b- you nailed it. Such a sad thing and despite the years and the revelations, americans still buy the bullshit about Sadam. They WANT to believe, as it goes along with everything they've been 'taught' by hollywood and their other media. We're a nation of fearful idiots.

Posted by: DaveS | Mar 19 2013 17:48 utc | 1

Yup! Warmongers and blood-thirsty oil executives, neocon ideologues, and hapless goat-molesting bedouins got together to create the perfect storm of lies and deceits for the immoral war on Iraq and its people.

But oil was one factor that Bush and his Dick went after. The rest to include recycled neocons from the men's restrooms of the American Enterprise Institute and other neo-vampire thong-tanks wanted to do it because they felt like they can.

No other obvious reason or motive can be deciphered except that they were itching for blood and wanted to disturb the balance of the Middle East just for the fun of it.

And enter the Viagra-induced Gulf monarchs who didn't come across the West wanted to wage that they didn't like to finance. Saddam to them was ready to be spit out in the same way they get rid of the unwanted pubic hairs in their mouths.

But Syria is different - it has no oil and no value except the annoyances it poses as a spoiler. And the neocons are currently being charged at the thong-tank outlets since they had crashed and fizzled in Iraq and Afghanistan. And as for the Gulf Goat Molesters, they are now busy licking their wounds and pretending to be having fun at it. (In fact, they might very well be having fun at it!)

No war on Syria, not now, not next year, and not this decade. I venture to say that Assad will come out of this crisis victorious.

Posted by: MikeA | Mar 19 2013 18:10 utc | 2

I often hear conservatives complaining about Obama's "lapdog mainstream media", but if you really want to see what aw the timid-to-nonexistent coverage of any antiwar sentiments, protests or arguments ten years ago.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 19 2013 18:12 utc | 3

DaveS, they have to believe, or else they have to be silent. Because this war on Iraq, the wholesale destruction of a country, a culture and a people in all its diversity was planned and carefully executed.
So if the USAmericans, and all other cheerleaders were to admit that they were wrong, they could not possible find a rock large enough to hide under. And they would have to be silent for ever.

The only way to make any money now-a-days seems to be destruction. Be it through old fashioned war fare with bombs, or old fashioned economic war fare, or bank bail outs. All these destroy the fabric of society as we no it, and what comes out of it is usually less free.

It is not just the war on Iraq, that the US Americans and much of the world don't want to admit, it is the war on all of us and our way of life that we are too fearful to admit.

See our PM, dear leader John Keys here in NZ just openly admitted that he wants to look at the option of a bank bail out al a Cyprus should our banks need it.

We are no more safe from Warfare than the Iraqis, Syrians or Lebanese. That is what we are too afraid to admit, and always have been.

Posted by: Sabine | Mar 19 2013 18:35 utc | 4

disclaimer: all errors are mine.

All these destroy the fabric of society as we no it, and what comes out of it is usually less free.

should be KNOW it

Posted by: Sabine | Mar 19 2013 18:36 utc | 5

Ranke, I believe, held that the nature of a country's government was exemplified, most clearly, in its foreign policy.
The broad and sustained attack on the living standards, political and civil liberties of the masses in Europe and north America was foreshadowed in the cynical and ruthless attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Syria and elsewhere. In every case they have been accompanied by clouds of lies, now topped in the ultimate lie (which everyone, besides a few 'extremists', accepts) that they were mistakes, false interpretations of intelligence and otherwise excusable.
They were lies. The propaganda was part of a campaign which has continued without interruption: this is no past, to be looked back on and contemplated, the Iraq war is the present. It continues. And those directly responsible for the million who died and the millions more displaced and ruined between 2003 and 2010 are adding every day to their crimes. They do so in plain sight.

As to us, the populations of, for the most part (this being a English language blog)the states which are dealing death every day in almost every moslem country (add Mali and Pakistan to the earlier list, don't forget Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iran), I suppose that there must have been idiots who anticipated sharing the plunder, the oil, mainly, but also the other booty which, historically includes a warming glow of racial superiority, more usually sublimated nowadays as cultural 'modernity.' As to us the joke is that, far from benefiting the working people (middle class as they are called in the USA where, in the southern manner, the blacks are always the working class and to be white is to be bourgeois) the war on Iraq heralded the much wider campaign against living standards in excess of bare subsistence, pensions, social security, medical care, social mobility through education and all the others gifts of social imperialism.
Now we are all Iraqis, subject to thugs with guns, and none more, in the States, than the discharged soldiers who are discovering that what the state employed them to do to foreigners it very happily does to them too. The big difference being that you cannot find many Iraqis who would vote to elect people to treat them as they have been treated, whereas in Greece, Britain, Ireland the States and elsewhere those who immiserate the people can renew their mandates at the polls whenever they choose. Just as Obama got re-elected to smash up medicare, social security, Iran and anyone he chooses to kill, imprison or otherwise and any other crime that he fancies.

