| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fyrefly1
Cannabis Sacrament Minister
Joined: 07 Sep 2004
Posts: 2209
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 5:39 am Post subject: Why We Fight |
 |
|
A very long but very good speech before the US House by Rep. Ron Paul:
| Quote: |
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 8, 2005
Why We Fight
Many reasons have been given for why we fight and our youth must die in Iraq. The reasons now given for why we must continue this war bear no resemblance to the reasons given to gain the support of the American people and the United States Congress prior to our invasion in March of 2003. Before the war, we were told we faced an imminent threat to our national security from Saddam Hussein. This rationale, now proven grossly mistaken, has been changed. Now we’re told we must honor the fallen by “completing the mission.” To do otherwise would demean the sacrifice of those who have died or been wounded. Any lack of support for “completing the mission” is said, by the promoters of the war, to be unpatriotic, un-American, and detrimental to the troops. They insist the only way one can support the troops is to never waver on the policy of nation building, no matter how ill-founded that policy may be. The obvious flaw in this argument is that the mission, of which they so reverently speak, has changed constantly from the very beginning.
Though most people think this war started in March of 2003, the seeds were sown many years before. The actual military conflict, involving U.S. troops against Iraq, began in January 1991. The prelude to this actually dates back over a hundred years, when the value of Middle East oil was recognized by the industrialized West.
Our use of troops to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was the beginning of the current conflict with Muslim fundamentalists who have been, for the last decade, determined to force the removal of American troops from all Muslim countries-- especially the entire Arabian Peninsula, which they consider holy. Though the strategic and historic reasons for our involvement in the Middle East are complex, the immediate reasons given in 2002 and 2003 for our invasion of Iraq were precise. The only problem is they were not based on facts.
The desire by American policymakers to engineer regime change in Iraq had been smoldering since the first Persian Gulf conflict in 1991. This reflected a dramatic shift in our policy, since in the 1980s we maintained a friendly alliance with Saddam Hussein as we assisted him in his war against our arch nemesis, the Iranian Ayatollah. Most Americans ignore that we provided assistance to this ruthless dictator with biological and chemical weapons technology. We heard no complaints in the 1980s about his treatment of the Kurds and Shiites, or the ruthless war he waged against Iran. Our policy toward Iraq played a major role in convincing Saddam Hussein he had free reign in the Middle East, and the results demonstrate the serious shortcomings of our foreign policy of interventionism that we have followed now for over a hundred years.
In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This act made it official: “The policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.” This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by neo-conservatives as justification for the pre-emptive, deliberate invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step toward a war that would bear no good fruit. No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy.
Shortly after the new administration took office in January 2001, this goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein quickly morphed into a policy of remaking the entire Middle East, starting with regime change in Iraq. This aggressive interventionist policy surprised some people, since the victorious 2000 campaign indicated we should pursue a foreign policy of humility, no nation building, reduced deployment of our forces overseas, and a rejection of the notion that we serve as world policemen. The 9/11 disaster proved a catalyst to push for invading Iraq and restructuring the entire Middle East. Though the plan had existed for years, it quickly was recognized that the fear engendered by the 9/11 attacks could be used to mobilize the American people and Congress to support this war. Nevertheless, supposedly legitimate reasons had to be given for the already planned pre-emptive war, and as we now know the “intelligence had to be fixed to the policy.”
More |
_________________
Fyrefly1
"All truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, 19th Century Philosopher |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aeroplane
Cannabis Sacrament Minister
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 1472
Location: Valhalla
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. |
Hmmm. Why doesn't this come as a surprise to me? Thinking-thinking-thinking... Oh, now I know! Because BushClinton are just opposite sides of the same coin. It's the old "good cop, bad cop" routine. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some mutal masturbation going on between them.
_________________
"Penalties against the possession of a drug
should not be more damaging to the individual
than the drug itself."
US President Jimmy Carter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mystic Power
admin THC-Ministry YahooGroup
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 3605
Location: Key West
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aeroplane wrote: |
| [Hmmm. Why doesn't this come as a surprise to me? Thinking-thinking-thinking... Oh, now I know! Because BushClinton are just opposite sides of the same coin. It's the old "good cop, bad cop" routine. |
Bingo!
| Quote: |
| I wouldn't be surprised if there is some mutal masturbation going on between them. |
Quite a disturbing image. 
_________________
"We are the Ones we have been waiting for."
~Hopi Elder ~
"In Lak'ech"
~ Ancient Mayan: "I am another YOU." ~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Quixote
Cannabis Sacrament Minister
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 547
Location: london
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
a little tale of pipelines :-
along long time ago , 20 or so years ago in fact , there was this company , called BP , who signed this little piece of paper .
this was a contract with the russians to explore , drill and pump the oil out of the last great un-tapped oil reserve left on earth.
this was inconveniently located across souther russia and running into areas such as kazakstan , tajikistan and uzbekistan.all of which , un fortunately are completely land-locked.
how the russians laughed at BP. , knowing full well that the stupid english would never get that oil to the major markets of the world.they took the money and signed the deal
but BP had a plan.a devastatingly cunning plan.they would build a pipeline though all the aformentioned countries and ship 'their' oil straight into the middle east.the strais of Hormuz to be precise
of course the pipeline would be taking a rather 'scenic' route through countries such as Afghanistan (and all the other 'stans.) Iran , and Iraq.but it could then be shipped to the worlds biggest consumer , the USA.
not wanting to miss the chance of dominating the european oil supply they would also build a 'spur' of this pipeline into europe.of course , this pipeline would have to take the scenic route through such countries as Turkey , Bulgaria , the formaly fucked up yugoslavia , the totaly fucked up chechnia , Armenia and on through Germany , Belgium or the netherlands and into england.
yet anther spur would dominate asias oil supply , passing through Pakistan and India.
this would connect - up all the worlds major oilfields with all the worlds major consumers with BP bieng the exclusive carrier and largest supplier.
of course all the aforementioned countries , not to mention the whole of Islam , would need a little 'political adjustment' and possibe 'regime change' to allow this pipeline to go ahead , but hey thats what MI6 were for right ?
off they went with their little dream , plotting and planning away but in the backround a mighty power was stiring. the USA suddenly realised that they didnt want BP dominating the worlds oilsupply and they wanted in on the deal.
thus was born the unholy union af Exxon , BP and a bunch of other freemasons.they bought into each others corporations and became ONE. a sort of multi - headed HYDRA.
now at last the master plan could go ahead and soon the corporate stamp would be on all lifes necessities.
only then would they completely own us.only then would we bend our knee and bow to our new masters , our new gods.
PEACE
PEACE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fyrefly1
Cannabis Sacrament Minister
Joined: 07 Sep 2004
Posts: 2209
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2005 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scary story...
_________________
Fyrefly1
"All truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, 19th Century Philosopher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Public Forum
Members only forum
Members Group
| 
