Personally, I think the reasons we went to war in Iraq are pretty well explained by The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)- neoconservative think tank formed in 1997, when PNAC issued its statement of principles. The PNAC statement of principles states that its aims are “to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests,” to achieve “a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad,” “to increase defense spending significantly,” to challenge “regimes hostile to US interests and values,” and to “accept America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” The statement is significant because it is signed by a group who will become a rollcall of today's Bush inner circle, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, Richard Armitage, Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, William J. Bennett, Zalmay Khalilzad. ABC's Ted Koppel will later say PNAC's ideas have "been called a secret blueprint for US global domination." It's chairman is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the chief executive of Fox News.
Statement of Principles:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htmIn 1998, PNAC issued a letter to President Clinton urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a “hazard” to “a significant portion of the world's supply of oil", among other things. It also mentioned several events strikingly similar to what eventually happens, including calls for the US to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations(verbally), and says the US should not be “crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” The letter is signed by many who will later lead the 2003 Iraq war. 10 of the 18 signatories later join the Bush Administration.
Letter to Prez Clinton:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htmThe plan shows that the Bush team intended to take military control of Persian Gulf oil whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power and should retain control of the region even if there is no threat. It says: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” The report calls for the control of space through a new “US Space Forces,” the political control of the internet, the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies, and advocates “regime change” in China, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran and other countries. It goes on to say "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Rebuilding America's Defenses:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdfThese reports and the Project for the New American Century are mostly ignored by the media and even average people! WTF? These documents obviously make it clear that invading Iraq was not a spur of the moment decision by the Bush Administration. Given the ties to the oil industry among members of PNAC, as well as the specific mention of Iraq's oil supply, I think that was at least one of the major reasons we invaded Iraq.
Other links:
As of July 7, 2004, more than 150 American companies had received contracts worth up to $48.7 billion for work in postwar Afghanistan and Iraq. The $ amount by now is obviously much higher than that I would imagine.
http://www.public-i.org/wow/report.aspx?aid=338Wikipedia-Good info about PNAC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