Posted by: bevin | Mar 19 2013 18:43 utc | 6

The same people who pressed for the Iraq war are now pressing for war on Syria and for war on Iran.

Don't forget Donald Trump, who actually wants the US to re-invade Iraq, so that America's oil which is unfortunately situated under Iraq's desert can be rounded up, and the Iraqis forced to reimburse the US for its expenses during the war.

Posted by: alexno | Mar 19 2013 19:19 utc | 7

This blog is always a breath of fresh air from the stench of the crap that passes as news nowadays. Thanks b!

Posted by: Fernando | Mar 19 2013 19:55 utc | 8

There was also Cheney's round of secret (off the record?) or at least secretive meetings with all the CEOs of the major energy companies. Dividing up the spoils?

I wish I could remember a link.

Posted by: Yonatan | Mar 19 2013 20:06 utc | 9

"Iraqis would have rebelled against Saddam Hussein if there had been no invasion and it would have been "a lot worse than Syria", Tony Blair has said"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21839884

Can you believe this poodle Blair? He is still yapping!

Posted by: HIlmi Hakim | Mar 19 2013 20:54 utc | 10

Let's not forget Dumsfeld Rumsfeld saying how Iraq's WMD's are located east, west, north & south of Baghdad.

Posted by: HIlmi Hakim | Mar 19 2013 20:55 utc | 11

""What are they dropping there?" I asked. "And why?" asked my then girlfriend. "Oil," I replied. "

b;
Do you think that USA thought that it could not get the Iraqi oil wealth with Saddam staying in power?

Is it your opinion that Saddam would not have obliged the West with whatever they wanted from him provided that they had let him stay in power?

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Mar 19 2013 21:08 utc | 12

Let's stop kidding ourselves, the global war on terror is bogus. It's a lie. It's not meant to be won or lost, but to continue endlessly. The object is to create more enemies, not eliminate them. The drone technology is an ingenious solution towards achieving this goal. The inevitable death of civilians, especially women and children is good for business. The anger and hatred generated by these attacks guarantees an endless supply of terrorists to keep feeding an insatiable war machine that benefits a select few -- bankers, defense contractors, generals, politicians and the parasites attached to them. The rest of us lose.

Posted by: Cynthia | Mar 19 2013 21:15 utc | 13

While I'm sure the US hoped to defray some of the costs of the war by awarding all the contracts to US oil majors (perhaps with a bone thrown to Britain) I'm convinced that the real reason for invasion was to destroy a potentially powerful competitor to Israel.

If sanctions had ever been lifted, Iraq would have quickly recovered and become a very powerful country, relative to Israel, and that was what the US could not abide.

In that sense, oil was the issue as it would have fueled the economic recovery and expansion of a Middle eastern country that was not totally under the control of the west and might challenge Israeli regional dominance someday.

That plan backfired since Iraq is now semi independent and allied with Iran. And 5-10 years from now will likely become a very wealthy oil country that could potentially compete with Saudi money. Hence Plan B which is to sow anti-Shia' sectarianism.

Posted by: Lysander | Mar 19 2013 21:31 utc | 14

Oil? b....

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whose-war/

You hadn't read this. I will give you that elements of oiligarchy piggybacked on essential neocon/Zionist momentum. Others were (fairly passive of course) opposed.

Posted by: Ken Hoop | Mar 19 2013 21:41 utc | 15

When Pfc Manning is being prosecuted and Bush/Blair/Cheney/et al are still on the loose, I know why this world sucks big time and I feel vindicated for not becoming a lawyer [sorry, mom].

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Mar 19 2013 21:44 utc | 16

Lysander - 14 & Ken Hoop - 15

I agree. The destruction of Iraq was primarily for Israeli interests. The control of the Iraqi oil, gas and other resources was secondary and could easily have been had through non war means, as is usually done.

Posted by: вот так | Mar 19 2013 22:49 utc | 17

If you want to learn anything about wars, talk to real combat veterans.

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Mar 19 2013 23:22 utc | 18

Iraq was prostrate. Spies poured in from all directions. Soldiers deserted; commanders were bribed. Iraqi pilots were driven from Iraqi skies. If S Hussein had so much as a pea-shooter the Pentagon knew about it. Obvious to all from Day One.

