Thursday, April 15, 2004
Back to Politics!
Dissecting the Presidents statements
Digesting the Presidents speech of the other night there are some things that stand out still.
Predominantly when it comes to Iraq policy. First, and I do admire the dedication, and the resolve, the president has to stick it through. I may not agree with everything the president does, but he is correct in this, if we leave now, it was all in vain. Yet the reasoning behind everything doesn’t always add up. Especially the way the president kept harping on the idea that we are there to build a "free" Iraq, and that "freedom" is our key goal. That clearly doesn’t make any sense in line with our traditional policy.
To understand this better we need only look at history. (you know history stuff that happened in the past that no one cares about!)
Lets rewind back to the 1970s - when Iran was our friend, and Iraq was our enemy. OK to clarify this really, Iran was selling us oil and buying weapons from the U.S. while Iraq was selling Oil to the Soviets and Eastern Bloc nations and buying weapons from them. Lets face it, this is what its really about.
Or didn’t you know that the leading EXPORTS from the U.S.A. are indeed weapons, guns, bombs, rockets, bullets, tanks, etc. Most people don’t realize this, once you come to the understanding that as a country our goal is to promote the SALES of weapons, and armaments our policies start to make a whole lot more sense. This was even more prevalent during the cold war era. Heck it drives our economy, our stock market, GDP, interest rates, GNP, Production, growth, employment, exactly the types of things that get politicians elected or voted out.
So while we were able to sell our weapons to Iran and import their oil, things were good. This was all facilitated by the government of Iran, which at that time, was led by basically a monarch the Shah of Iran. So this is where the presidents mission of "believing in freedom" gets a little thin on me. I know better. It wouldn’t matter if Adolf Hitler was to take over Iraq and run it with an Iron fist so long as he was a "friend" to the U.S.A. Buying our weapons and selling us the oil, shoot we would probably even sell him the sarin gas for his "camps", if he bought enough F-14s that is…. Which is basically what Iran was all about under the Shah - ok I am not comparing the Shah to Hitler, but the Shah was no angel, and his government was rife with corruption and other underlings which were fond of power and torture. So its not hard to fathom why the Iranian people would become disenfranchised with the government of the Shah. This environment feeds fundamentalism. In the late 70s a revolution exiled the Shah of Iran and brought rise to a fundamental Islamic Theocracy. Led by the Ayatollah Khomeni, Iran was no longer a friend and even took Americans hostage. Things escalated as there was a war going on with neighboring Iraq. Led by the beloved Saddam Hussein. At this point the U.S. started making gestures of rapproachment with Iraq. Courting this oil rich country - with the very same "evil", "dangerous" Saddam at the helm. Freedom, a free Iraq, were really the last concerns of the U.S. The flow of oil was and is the primary concern. As evil as Saddam was, he wasn’t a fundamentalist, and though he did business with the Soviets he wasn’t really a communist. So what if he tortured and murdered his own people, he seemed like a businessman.
The Business of the U.S.A. is Business, Big business, like Defense contractors and Big Oil Companies.
So come the 1980s we were in business with Iraq, figuring if Saddam could defeat a Islamic fundamentalist Iran we could set up a "U.S. Friendly" government in Iran again. So we got in bed with Saddam.
Fast forward to recent times. The president almost obsessive insistence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. "We know he did" The President said "because he used them." Which was correct, that he did use them. He used them against the Kurds in Iraq, and its possible he used them against the Iranians in the war. What the president didn’t say, and he wont, is where he GOT those weapons of mass destruction which he DID use. Sure the possibility did exist that he got them from the Soviet Union, as they were Saddams major arms supplier. However, If you will recall that in the 70's the Senior Mr. Bush was the director of the CIA. Wasn’t he also obsessed with Mr. Hussein also?
The reason Mr. Bush II is so confident that Mr. Saddam Hussein possessed chemical weapons which he actually did use, and why we are still over there looking for them is because WE SOLD THEM TO HIM!
That’s right, the good old U.S.A., purveyors of freedom, democracy, decency and all that is good. The United States sold him the mustard gas, and who knows what else, whatever they are there looking for. We sold him that, we put the Shah of Iran in power, we are setting up the "New Iraqi" government - and honestly if we could find a dictator that we could trust- who could run that country and stabilize it and continue to sell us the Oil, we would be on board in a second. So when the president comes out and says confidently that he knows there are weapons over in Iraq, I know hes telling the truth. The idea that we are there to set up a Free Iraq, well that I would question.
