This is not a war about terrorism. This is not a war about weapons of mass destruction. This is not a war about democracy in Iraq. This is a war about something else.
As for terrorism: Saddam Hussein is a cruel dictator, but the idea that he might be connected with Osama Bin Laden is ridiculous. Saddam heads the Iraqi section of Al-Baath, a very secular party. Bin Laden is an Islamic fundamentalist, and Al-Qaeda aims at the destruction of all secular regimes in our region. The official who invented this particular lie is either an ignoramus or a cynic who believes that one can fool all the people at least some of the time.
As for weapons of mass destruction: The US supported Saddam when he used deadly poison gas against the Iranians (and their Kurdish allies in Iraq). At the time, America was interested in stopping the Iranians. Today there are chemical and biological weapons in most of the countries of this region, including Egypt, Syria and Israel, and one of them has nuclear arms. As for democracy: Americans don't give a damn. Some of their best friends in the Islamic world are dictators, some more, some less cruel than Saddam. As the American adage goes: "He is a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch."
If so, what is the war about? In one word: Oil. There is a strong smell of oil in the air. Without smelling it, one cannot understand what is going on. But once one grasps what it is all about, the actions of Bush & Co., while cynical and hypocritical, are utterly logical. These, then, are the American war aims:
-- To take over the immense oil reserves of Iraq, among the world's biggest;
-- To ensure American control of the nearby huge Caspian Sea oil reserves;
-- To reinforce indirect American control of the oil in all the Gulf states.
Control of most of the world's oil reserves will free the Americans, at long last, from the whims of the oil market. Their hand, and theirs alone, will be on the tap. They, and they alone, will fix the prices of oil all over the world. If they want prices to rise, they will rise. If they will want them to go down, they will go down. With one single movement of the hand, they will be able to deal a crushing blow to the economies of Germany, France and Japan. No country in the world will be able to stand up to them in any matter. No wonder that Germany and France oppose the war. It is directed against them.
It follows that the Americans do not intend to enter Iraq, establish democracy and leave. The very idea is ridiculous. The US enters Iraq in order to stay there, for years and decades. Its physical presence in the Arab and Muslim world will create a new geopolitical reality.
Of course, this is not the first time that a great empire uses its military power to promote its economic dominance. History is full of examples. Indeed, one could say that all of history is an example. But there has never been a superpower like the US, with no rival left; using its immense military might in order to ensure its domination of the world economy for generations to come.
From this point of view, the coming war on Iraq - a "small" war, militarily - will have historic significance. For sure, Bush will try to set up some native Iraqi government, in order to disguise and lend some legitimacy to the American occupation. There are any number of volunteers, ready to serve as Quislings. Then again, Bush may prefer some new Saddam Hussein, a dictator appointed by them. But war is war. War usually starts with a well-prepared plan, but even the "best" plan, backed by the mightiest military power, can go awry. The Arab masses may rise against their American-supported, corrupt, lackadaisical governments.
How will this affect Israel? Or, to use the old phrase: "Is it good for the Jews?" The relations between Bush and Sharon are almost symbiotic. In Sharon's view, the massive presence of the US in our region strengthens Israel and will enable him to implement his hidden agenda. But, as one says in Hebrew, "the fat tail of the sheep has a thorn in it". The permanent occupation of Iraq turns the US into a kind of "Arab" power, with a vital interest in the stability and tranquility of the region. It will want to prevent by all means chaos in the Arab countries - before, during and after the war. Sharon and his generals are, on the contrary, interested in as much chaos as possible, in order to use it to "transfer" millions of Palestinians to the other side of the Jordan. There is a definite conflict of interest between Bush and Sharon.
Sharon, an extremist but prudent person, knows that he must not under any circumstances infuriate Bush. He will act cautiously. He has lots and lots of patience and lots and lots of stubbornness. He will try to obtain from Bush permission to transfer (at least some) Palestinians, to murder Arafat ("If Saddam, why not Arafat?") and to break the Palestinian people. Bush, on the other hand, will want Israel to stay quiet, very quiet. At this time, he may use the Israel threat in order to ensure that the Arabs, too, will stay quiet, very quiet. He will threaten the Arab rulers, who are mortally afraid of an uprising of their peoples, that if they do not behave, he will let Sharon off the leash.