Posted by: ruralito | Mar 19 2013 23:22 utc | 19

"...asked my then girlfriend. " Oil," I replied." Poor you girlfriend!

In popular consumerist culture, the one what we see on Government media, casus belli was an oil.
But imperial wars are more than mineral wealth. As Edward Said and Ashis Nandy have shown in its books there is more to it. Regardless of them, still, it is surprising that now when we know that the cost of the war is 4 trillion, how can you claim oil is main reason of the aggression?

Did they make, say, 4 trillion and 100.000? Nope, in addition, they build 800.000.000 monster of embassy that suit 16.000 people. Today, I read they are cutting stuff to 5.000 people.

Now, read this. You and everybody else will find the answer here:

By Andrew J. Bacevich: A Letter to Paul Wolfowitz
http://harpers.org/archive/2013/03/a-letter-to-paul-wolfowitz/1/

Posted by: neretva'43 | Mar 19 2013 23:36 utc | 20

The US is incapable of learning anything. It keeps doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome. According to Einstein, that is a clear sign of insanity.

The Imperialists running the show are brain-dead. The US is broke yet still it keeps building up its armies and starting more wars.

When are the American people going to revolt and throw their corrupt politicians and their corporate paymasters over a cliff, the whole bloody lot of them, including the Imperial President?

Led Zep's "The Battle of Evermore" comes to mind here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGAKeHQUx-U

Posted by: Cynthia | Mar 20 2013 1:04 utc | 21

Incidentally regarding my own message #12:

I do agree with b's assertion. Iraqi invasion was for oil in my opinion. It is just that -in my opinion- it was not for just "Iraqi oil" but rather establishing complete hegemony over all middle east and north africa (ie. ~60% of total global reserves).
Iraqi oil could have been gotten even with Saddam in power. But establishing a brutal hegemony over the greater region and making all puny states of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah resistance and Libya to submit to that hegemony was something which required -again in my opinion- an 'awesome' show of military force and ruthlessness (and hence the 'shock and awe').

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Mar 20 2013 2:00 utc | 22

@ Cynthia [#21],

As the word 'insanity' is a legal term, what other/normal word would you recon to be its medical equivalent?

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Mar 20 2013 2:48 utc | 23

In response to Lund's article about rebel factions on Syria Comment, here's a whopper by Koert Debeuf:

This lack of unity and strategy not only meant a disadvantage in the 
field, it also helped Assad’s propaganda. Even as the FSA had no communication strategy at all, the Assad machine knew very well what 
to do: discredit the FSA.

There are three lines of attack:

1.The FSA is chaos. So it’s Assad or chaos in Syria and the region;
2.The FSA is a danger to minorities. Assad is the only guarantee for
 the security of minorities in Syria;
3.The FSA is extremist. Assad is the only one who can keep out Al Qaeda.
I have been surprised to see how well-organized the Assad
 communication machine is.

In every country in the West, media groups are working on spreading 
these three messages. Meanwhile, the FSA, which has too many
 self-appointed spokespersons (as Aron Lund correctly spells out) and lacks a clear message on what it
 wants and who it is, is slowly loosing the communication war.

However much control Assad may have over communications in Syria, even however much support he may receive from the communications networks of allies like Russia, Iran and Venezuela, these are not any match for the blanketing of the media in America and its allies with the neocon narrative about Syria. Those who are seeking alternative perspectives have to look hard to find them.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Mar 20 2013 3:32 utc | 24

Rusty @ 24

They pretty much admit through whinges like these that ferreting out small sites(like this one) is their sole purpose and worthy of expending their life forces for. If they aren't PR for regime change , who are. They must eat sleep and wake to their ferrety strategies! Obvious PR men. I'd love to see the real powerpoint presentations they deliver to their bosses.

Someone was alluding to insanity...

But really the amateur liberal chickenhawks are out en masse wrt Syria because it's a blatantly illegal media-supported mercenary war, with all of its spokespeople accounted for in one or the other camp. No REALLY serious person will go in depth about Syria beyond the standard old bluster and finger wagging. It's left up to the rookie pundit to say their policy for them.

Here's a partial transcript of yesterday's WH briefing w/ Jay Carney:

Q If it’s opposition or rebel groups that have used chemical weapons, as the Russian -- as Russia has said -- alleged -- how will -- I mean, but how -- you've just said that the United States wants to hold Assad accountable for this. And what --

MR. CARNEY: I appreciate it, and I should have made clear in my answer to Jim that on that specific allegation we have no evidence to substantiate the charge that the opposition has used chemical weapons. We are deeply skeptical of a regime that has lost all credibility, and we would also warn the regime against making these kinds of charges as any kind of pretext or cover for its use of chemical weapons.

