Invasion of Iraq, the hidden story

This is true..... A close analysis shows that just like stupid Bush, even Ronald Reagan perhaps did not even have any real presidential authority. The war is probably not going on as Bush would have wanted. Mr. Ayaz Amir is right when he says that the IRAQ study groups was just short of one thing-- officially asking for the impeachment of all those responsible for creating all the mess in Iraq!

Religion is probably not the factor here. This is all so because America`s treatment of Muslim and non-Muslim states has been the same. The whole reasons and details regarding Iraq`s recent history and the American foreign policy to that state, would be the key ideas for debate and discussion in my upcoming articles.... So, keep your fingers crossed!


http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00007192&channel=civic%20center
http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00007356&channel=university%20ave&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1

start as....what are your basic necessity....of life your luxary.....religion is out of this issue,
i support the argument that this all has to do with political grounds....yea the thing where religion came in b.w is when they used shia sunnis as their weapon to get their goal...other than that, there is no religion involved in this situation.....well, take russia...when soviet union was splited....
Secondly...it has nothing to do with what we call front faces i.e. bush....he is just there for implimentation....the foriegn policy had been decided years ago.....after next presedential elections who ever will going to come....does things will change.....no...because these politicians are there just to impliment.....

Very nicely written and researched but I think formatting could have been better.

Do you see any religious purpose behind this war? I mean did Israel want all this because of political reasons or was there any religious reasons too?

Re: # 8

Basically not. Though Jews and Muslims have a whole history of religious conflict, this time round the battle of Iraq is not on the basis of religion. It is purely on political and strategic grounds. Like the United States, even Israel is in line in order to save the central Asian republics for controlling its oil and mineral resources. Israel surely wants to become a regional superpower which it knows would not be possible to become in the presence of counterparts like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is out of the way now, Iran is the next target. Renown investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has recently published a book (I fail to recall the title) in which he has adequately mentioned about the role played by Jewish lobbies in the shaping and formulation of American foreign policy.

He is of the opinion that Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organisations and do not threaten the security of Israel and the United States an iota. Then why do major western newspapers like the New York Times and The Washington Post continue to follow the Zionist toeline?

The current conflict in the Middle East has nothing to do with religion at all. It is surely a conflict for political, economic and social interests. In a recent documentary aired on BBC, Shimon Peres, former caretaker Prime Minister of Israel had to say that as the state of Israel has been attacked four times by conventional Muslim armies and has been surrounded by Muslim countries whose masses are still seen by Jews as Anti-Semities. In that case, according to his justifications, Israel had the right to develop nuclear weapons.

The gravity of the situation is surely based on political grounds.

The verdict is in. The majority of the American people by their vote have said ``enough`` to Bush and the neo-cons. The House went to the Democrats and as I write the Senate seems almost lost as well. Was it Iraq, was it the economy, was it the lies, was it the sleaze, was it the incompetence? It was probably all of these. The vote has rendered President Bush a ``lame duck.`` Washington now faces gridlock. But Iraq will continue, and the deficits will continue.

Much power has now been transferred to the Democrats -- or should I say Democraps. They don`t deserve it. They went along passively, cowardly, and cluelessly with the Bush caravan. Their real claim to power is not courage or intelligence, their real claim to their new power is simply that they are not Bushies or neo-cons. In all, it`s a sad story. But it`s a story, less sad than it was a day ago.

Effectively, the reign of Bush and the neo-cons is over. Today there is one less neo-con, Rumsfeld is gone. What turned the tide? Actually, it was the much belated back-stiffening of the US press. The media (newspapers, radio, TV) early on, were cowed by the Bush crowd. Later, Iraq, lies, and the administration`s arrogance was too much for the press. The press regained its courage, sheepishly, slowly, but surely. With the recovery of courage by the press, some truth began to emerge, and the Bush people were doomed.

Economically, the big picture will now boil down to four phenomena: (1) Iraq, (2) the continuing massive US deficits, (3) the longer-term effects of the deteriorating housing picture, (4) the incredible disparity between Wall Street and the rich -- and the great mass of struggling Americans.

Iraq will be a continuing cancer. I have no idea how it will be resolved.

The deficits will probably be ignored despite much hand-wringing.

The housing situation will deteriorate and become a huge problem.

The disparity between the rich and the poor will remain an unsolved cancer -- it will also be a source of anger on the part of most Americans.

The consensus continues to be that housing is due for a ``soft landing.`` In my opinion, the soft landing is a fantasy. I think it will be well into next year before we know what kind of landing housing is headed for. I think it`s going to be a very hard landing, one that will work a hardship on the entire American nation.

Blessed are the woken up voters of the United States who last night whupped the neonatal, neocon fascist ass of the Texas cowboy to beet color -- and took away from his bloody holster both guns -- the congress and the senate -- crazy boy your license to carry arms is revoked....no more conning the country.

