The Downing Street Memo

I have a question about the Downing Street memo that perhaps someone here could answer or at least direct me to a place that can.

Assuming everything in the said document is true, then what exactly would be the administration's ulterior motives for a forced invasion? Is it simply oil, or perhaps Bush felt he needed to make up for his father's failure to follow through? But if the latter were true then I doubt that such a motive would get him very far, as I assume that it would be difficult to put one's personal desire's above national interest in the eyes of the entire administration.

 

Could be to keep us all distracted while they have the Supreme Court make it illegal to burn the flag or insult the Bible, quietly give the government the right to seize your property for whatever price it considers acceptable, etc.

Institute a national ID card complete with RFID reader, require mandatory national papers, etc. etc. etc.

Almost nobody has heard about these, just those "liberals" protesting "freedom"

 

yeah, anyways... could someone actually answer my question.

 

Because Iraq was an easy target. It had a secular government that had pissed off pretty much every one of it's neighbors and had control over vast oil reserves that it couldn't sell...
The government had pretty much no public support, i mean saddam even went as far as to allow jews to build synagouges in Baghdad.

 

you just told me why we picked iraq to go to war against. i want to know for what reason were so hell bent on war/invasion. could anyone answer my question or at least direct me to a place that can?

 

Read:

1. The PNAC agenda - Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century

and the later expansion of that thinking...

2. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski

These are good places to start to understand the underlying aims of this cabal in their actual geo-political context.

 

I would start by dismissing (because it is bullshit) all that you just posted and start afresh...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9111.htm

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

It of course depends on your bias.. you can make of it anything you wish..

 

did you mean my post was bullshit? if so then ok, but otherwise ok.

 

You can listen to matthew and pretend that clearly exposed evidence of criminality and fraud to whitewash war of aggression is only credible "depending on bias". If such be the case then all principle of the rule of law is equally dismissable by claim of simple "bias".

Surprising then how these relativists will turn around and scream bloody murder about the latest headline claim of some other leader or government committing crimes against humanity or other such infringements of moral sensibility. For our leaders, its all just excusable as simple "mistakes", as if they are somehow immune to corruption and collaborative criminal intent.

Naivete at its finest.

 

Or you could Listen to Lick.. The choice is yours.

No, just

Ok it is my personal opinion it is bullshit, but if you're comeing at it from that particular angle straight the way.. i don't believe you will see it for what it is or is not.

 

Unfortunately for you matthew, those who spend their lives doing international policy analysis and the research that comes with that arduous endeavour have identified and written extensively on this historically repeated fact of our respective nations' middle eastern interventionism. So you go right ahead and pretend it just can't be so. History shows you up for the spin-subscriber that you are.

Keep living in your preferred bubble and let those who express a real interest in enquiry pursue their search for understanding without your unschooled opinion.

 

I always thought you had a 'God complex'

 

I suspect that would be expressing a intrest in your point of view. But now we are just getting into a pointless arguement.

Do you not agree with that statement Lick', can we agree on one thing ever ?.

 

Actually its not "my" point of view that is of concern here mat, but simple civic responsibility to apply consistency of principle and not dismiss clear evidence of criminal intent to visit destruction and conquest on a people who posed no threat to us. That is what makes your constant evasions and excuses so disdainful.

The interconnectedness of this latest intervention and its historic predecessors form a chain of wrongs that go to the very heart of the mess that has persisted in that region. All the oft repeated slogans and rhetoric used by our leaders to brand it as anything other than domination neither change that fact nor the many continuing un-reported wrongs and abuses our military machines are perpetrating there on a regular basis. How much evidence must come out before you condemn willful and intended abuse of power from our own leaders as you readily do for those of other nations?

I will agree that its his choice, but then he doesn't need your acknowledgement of that fact to know it for himself. Its a non-issue.

 

How one small point of mine and a none-issue (wich i agree with) created that level of response is amazing. At least tool420 has had one extreme and a other extreme (even if i have said not much realy).

 

Some people take civic duty more seriously than just the dismissive one liner. A point worth making is worth making to it full extent.

Frankly, disregard is no extreme. It's simply adherence to the sheepish bandwagon of civic duty relinquished. Similarly, acknowledging the criminality of one's leaders and decrying them for what they are and the abuses of power for which they are most certainly and willfully responsible is not extreme, it's a citizen's obligation.

Following your practice is precisely how those intent on power have repeatedly established their machanisms of tyranny, no less so here in the West.

 

Personally, I like this article, published in the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Monitor, regarding the petrodollar, the Iraq War, and the future of the American Empire. It's just one more view that should help to give you a more solid and complete view of American foreign policy.

 

Indeed LS, that root cause has been pointed out many times in previous threads. Its also what one will see as the underlying impetus for our long running machinations in the region, not just this latest more ambitious effort, when one reads Brzezinski's apologetic for it all.

 

Unfortunately, war dissenters usually lose their credibility when they say, "the war is about oil," because they consistently fail to explain the importance of the petrodollar. Instead, they paint a picture of the U.S. military shipping barrels of oil over to the U.S., which is just not true. Saying, "it's about oil" isn't exactly wrong, but it's just too broad to prove a case. When this happens, a victory for the hawks means merely asking, "then why are oil prices so high?"

In my eyes, understanding the petrodollar is key in understanding the war in Iraq.

 

Well the more informed dissenters don't simply say "its about oil", they specifically address the nature of "control" of oil resources and the expropriation of the profits from the eventual distribution thereof. Its also necessary to point out to warmongers that such endeavours are considered longterm goals by the vested corporate interests involved. Immediate conditions do not invalidate the true geopolitical causation for our MIC's renewed expeditionary stance.

So too our machinations in Afghanistan, which head in the sanders like PB routinely like to insist had nothing to do with more than a decade of repeated calls by Unocal to invade, simply because the company claimed (up front) to have renounced its aspirations. Meanwhile backchannel maneuvering continues and at such a time when the company would determine the situation stable enough (through bribes or other inducements to cooperation by the relevant factions outside of Kabul's control), you can be sure they would revert back to open involvement in the TAP project.

Global oil/gas is a Western cartel arrangement. Current prices are a meausre of price fixing seen repeatedly over more than the past half century in fact. Its one of the most corrupt ventures going, if not the most corrupt.