Q So just so I’m clear, you don’t think that -- the United States does not think it’s the opposition?

MR. CARNEY: Again, we are evaluating the charges that are being made and the allegations, consulting closely with our partners in the region and in the international community. But we have no evidence to substantiate that charge, that the opposition has used chemical weapons.

Snip

Q Jay, on Syria. Two questions, if I may, on Syria. Your answers to the opening round of questions came in somewhat piecemeal fashion, and so I want to make sure I'm clear on this. You have told us that --

MR. CARNEY: Is that theater criticism? (Laughter.) Or is it a --

Q It is a matter of craft, yes. You have told us that you have no evidence to believe that it was any elements among the rebels that used chemical weapons --

MR. CARNEY: Right.

Q -- but that you are still looking into the allegations.

MR. CARNEY: Correct.

Q What is it that prohibits you from telling us that you have no evidence that it was the government that used these weapons?

MR. CARNEY: Because we're still looking into the reports of the use of chemical weapons.

Q If that’s so, how can you eliminate so quickly the idea that it wasn't the rebels?

MR. CARNEY: I'm saying that at this time, we have no evidence to substantiate that charge, and that we are skeptical -- deeply -- of a regime that might make that charge, given that the regime has lost all credibility in the eyes of the Syrian people and the world. Having said that, we are obviously assessing the reports. And without getting into intelligence matters and methods, I can tell you that we're making evaluations about the reports.

Q It would not, it seems to me, betray any intelligence methods or sources for you to tell us whether in fact you even know whether chemical weapons were used.

MR. CARNEY: Again, I appreciate the question. And I can tell you that we are assessing the reports about the possible use of chemical weapons, as well as the reports about the origins of the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria. And I have no further assessment to provide to you at this time about our judgments on that. I can tell you that we're evaluating them. And I can tell you, obviously, about our disposition towards the potential for the use of chemical weapons. But at this time, we're simply -- as a matter of intelligence, I can't give you more information about the assessments we're making.

Posted by: L Bean | Mar 20 2013 3:58 utc | 25

I have to disagree with b that the Iraq invasion was about oil. I think primarily it was implemented by the israelists to, one, put the hurt on the dictator who was paying stipends to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and, two, to pursue the neocon remaking of the middle east into a region of Israel-friendly western-style democracies. I suspect the Wolfowitzes and Pearles understood what a long shot this transformation was but were pretty happy with what would be the real result: reducing a strong opponent of Israel into failed state and introducing the American military into the region which can only benefit Israel.

Also, I'm not sure you can really say that there was absolute factual proof that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD. As long as there was an iota of doubt about it the hawks could exploit it with the image of a mushroom cloud or a nerve gas attack. The opponents had the disadvantage of having to prove a negative.

Also, you have to take into account the paraoid safety-conciousness of white America. THis mentality will always incline towards action in the cause of being safe. Being safe is almost a fetish in this country. This mentality, exploited by a zealous neocon foreign policy cabal (what else can I call it?), with a president who would rather see a bunch of Iraqis get killed than go on with even the remote possiblity that Saddam could pose the threat of another attack on the homeland is more than enough to account for the Iraq invasion. You don't need the oil rational.

We have no problem buying oil from the mid-east and reducing Iraq to a dysfunctional mess would hurt rather than help us proccure oil . Even Saddam had the oil-for-food thing. I'll read the articles b has linked to but the oil rational seems like a red herring. Some people are using it to shift blame from the Israelicons who were the real purveyors of the Iraq invasion idea.

Posted by: J. Bradley | Mar 20 2013 5:26 utc | 26

The Iraq War Was Not A Media Failure

"...Conclusion - Hard-Wired Not To Resist

What was truly shocking in March 2003 was that Blair was able to weave this obvious web of deceit and be greeted, not even with whispers of dissent, but with thunderous applause and praise by the political-media 'club'.

Much has been made of different newspapers being 'for' and 'against' the war in Iraq. But in fact all newspapers and broadcasters failed to raise even the most obvious objections to the case for believing the war was necessary, legal or moral. In March 2003, the way journalists feign fierce dissent while tossing feeble challenges for political executives, fellow 'club' members, to swat away, had never been more obvious.