Is all this good for Israel? From the economic, social and security points of view, the answer is negative. We are entering an era of adventurism, with adventurer No. 1 at the helm of our state. The earth will shake in our region, and nobody can foresee the dangers approaching us. Only one thing is certain: This will not bring peace. I do not belong to those who can speak about war with equanimity. I have seen war, I know its face. I see the thousands who will be killed, the tens of thousands that will be wounded and maimed, the hundreds of thousands that will become refugees, the ruined families, the sea of tears and human suffering. I join the millions all over the world who say NO.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist.
Israel is a terrorist state, which has broken every international law there is. From brutal occupation, ignoring dozens of UN resolutions to bombing its neighbors to steal their land. Iraq doesnt have WMD....or are the weapons inspectors just trying to help Iraq hide them ? Since you feel Israel should be allowed to do whatever it desires and advocate bombing Iraq despite any real evidence....you cannot be taken seriously.
I humbly suggest you power up your playstation and return to the world of make-believe as you're resistent to reality.
I presume you are addressing me. #1 - Isreal isn't distributing WMD to third parties. No problem for the US there. And I DID mention that oil had a part in this. That's obvious. But to take that notion to the extreme and say it is the ONLY reason is stupid and self serving. I agree that the US support for Israel has not been even handed. However, I don't recall that Isreal has killed many Americans. Not the case for Muslim extremists. Correct?
As far as North Korea goes, as I said, and if you carefully read what I said, they are not near the oil. Plus having a million man army and probably a couple of nukes and a leader who is so insane that he makes Saddam look reasonable might give George pause.
By the way, I'd prefer that you refer to me properly and not with the dis of "junior". Not nice in polite discussion.
..did you get hit by a soccer ball in the head ?
The reason is obvious - Bush does not fear North Korea as much as Iraq. Plus, North Korea is not located next to the oil that the US needs. The point is not to take the oil. The point is to prevent Hussein from taking/disrupting it and/or from passing WMD on to terrorist third parties who wish to strike the "Great Satan". Teaching Iraqis to play baseball would be a punishment worse than death. I'm a soccer fan myself.
I agree completely
read my post 10994
these are the reasons for Bush wanting a war, no one single silly idea but a myriad of complicated, (many devious) reasons
And they are all REAL reasons, not FRONTS US policy is complicated like any other foreign policy.
The United States Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare.
"Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro in late 2000 (and later converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. to euros) -- at that point, another manufactured Gulf War become inevitable under Bush II. Only the most extreme circumstances could possibly stop that now and I strongly doubt anything can -- short of Saddam getting replaced with a pliant regime.
The whole article is here:
There are however, some problems with his argument about the motives for this war. People on the left always seem to assume that there is a nefarious economic motive behind political events. Their anti-capitalist worldview seems to lead them to think "it's all about the oil". The upcoming Iraq adventure could indeed be about oil, but in my opinion that's unlikely. If the Americans wanted oil, all they would have to do is make a deal with Saddam - they would get a stable and cheap source of oil, and Saddam would stay in power. Indeed, if it is an oil war then it is unlikely that the Gulf states would be as helpful to the US as they are, since an increase in oil supplies from Iraq would lead to lower oil prices - which would harm their economies. There are other motives - both rational and irrational -that, in my opinion, better explain Bush's thinking on Iraq.
Give me a break.if it is not about oil,then what is it about ? Teaching Iraqis how to play baseball.
Can you EXPLAIN why the US is not going after N KOREA which claimed to have WMD,instead the US admin chose negociation and diplomacy??
I know it's popular to fault the US for everything wrong with world but it's hardly worthy of an intelligent person.
The US is neither saint nor devil and if each of us would take a little more personal responsibility and do a little less whining, we could perhaps come up with some workable solutions to the world's problems.
But these points which you talked about should be stressed oppon more not to the people but to the goverment, Tony Blair for example.