Just want to clarify that according to recent reports 6,55,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict. The war on Iraq is an act of blatant opportunism. US knew that Saddam is viewed as a discredited despot around the world and no one is going to take his side in the war. Secondly Bush Administration wanted a few scapegoats to save their faces after the 9/11 incident. Afghanistan alone was not enough. There is a big flaw in the democracy of Super-States like that of US. Their will and authority extends beyond their borders but they are responsible only to their own electorate. After invading and occupying Iraq on flimsy pretexts Bush Administration did manage to placate the public opinion in the US and the Republicans did win the next election. This is what both these wars i.e. Afghanistan and Iraq were all about, winning the election. And there is no bigger reward than gaining control of vast OIL reserves of Iraq.

:) America NEVER won a war after wwII. Why?
Because those wars were never meant to be a victory. Those prolonged wars were creation of Military Industrial complex. To rob americans out of their taxes. Those wars was meant for mass GENOCIDE. Those wars were designed to create CHAOS. Those wars were to install puppets, to change native rules, ethics, morals, to INSTALL their companies in war torn, abused, starving countries. Those wars were to buy resources at ridiculously cheap prices. Those wars were to enslave ppl. Chaos, poverty, devastation then result into so-called re-building for which those countries needed loans from international sharks known as bankers.

History is repeating itself.

Your country is 3rd on the list. Read RAND CORP (a very influencial think tank) report on PK. Report was written in 80`s. Published in 90`s and it says, they want to break pk into pieces. Your beloved US agent so-called president is in a process to create another `Bangladesh`

My son -- you wrote a very detailed, well researched, a well reasoned dispassionate column -- and I am so glad that you did not use a single expletive -- even in vernacular -- against our universally liked president -- wherever or whenever you mentioned the name George Bush.

Congratulations

2 Dec 1999
During a debate in New Hampshire, presidential candidate George W Bush declares: ``If I found in any way, shape or form that he (Saddam Hussein) was developing weapons of mass destruction, I`d take `em out. I`m surprised he`s still there.`` Asked if that meant he would overthrow Saddam, Bush clarified: ``The weapons of mass destruction.``

22 Feb 2001
During his first press conference, President George W Bush declares: ``The Secretary of State is going to go listen to our allies as to how best to effect a policy, the primary goal of which will be to say to Saddam Hussein: we won`t tolerate you developing weapons of mass destruction and we expect you to leave your neighbors alone.``

7 Aug 2001
President George W Bush declares: ``He`s (Saddam Hussein) been a menace forever, and we will do -- he needs to open his country up for inspection, so we can see whether or not he`s developing weapons of mass destruction.``

26 Sep 2002
President George W Bush explains to a Texas audience that although Saddam Hussein poses a threat to many countries, America has first dibs. ``There`s no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us. There`s no doubt he can`t stand us. After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad at one time.``

7 Oct 2002
During a speech in Cincinnati, President George W Bush declares: ``Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.``

14 Oct 2002
During a speech in Dearborn, Michigan, President George W Bush declares that Saddam Hussein maintains active ties to al Qaeda: ``This is a man that we know has had connections with al Qaeda. This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al Qaeda as a forward army.``

7 Nov 2002
During a press conference, President George W Bush declares: ``Some people say, `Oh, we must leave Saddam alone, otherwise, if we did something against him, he might attack us.` Well, if we don`t do something he might attack us, and he might attack us with a more serious weapon. The man is a threat... He`s a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda... And we`re going to deal with him.``

8 Feb 2003
During a radio address, President George W Bush declares: ``We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.``

6 Mar 2003
During his second press conference in two years, President George W Bush declares: ``Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people.... I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons.``

17 Mar 2003
During an address to the nation, President George W Bush declares: ``We cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.``

17 Mar 2003
During an address to the nation, President George W Bush declares: ``Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.``

19 Mar 2003
During an address to the nation, President George W Bush declares: ``The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.``

10 Apr 2003
In a message to the Iraqi people, President George W Bush declares: ``The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a unique threat to the world.``

24 Apr 2003
President George W Bush declares: ``We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.``

30 May 2003
President George W Bush remarks on Polish TV: ``We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories... we’ve so far discovered two. And we’ll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them.``

17 Sep 2003
President George W Bush: ``No, we`ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.``

24 Mar 2004
At the annual Radio and Television News Correspondents Association dinner, President George W Bush shows slides of himself searching clumsily behind furniture in the Oval Office, joking: ``Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere [...] nope, no weapons over there [...] maybe under here?``

...SR

(PS: Quotes culled from ... ah ... go google it yourself.)

Wonderful Ananlysis!
A recent poll being carried out by 4 big media houses (or newspapers) in countries like Canada, England & Mexico amongst the common people have come out with a very interesting (though known) conclusion.
Mr.george Bush ranks 2nd only to Mr.Laden as far as `threat to the world is concerned`.