The Iraq war showed how the 'free press' is structurally hard-wired not to obstruct US and UK regimes bent on war. The corporate media - entrenched in the irrational and dangerous assumption that it should accept frameworks of debate laid down by 'mainstream' political parties - took key illusions seriously. As a result, the fraudulent discussion about Iraqi WMD raged on and on with the real world left far behind.

It is a bitter, even surreal, irony that the media 'failure' on Iraq is being lamented by journalists who have since repeated the same performance on Libya, Syria, Israel-Palestine, Iran, Venezuela, WikiLeaks, climate change, and much else besides."

But who owns the media?

Posted by: вот так | Mar 20 2013 6:04 utc | 27

Posted by: вот так | Mar 20 2013 6:05 utc | 28

@ BOT TAK [#28]

MSM is in the hands of a group so small, that it would be extinct in a heartbeat, if it were a species.

NYT, WSJ, WaPo, LAT, HuPo/Aol to name some of the major/influential players, but when you start digging deeper, you'll find that even those few papers are owned/run by even less people [Murdoch for example, although he's retired now pending accusations/investigations of a hacking scandal], but when in a zoo, we're not supposed to stare at the gorilla and the elephant. I'm told it makes them nervous.

Watching an 'investigating journalist' at work nowadays, is like watching 'the Duke' ride into town on a wooden horse from Troy; it takes forever and we're getting nowhere.

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Mar 20 2013 7:38 utc | 29

Daniel Rich @ 29

"MSM is in the hands of a group so small, that it would be extinct in a heartbeat, if it were a species"

so very true, so obvious and yet so often missed
what with all that illusion of choice....

Posted by: Penny | Mar 20 2013 10:57 utc | 30

don't know if anyone has mentioned that Saddam was selling oil in the Euro- not in the US currency
which would have chipped away at US petro dollar hegemony

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html

"Europe's dream of promoting the euro as a competitor to the U.S. dollar may get a boost from SADDAM HUSSEIN. Iraq says that from now on, it wants payments for its oil in euros"

This was not the way to go in the eyes of the US.
The US wants Europe under thumb, as has been the case since WW2

So it was not oil alone.
Nor was it the oil trade alone
It could have been about water?

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/05/16_wells_iraq-water-oil.htm

The new oil

Then of course there is just the control of the region
And there is the profits for war makers and banksters

But Iraq just about oil?
no.

bottak

"It is a bitter, even surreal, irony that the media 'failure' on Iraq is being lamented by journalists"

The media must "lament" their shortcomings. How else to keep the gullible believing in them
It's all a ruse

Posted by: Penny | Mar 20 2013 11:14 utc | 31

Order 1 - deBa'athification,
Order 2 - Dissolve the Iraqi military and intelligence apparatus,
Order 12 and Order 54 - Trade Liberalization,
Order 14 - Prohibited media activity,
Order 17 - Contractor and military immunity from Iraqi laws,
Order 37 and 49 - Replace progressive tax system with flat tax system,
Order 39:
Provision 1, Privatization,
Provision 2, 100 percent Foreign Ownership of Iraqi Businesses,
Provision 3, National treatment of foreign investment,
Provision 4, Unrestricted Repatriation of Profits for Foreign Investors,
Provision 5, Forty Year Leases of Iraqi Real Estate by Foreign Entities and
Provision 6, Disputes could be settled in international tribunals instead of Iraqi Courts.
Order 40 and 94 - Iraqi banking open to foreign ownership,
Order 62 - Bremer to determine who could run for office,
Order 65 - Iraqi Communications and Media Commission appointed by Bremer,
Order 57 and 77 - Place American representatives in key decision making positions in the government ministries,
Order 80, 81, and 83 - Rewrote Iraq’s patent, trademark, and copy write laws.

There is 1-3 million of widows in Iraq.

If nothing else this is why Assad must fight these Barbarians to the end of life if necessary.

Posted by: neretva'4 | Mar 20 2013 11:36 utc | 32

jBradley26, It's not all for Israel, don't be so stupid. First off, logically it's always safer to say it's one factor, not the only factor. But, you also let the US off the hook. We're doing this ME hegemony thing for our own reasons. I don't say this to defend Israel, but to keep you fair and balanced, if you will. Further, it's wrong to criticize Israel (others) and fail to critique ourselves and our complicity. We love the sand in the Vaseline that Israel represents, we use them to our own ends. Just as Al Qaeda isn't under our thumb, but is VERY useful to us none-the-less, same with Israel.

