Why Attack Iraq?
Four different reasons have been given. None are convincing.
Reason number 1: Saddam Hussein is involved in Al Qaeda.
Soon after 9/11, the Bush administration tried to suggest that Iraq was implicated in the attacks. But the evidence for that-an alleged meeting between Mohammad Attah, a leader of the WTC attack, and an Iraqi envoy in Czechoslovakia turned out not to have taken place. No other links between Iraq and Al Qaeda appear to exist.
Reason number 2. We want a democratic Iraq
It is true that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. But it is also true that the US government has no interest in a democratic Iraq. The possibility arose for a popular government in Iraq when there was a rebellion at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. At that time the US did everything it could to help Saddam Hussein to suppress that rebellion. Popular government in Iraq is not on our government's agenda.
(www.global policy.org/security/oil/2002/0805causeofwar.htm)
Reason Number 3. Saddam is liable to do anything. He must be stopped.He even used poison gas during the war against Iran
Now the NY Times has revealed that when Iraq's government did use chemical weapons against Iranian forces and its own Kurdish population, the U.S. government was there - aiding and abetting! The Times ("Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas," 8/18/02) reported that, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the secret program, U.S. officials "provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war." http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=2292
Reason number 4. Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction.
But on September 10, 2002 "After a closed-door meeting with members of the Security Council, Hans Blix, the executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC), said that the commission did not have solid evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=02091006.nlt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml
The real goal: Greater control over Mideast Oil
Remember our government is staffed by oilmen.
Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported on June 23, 2002. During last year's presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq. "Iraq's different," the Post quoted him as saying. Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.
http://www.nehttp://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtmlwsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml
We have been increasing US control in the Middle East for a while.
Since the Gulf War, we have been able to station troops in Saudi Arabia. The Afghanistan War has opened the Republics of Kazakhastan, Uzbekistan, and others to us. In Uzbekistan we support a rigid Soviet style dictatorship. But we have access to the large oil resources in the region.
Plans for a pipeline from these oil rich republics to the Indian Ocean, controlled by the US, are progressing since the Afghanistan War.
The embargo against Iraq has given us considerable control over Iraqi oil. A conquest of the country would put us in even more complete control of Iraqi oil.
This is one more war about oil and the profits of oil companies.
Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported on June 23, 2002. During last year's presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq. "Iraq's different," the Post quoted him as saying. Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.
http://www.nehttp://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtmlwsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml
We have been increasing US control in the Middle East for a while.
Since the Gulf War, we have been able to station troops in Saudi Arabia. The Afghanistan War has opened the Republics of Kazakhastan, Uzbekistan, and others to us. In Uzbekistan we support a rigid Soviet style dictatorship. But we have access to the large oil resources in the region.
Plans for a pipeline from these oil rich republics to the Indian Ocean, controlled by the US, are progressing since the Afghanistan War.
The embargo against Iraq has given us considerable control over Iraqi oil. A conquest of the country would put us in even more complete control of Iraqi oil.
This is one more war about oil and the profits of oil companies.