These ideas need to be seen by all people's from any nation so the truth can be clealry seen and not hidden away.
If you turn out to be right - and I don't think so - I will lead the march on Washington myself. Time will tell.
MadMax - It's "Cowboys" not "Cowbows". By the way, I agree that the Shah was a beast and should not have been the ruler of Iran. I welcomed the return of Khomeni to Iran(a surprise from an American Christian yes?) but was Khomeni better? As far as "biting" the Americans, be careful what you wish for.The Isreal/Palestinian conflict shows you what that "biting" gets you. A lot of misery and death. I'd bet Allah would be in favor of peace and harmony for ALL - Muslim and non-Muslim. Better that you work to achieve that and not follow in the footsteps of Bin Ladin. If not for Bin Laden , we would not be threatening Iraq.
Let me get this straight. You think that 9/11 was planned or allowed to happen by the Bush gov't so they could advance their agenda of world oil domination? I don't like Bush. I didn't vote for him. I consider my politics middle of the road with a liberal tilt. Frankly, you are absolutely crazy. If you really believe that, then you better move to another country. If I believed that my government was capable of such treachery, I would leave. As far as oil being the issue, Mr. Avnery is sadly wrong. It is simplistic of him to make that assertion. The LAST thing Americans want to do is occupy Iraq. I can't think of a worse thing to do. All Mr. Avnery has to do is ask some of his countrymen how much fun it is to patrol Gaza. We are no different. No, the fact is, we have been seriously hurt, physically and psycologically. The war against Iraq has a lot to do with preventing another attack - deposing a rogue dictator who has the capability to bring us great harm. It has a lot to do with going on the offensive against Al Queda and their ilk. Sorry, its not oil. Kill 3000 of us and you've got our attention. Maybe deposing Hussien isn't the best way to stop terrorism, but under the circumstances, sitting back and waiting for the next bomb to go off isn't very attractive either. By the way, I'm not for the war either. Hard to believe I'm sure, but I have a 17 year old son and the thought of him wasting his life in Iraq or anywhere because some lunatic decided it was time to kill Americans breaks my heart.
If Arabs and Muslims are so concerned about American domination, why don't they take care of the MidEast themselves - fairly and equitably for ALL those who live there- and not by the whim of their repressive governments or religious zealots?
please read it and tell me u amotion's
I will gladly say this much for the author. I have yet to encounter any author who writes better than a Jew, whether the work is printed in the Wall Street Journal or posted here at IslamiCity. Furthermore, it's most refreshing to see (at least some) of Israel's citizens beginning to echo their Arab neighbors' calls for independence from my country. For purposes of deterrence, I would guess that successful missile tests are more important than any actual test of the device itself (not that I'd have any way of knowing). Shalom Aleichem and Allah Hafiz.
The people have turned their backs on their books that God has sent, the christians, jews and the muslims are all guilty with their idol worship, adultery, fornication, murder, greed, cheating, lying, stealing and arrogance, and you dont care. Wealth, sex, and power,, this is what you want??? Ah! but there is a price.
It's just one of the lesser signs of the last day.Dont worry....... God isnt finished yet,,, just watch as things unfold before your eyes.
I wouldn't say that too loud people might stop listening to me, though often I fear they don't anyway,
As far as the Christian rite many have expressed directly that they want to iradicate Islam from the planet,
Lieberman at least pretends not to hate "Islam"
(the Jewish right(left), at least in foreign policy is also wrong, and the group influences the democrats in the senate, but the point I was making was that Bush is not influenced by this group so much, the Jews tending to be politically liberal and such, and being more evasive in dislike for the Muslim world.)
First of all I would like to congratulate you on understanding the truth behind this war on terrorism. I totally agree with you in all aspects of your comments, times have changed but the foundation that the history of mankind layed down is still ruling the people of this world, greed and selfishness. The world of today which is in destructive mode, trying to grasp the power without any hesitation of destroying the lives of millions. Bush will accomplish his motives without any remorse, but in the eyes of the free world an hero non the less. These politicians send the notion of freedom and peace but are the biggest trouble makers the world has seen, we must work toghether for the better of man in the realms of peace and unity to establish the truth.