Posted by: scottindallas | Mar 20 2013 13:51 utc | 33

Penny @ 31: "But Iraq just about oil?"
"no". Yep!
neretva'4 @ 32: some of the reasons 31 is a valid statement. Iraq, a neocon test case.

scottindallas @ 33: Absolutely, a very useful tool.

Posted by: ben | Mar 20 2013 15:10 utc | 34

my portal for understanding almost everything i learned about war was first whiskey bar and then here, during and throughout our invasion and war on iraq. i don't even think i knew where palestine was before. nor was israel on my radar. nothing. how corrupt my country was. what we did in south america in the decades before. the cia, the neocons, so the anniversary signifies a lot to me. life was definitely simpler back then, or so i thought.

thanks for the education.

Posted by: annie | Mar 20 2013 15:42 utc | 35

@34 again, read Andrew Bachewich.

There is but, one big "but". Which is nobody dare to mention. That's a HATE and DISDAIN, that's the West have toward NON Westerners. That's "culture" is cultivated trough centuries and still dominant features of Western "culture". That HATE is honest, deep and ingrained in west's mind and soul.

Did you read or watch Constantines's Sword? http://www.amazon.com/Constantines-Sword-Church-Jews-History/dp/0618219080

Posted by: neretva'43 | Mar 20 2013 15:48 utc | 36

Perhaps someone ha sad this already, have not read all comments: It was not only about oil, but about the petro dollar system. Saddam had started to sell oil in Euro, or threatened to do so very soon. That would have destroyed US economy and its world dominance.

Posted by: Kerstin | Mar 20 2013 15:52 utc | 37

to say the war is about oil alone is sheer stupidity and complicity in murder of nation.

It is also a MYTH. Liberal media have warped the murder of nation in mythology, and mythology is deeply embedded in Westerners mind. That mind is featured as a Liberal conscience, watch clip bellow. Ratner says that the war itself was criticized - it was OK, the execution was!

He wanted to sell oil in Euros. So what? Western financial infrastructure was under threat. Do not be silly.

"The New York Times and "Liberal Media" Helped Sell the Iraq War"
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=9887

Posted by: neretva'43 | Mar 20 2013 16:05 utc | 38

Correction

"Ratner says that the war itself was NOT criticized - it was OK, the execution was!"

Posted by: neretva'43 | Mar 20 2013 16:09 utc | 39

neretva'43@ 36

the anglos and their orientalism?

Posted by: Penny | Mar 20 2013 16:14 utc | 40

they used the term "sand nigger" for Iraqis. When you de-humanize ones it is far easily to murder them!

There were pool in France in the eve of the war. The first question was: Are you pro or against war. Vast majority was: against. Second question was: if the US invade Iraq do want to Iraqis defeat the USA forces, vast majority wanted the USA to be victor. It is not only the "anglos". It is no better in Germany, Spain, or Italy. Clearly it is not question about a humanity or peace. It is question about medieval "honor", arrogance, or hubris, chauvinism of one cultural circle. The EU is very happily involved in those imperial projects in particular second-rate subcontractors such as Germany or France.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Mar 20 2013 16:57 utc | 41

There is but, one big "but". Which is nobody dare to mention. That's a HATE and DISDAIN, that's the West have toward NON Westerners

I don't think that is entirely true. there really is no distinction at all. you are either prey or not. everyone gets exploited if it is possible to exploit them. Hell, take a look at the part of the US population who have no jobs, no healthcare, no pensions, a rather heavy handed police state to deal with and tell me again that it simply about west and non west.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 20 2013 16:59 utc | 42

In the United States of Amnesia today, a Republican House rep was reported on NPR's 10am top of the hour news summary saying that it is time for another illegal preventive war. This time, Syria, because there is an allegation that Syria used chemical weapons to kill about 27 or so people, in a rebel held area. There must be an investigation by the US to find out whether the allegation is provable enough or, in lieu of that, to find out if the Syrian government has "intentions to use" chemical weapons. When the "facts" are made to fit the objectives of the US government's stated desire for regime change, then it's time for the US to take charge. Which seemed to mean yet another illegal preventive war, based on less than objective "facts." Just provable enough worked just fine for Bush/Cheney, so it's the new level of proof.

This on the day after the 10 year anniversary of Bush/Cheney lying the US into an illegal preventive war against Iraq. On the day after the 10 year anniversary of the "shock and awe" bombings of civilians and infrastructure, with an attempt to assassinate Saddam thrown in for good measure.

This 10 years after a misadventure, an illegal war which ended so well (yes, heavy sarcasm). But, amazingly, discussions today of that illegal preventive war are admitting the initial reasons for it were lies or misleading "facts," but, hey, it morphed into "giving the Iraqi people freedom," so now it's OK!