><><><><><
GET THE WINNERS, Get the EDGE!
www.theNFLedge.com
Dissecting the Presidents statements
Digesting the Presidents speech of the other night there are some things that stand out still.
Predominantly when it comes to Iraq policy. First, and I do admire the dedication, and the resolve, the president has to stick it through. I may not agree with everything the president does, but he is correct in this, if we leave now, it was all in vain. Yet the reasoning behind everything doesn’t always add up. Especially the way the president kept harping on the idea that we are there to build a "free" Iraq, and that "freedom" is our key goal. That clearly doesn’t make any sense in line with our traditional policy.
To understand this better we need only look at history. (you know history stuff that happened in the past that no one cares about!)
Lets rewind back to the 1970s - when Iran was our friend, and Iraq was our enemy. OK to clarify this really, Iran was selling us oil and buying weapons from the U.S. while Iraq was selling Oil to the Soviets and Eastern Bloc nations and buying weapons from them. Lets face it, this is what its really about.
Or didn’t you know that the leading EXPORTS from the U.S.A. are indeed weapons, guns, bombs, rockets, bullets, tanks, etc. Most people don’t realize this, once you come to the understanding that as a country our goal is to promote the SALES of weapons, and armaments our policies start to make a whole lot more sense. This was even more prevalent during the cold war era. Heck it drives our economy, our stock market, GDP, interest rates, GNP, Production, growth, employment, exactly the types of things that get politicians elected or voted out.
So while we were able to sell our weapons to Iran and import their oil, things were good. This was all facilitated by the government of Iran, which at that time, was led by basically a monarch the Shah of Iran. So this is where the presidents mission of "believing in freedom" gets a little thin on me. I know better. It wouldn’t matter if Adolf Hitler was to take over Iraq and run it with an Iron fist so long as he was a "friend" to the U.S.A. Buying our weapons and selling us the oil, shoot we would probably even sell him the sarin gas for his "camps", if he bought enough F-14s that is…. Which is basically what Iran was all about under the Shah - ok I am not comparing the Shah to Hitler, but the Shah was no angel, and his government was rife with corruption and other underlings which were fond of power and torture. So its not hard to fathom why the Iranian people would become disenfranchised with the government of the Shah. This environment feeds fundamentalism. In the late 70s a revolution exiled the Shah of Iran and brought rise to a fundamental Islamic Theocracy. Led by the Ayatollah Khomeni, Iran was no longer a friend and even took Americans hostage. Things escalated as there was a war going on with neighboring Iraq. Led by the beloved Saddam Hussein. At this point the U.S. started making gestures of rapproachment with Iraq. Courting this oil rich country - with the very same "evil", "dangerous" Saddam at the helm. Freedom, a free Iraq, were really the last concerns of the U.S. The flow of oil was and is the primary concern. As evil as Saddam was, he wasn’t a fundamentalist, and though he did business with the Soviets he wasn’t really a communist. So what if he tortured and murdered his own people, he seemed like a businessman.
The Business of the U.S.A. is Business, Big business, like Defense contractors and Big Oil Companies.
So come the 1980s we were in business with Iraq, figuring if Saddam could defeat a Islamic fundamentalist Iran we could set up a "U.S. Friendly" government in Iran again. So we got in bed with Saddam.
Fast forward to recent times. The president almost obsessive insistence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. "We know he did" The President said "because he used them." Which was correct, that he did use them. He used them against the Kurds in Iraq, and its possible he used them against the Iranians in the war. What the president didn’t say, and he wont, is where he GOT those weapons of mass destruction which he DID use. Sure the possibility did exist that he got them from the Soviet Union, as they were Saddams major arms supplier. However, If you will recall that in the 70's the Senior Mr. Bush was the director of the CIA. Wasn’t he also obsessed with Mr. Hussein also?
The reason Mr. Bush II is so confident that Mr. Saddam Hussein possessed chemical weapons which he actually did use, and why we are still over there looking for them is because WE SOLD THEM TO HIM!
That’s right, the good old U.S.A., purveyors of freedom, democracy, decency and all that is good. The United States sold him the mustard gas, and who knows what else, whatever they are there looking for. We sold him that, we put the Shah of Iran in power, we are setting up the "New Iraqi" government - and honestly if we could find a dictator that we could trust- who could run that country and stabilize it and continue to sell us the Oil, we would be on board in a second. So when the president comes out and says confidently that he knows there are weapons over in Iraq, I know hes telling the truth. The idea that we are there to set up a Free Iraq, well that I would question.
GET THE WINNERS, Get the EDGE!
www.theNFLedge.com
