rd parties to shelter the US.

Matt



PS: Here's just how SICK the US govt is.. guess who was supplying IRAN with weapons?

"The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America."

[ThaSaltCracka]

everyone knows this, I was talking about the other stuff you idiot

[MattHatter]

OK

Heres a quote about the April Gillespie thing...

"In the summer of 1989, Saddam Hussein called in the American ambassador April Gillespie to inform her of his intentions of taking action against Kuwait, who he claimed was stealing Iraqi oil by using drilling techniques that entered Iraqi oil fields. Saddam was also upset because he believed the Kuwait was helping to hold down the price of oil which was causing cash-strapped Iraq to believe it should take action against it's neighbor. A tape of the meeting between Saddam and our ambassador was aired in the U.S on 60 Minutes. It shows our ambassador intimating to Saddam that the US would have no interest punishing him if he were to capture the oil fields near the border. Of course the Iraqi leader captured the whole country but the incompetence of our ambassador and her words to Saddam helped give birth to Desert Storm. "


These are just words. I will find harder evidence of this.

But you can rest assured, I don't make things up. Nor do I repeat unfounded speculation. Only well supported speculation /images/graemlins/wink.gif



Matt

[MattHatter]

Are you gonna call me an idiot every time you lose a debate.

That's what you did last time.


Throw a tantrum, throw your insults cracka.

You make me laugh.



Matt

[nicky g]

it is on the record that the US amnbassador told the Iraqis that the US would not intervene in an inter-arab dispute when it was obvious that an invasion might be coming. As I point out above, that doesn't necessarily mean that washington approved it or they meant a full invasion, but it's pretty strong.

[MattHatter]

The fact that you replied within 1 minute shows that you didn't go look at the info I provided you.

Much of this was supressed. These are recently declassified. If you live in the US you DID NOT hear all of this.

You gotta research it yourself to get this kind of info. Corporate news just wont provide it.


You would be VERY suprised at how involved the US was. I don't think you really know what you're talking about.

You just gloss over stuff without really looking into it.

Read up Cracka.


Matt

[ThaSaltCracka]

The reason I repied so quickly is because I have heard/read all of this before. You aren't giving me any new information. The problem is you alleged that the U.S. gave the green light to Iraq to invade and thats simply not true. The former ambassador made a huge blunder, however in the article you posted you that the ambassador said they wouldn't intervene if Saddam captured the oil fields. However Saddam then proceed to capture much more of Kuwait, greatly destabalizing the region. IMO, I think the U.S. went in to mostly stabalize the region/oil, mostly because the "superpower" in the area was was turning it into chaos.
Matt, I know you have some sort of America hate agenda, and I have read several of your ridiculous articles that you cite information from, so.. thats why I want to see where you got it from.
I am glad my tantrums amuse you, because your ridiculous accusations make my day /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[MattHatter]

You cant see the forest cause the trees are in your way.



Matt

[ThaSaltCracka]

we do have a lot of trees in Washington, lot's of tall green trees, they sure do look nice /images/graemlins/grin.gif
let me know if you find that proof in the forest