Wow. And wow that people in leadership in this nation have learned so very little.

Wowser. Dumb and dumber political leadership from the Republican Party, usually echoed fairly strongly by the Democratic Party. Obama seems to playing off the same game plan as Bush/Cheney, with his echoes of the "lines in the sand" B/C would announce; with Obama it's along the lines of, like B/C, "all options are on the table" and any use or threat of use of chemical WMD would be a "game changer." Atill weaselly, but any cause will work if the objective is preventive war. Illegal preventive war.

Time for Obama to fit the "facts" to allow the US to wage another illegal preventive war, this time against Assad? Or just get the Brits and French to do it?

And, of course, neither R's nor D's listen to the voters, unless the voters agree with said pols' set notions of what is "necessary."

It's very depressing to live in my country, to realize it's essential tendency to violence and destruction.

I feel powerless to do anything about this. Which is how they want us to feel....

1:00pm NPR top of the hour news summary: US gov't rep stated that if Syria does not control its chem weapons,"there will be consequences...." Sounds like Bush/Cheney, but so much of the Obama administration's foreign policy sounds like that.

The Nobel Peace Prize winning president, Obama, sounds way too much like the war criminal, unindicted, President Bush/Cheney.

Posted by: jawbone | Mar 20 2013 17:13 utc | 43

Charlie Pierce writes a bitterly angry rant against those who led us into that war, who were dead wrong but now still get the top spots as MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) columnists and pundits, still are active politicians.

Those who were most wrong, provably wrong, are still considered Very Serious People, just as most of those who were dead wrong about the economy are still considered "savvy businessmen" and economic analysts.

Something is terribly wrong in our times.

Posted by: jawbone | Mar 20 2013 17:29 utc | 44

@42
Concretely, what these kids have to do with it? Or they are "only" collateral damage!?

http://muftah.org/iraq-the-cradle-of-civilization-graveyard-of-imperialism/#.UUhjWy24leo.twitter

You have very perverted logic, "if it is possible to exploit them". Is your whole life based on this premise, Little Eichmann?

Posted by: neretva'43 | Mar 20 2013 17:53 utc | 45

And here comes a Dem US senator (Michigan, retiring in two years) calling for war on Syria (in DSWright post at FDL, which also includes Israeli defense official saying Syria has crossed Obama's "red line":

Meanwhile Senator Carl Levin has endorsed a no-fly zone inside Syria and attacking the air defenses and air power of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Levin chaired a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday morning during which he asked Adm. James Stavridis, the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, if NATO was discussing attacking Assad’s air defenses. Stavridis acknowledged the idea was under discussion but said there was no unified NATO position on the issue…

After the hearing, Levin directly endorsed the idea of attacking Syrian air defenses and using the Patriot missile batteries in Turkey to establish a no-fly zone inside Syria in an interview with The Cable.

“I believe there should be the next ratcheting up of military effort and that would include going after some of Syria’s air defenses,” Levin said.

Attacking Syria, as Levin suggested, would directly involve America in yet another war in the Middle East. Just as we are preparing to leave Afghanistan and counting up the blood and treasure lost in Iraq. Thanks but no thanks. The days of imperial adventure should become shorter not longer.

Posted by: jawbone | Mar 20 2013 18:14 utc | 46

@45
you could have done without the name calling.

I can show you pictures of north American native children, or those from south America, or southeast asia, or Africa or any other place on earth who have been killed, maimed, or starved by "western" powers. middle easterners do not have a monopoly on suffering.

I am not a supporter of intervention and never have been. for you to assume so is actually a bit perverse. I merely wanted to point out that it is not just US anglophiles against everybody else and there exists plenty of evidence of those anglophiles being quite mean to each other.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 20 2013 18:35 utc | 47

The old joke about chemical weapons and Saddam; "Of course he has chemical weapons, we have the receipts" is equally applicable to this situation in Syria. The difference is that they've perfected the process of plausible deniability. Because mercenaries.

Posted by: L Bean | Mar 20 2013 19:16 utc | 48

@33scottin dallas: The only non-Israel related factor that I can see is that of the preemptive neutralization of a possible threat to the US in the imaginary Iraqi WMD. And make no mistake, I think the blame for the invasion lies entirely with the USA and its coalition allies.

I'm not pointing the finger at Israel as a perpetrator of the Iraq invasion. The neocons are Americans and their agenda doesn't even always coincide with the government of Israel's. During the run up to the US-led attack on Iraq, Israel was arguing that it was Syria or Iran that should be attacked. Iraq was not their first choice. I think Netanyahu was in power at that time and he had different priorities.

