?

Log in

No account? Create an account
What I say? Who knows me? What I said? What I am? disturbing.org.uk Previous Previous Next Next
Lies, Damn Lies, etc. - Corrosive Shame
Therapy for Life
kneeshooter
kneeshooter
Lies, Damn Lies, etc.
From miss_soap

Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq

Current Mood: bored bored
Current Music: Front 242 - Matrix - MegaHertz

5 lies or Lie to me
Comments
westernind From: westernind Date: August 20th, 2003 02:46 am (UTC) (Link)
The question then arises - what's the real reason? There has to be one (or more).
A friend of mine in the chorus is from a military family; she has a sister in military intelligence, and father, brother and husband are all military musicians - but they do serve overseas. They were telling her last Christmas heard it's because the US and UK need to establish a land base from which to take on Saudi in the next couple of years. Nothing to do with Iraq itself.
[/probably unfounded paranoid conspiracy hearsay]
kneeshooter From: kneeshooter Date: August 20th, 2003 02:48 am (UTC) (Link)
Hmmm, that sounds a little far-fetched even to me.
littleonions From: littleonions Date: August 20th, 2003 04:03 am (UTC) (Link)
I am also on that particular conspiracy bus.

The wahhabi radical islamic sect is what rings osama Bin ladens bells, the home of this sect (fundamental to the creation of the saudi ruling class) has its home in Saudi. It is probably the place where very bad people who blow big buildings up get their dosh. Several royals have been linked (by others than the americans) to funding radical groups, known to be involved in terroist actions. If the saudi gov don't play ball with these nutters then they will go down, so they do. This is fairly common knowledge and has been since before 9/11.
SO what do you do? attack saudi? up until recently saudi provided the bulk of america's oil.
If they had moved against saudi before securing an alternate, non opec regulated suply of oil they would have been knackered, links were made after 9/11 between Saudi Arabia and the funding of Al-Qaeda,(there are names etc, just being brief here) the Saudis withdrew vast sums of capital from America causing minor shock waves. They do/did, as they say, have the gas guzzling giant by the short and curlies.
So you gotta think what would I do?
You want to get the people who are blowing you up,but to do that you have to get tough with those who are sheltering/funding them.
But if you do, no oil.
Iraq was a prime target, not only would it make a super base from which to launch any fighting force against saudi from, but it also has a LOT of oil. Due to Saddam Hussein being a fucknugget it was easy to spin a war.
Taking Iraq was just I believe an opening move.
eddie777 From: eddie777 Date: August 20th, 2003 04:14 am (UTC) (Link)
The question then arises - what's the real reason?

An essential question. What I have read (and believe) is that, to pursue their hostilities against Al'Qaeda, the US needed to take advantage of the geography of Iraq to put pressure on the regimes in the area to stop sheltering Al'Qaeda.

Iraq is key geographically. Occupying it, the US effectively surrounds Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Iran has Iraq on one side and Afghanistan on the other. Saudi has Iraq on one side and the US 6th fleet in the Red Sea and the Persian gulf on the other. Ditto Syria, with US-friendly Israel and (to an extent at least) Jordan in the mix as well. Since the war on Iraq, the Saudis and Iranians have been playing ball to a far greater degree with the US. Before, the US was powerful but geographically distant, whereas Al'Qaeda was right there. Now, the US is on their doorstep, able to project power, and has just proven the extent to which it is prepared to defy the international community to pursue its own interests. Even Hamas have made obvious references to the new geopolitical realities in the Middle East in the most recent cease fire talks with Israel. As a result, Saudi has already become an Al'Qaeda target and Iran, it is rumoured, may follow suit. Disgusting certainly, but rational, until the small matter of massive Middle Eastern instability as a result is factored in.

Quite apart from the total immorality of attacking a nation to use it as a staging post for the intimidation of others, this may prove risky for the US purely from a selfish point of view as well. The Saudi and Pakistani regimes are both in danger of being destabilised as a result of massive popular discontent of their kowtowing to the US. With guerrilla war still active in Iraq, the US may well end up relying on the Iranian Shi'ites to control things there.

I know that the following is completely hypothetical and perhaps far-fetched but this could create a culturally united Iraq and Iran, Iraq having a clear Shi'ite majority. Al'Qaeda is Sunni, and might not like that too much in some ways, but the US would like it even less in the long term. Their entire strategy in the region since before the Iran-Iraq war has been to play the two of them off against each other, hence selling weapons to both sides, encouraging Saddam to use WMD etc. This could be the beginning of exactly what Al'Qaeda was trying to produce - a unified Islamic power bloc.
(Deleted comment)
5 lies or Lie to me