And id did before,and it backfired, recall the Shah's regime in Iran supported 100% by the Washington short sighted cowbows.
"The Arab masses may rise against their American-supported, corrupt, lackadaisical governments."
and In concert other Muslim mass. It will happen InshAllah sooner than the cowbows can realize it.
It will bite you back cowbows.
1. Sadam actually is a bad guy, so he is easy to pick out
2. Us feels obligation to finish what it didn't in 91
4. Nuclear weapons pose a real threat to regional destruction from Israel, but only if Israel has a real threat and a nuclear weapon in Iraq would be a pretty big threat...
5. Isreal wants more open trade locally, allowing it more economic autonomy, the US wants this too.
6. The US wants to show if you don't fall in line with the US than you will not fall in line with anything.
7. Attempt to kill Bush's father.
8. US opinion is enough against Arabs that they can get away with it now.
9. Economic troubles could improve with a war.
10. War time presidents often get re-elected.
12. Strong influence from the Christian right that hates the Muslim world
13. Saddam's defiance threatens the UN
14. Gulf Arabs fear Saddam, and have strong influence over America
note not all of these are bad reasons
Reasons the US isn't going to war
1. Americans love the blood of innocent Muslims to flow
2. The US is controled completely by Israel
3. America is Evil
4. America just wants oil
The problem that you have is that you are too emotional about this topic. I agree with you, Bush is coming across as a warmonger, but the questions is "Is this war about controlling the oil fields?" How is this argument supported besides babbling on about far-fetched hypothesis? Please note facts and not how your tummy fields when you hear Bush. Although his arrogance does make me feel sick at times...
Saudis and by the fact that the US (and BP) control all
the exploration and production apparatus.
The US is not going to war to get something it already
has. It is the weapons and money being funneled to
terrorists by Saddam's athiestic regime that require
The enemy of my enemy is my friend -- that is one connection of Saddam Insane and Usama.
During the 91 war Saddam did indeed attack into Saudi Arabia and I can't fathom that the Saudi's are not worried about another incursion from him.
Peace or the Alternative sometimes works. It looks like it is fixing to be time to lock and load.
Gas chambers, scientific experiments, mass executions from gunshot.
Also didn't Bin Laden come out with a tape urging Muslims to forget their problems with Saddam against America. Didn't he also state in the tape that he reached an agreement with Iraq that he won't support attacks agaist his government? Bin Laden and Saddam have one thing that binds the secular and religious fundementalist. That is a common hatred for the U.S. that circumvents their obvious differences.
My question is what becomes of the middle east without the oil? it's innevitble that within the next 20 years oil won't be the main source of energy. Fuel cell automobiles are already being produced. Once the U.S. manufacturers jump on that band wagon, oil fueled vehicles will become a dinosaur, and those oil feilds will be useless. Than what becomes of the middle east? What else are you prepared to offer the free world to support your economies?
Now lets say that Mr. Avnery's first point becomes a reality, "To take over the immense oil reserves of Iraq, among the world's biggest;" so we manage to fool the entire world and take over the entire country, setup a puppet regime and have our way with everyone. Russia, Germany, France, and Jordan have a great deal of investments in the Iraqi oil enterprises and in fracture how are we going to quite them down, with money? That might work with Jordan but not with the other three great nations, which by the way are also members of the Security Council and have considerably slowed down the aggressions. This point that the author brings forward is pretty far-fetched but it is a possibility.
"To ensure American control of the nearby huge Caspian Sea oil reserves;" is his second argument. Well in order to do so we would need to take over at least one of the following countries Iran (Possible since it is one the three in the Axis of evil), Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, or maybe even Russia. I wonder how we are going to pull that one and not get into it with Russia??? Still with this second point the Author is a sensationalist looking to produce fear amongst the Arab nations.
"To reinforce indirect American control of the oil in all the Gulf states." I wonder why do we need to invade Iraq to do this. We already have a great military force in the area and oil prices just keep going up.