I really disagree that the US would be carrying out such an overbearing foreign policy if it were not for the dominance of a Jewish Nationalist ideology in the think tanks, media, and government. Americans are notoriously unconcerned with foreign affairs. After the debacles of Vietnam, Afghanistan and the end of the Cold War Americans would rather just let the world do without our interventions. But 9/11 came along and the security issue gave an opening to the neocons who were ready with an agenda.

Posted by: J. Bradley | Mar 20 2013 19:20 utc | 49

Regarding Levin and his willingness to go into Libya Syria with a NATO battery:

Zombies In Charge

Posted by: L Bean | Mar 20 2013 19:21 utc | 50

Compare the urgency in the zionist western media and by western politicians advocating for war in the western Asia/Africa (Israel's "near abroad"), as opposed to their lack of calls for war regarding Latin America (America's "near abroad"). Totally different approaches. In western Asia/Africa, the push is for war, balkinization and chaos, in Latin America, it's for coups or "color revolutions" and mostly to promote stable client states. The chaos in western Asia/Africa benefits Israel, and really only Israel, as the depression in the American/European economies due to their implementation Israel's proxy wars now shows.

Posted by: вот так | Mar 20 2013 20:04 utc | 51

For go's sake here we go again. I'm referring to the weird logic in #49! It's as tho some amerikans only came to in 2003, completely ignoring the two centuries of violent subjugation for capitalists in the name of 'freedom, patriotism n apple pie' that went before. Zionists didn't exterminate the Sioux, Zionists had nothing to do with the death squads in Guatamala, the coup in Chile or the Argentinian junta, these were all vicious criminal acts perpetrated by tthe amerikan government to further the spread of their cronies' poisonous capitalist hegemony. In fact if you have half a brain you would know that the on the ground 'mechanics' perpetrating the subjugation of Latin America were former nazis, or is that inconvenient to recall?
Zionists didn't imprison the Hawaiian royal family keeping them under house arrest without access to medical help until they all died of influenza. American administrations did that; just as they illegally seized the Philippines & manouvered the euriopean whitefellas into supporting their blockades against Japan in return for arms, so that the Japanese couldn't assist in the liberation of the Philippines. It wasn't zionists who deliberately set up a confrontation with Japan that could only end in war, it was the amerikans.
Why?
The usual two for one play we have seen so many times - keep Japan outta its natural sphere of influence AND fool other amerikans so they wouldn't complain when amerika invaded europe and dominated those markets with their monopoly capitalism (only one style of economy is permitted with amerikan corporate capitalism - no mixed economies for them as much of the world has finally learnt). Do you understand what that means? For more than 200 years dumb fuck amerikans have been like fat placid cows voting for what ever makes em comfortable and "fuck the rest of the world, they are just there to feed us and provide us with a drama or two". laughter one week blood guts and death the next.

The zionist are to blame is just another example of this. They are just the most plausible cover, yes they are assholes but holding a nation of less'n 5 million humans responsible for the world's woes isn't just stupid, its crazy & defies all logic.

Especially when you consider the long list of other stooges who have been used ever since Jefferson got sick of paying taxes & decided to rabble rouse with his deceitful 'rights of man' spiel. Wake up all you stupid fucks. There will be a reckoning, it must come once Africa has been fucked over, because after that there is nowhere else to go and amerikan capitalism depends on bullshit 'expansion' to survive

Posted by: debs is dead | Mar 20 2013 20:52 utc | 52

Yes, lets blame everybody but Israel and zionists. They're evil, wicked, mean and nasty, but they're also powerless and everybody's scapegoat. Yup, just ask any American congress person (or any other politician in an English speaking country) about how uninfluencial, weak and subservient zionists are.

Posted by: вот так | Mar 20 2013 23:38 utc | 53

@52
You are obviously a guy who believes that the USA is an intrinsically evil imperialistic entity. Satan in the form of a country. You've personalized your grievances to such an extent that you're not even able to objectively consider the motivations behind the policies the US implements.

What on earth does the genocide against the Indians have to do with the current events in the Middle East? These are two completely different eras and to suggest that looking at America's treatment of the Indians can shed any light on current US foreign policies is ridiculous. The actions of the US in Guatamala, Chile, Argentina, Cuba, etc were not policies formulated under the influence of Jewish Nationalism. I never suggested they were. America functioned under a cold war oriented foreign policy and that was the dominant pardidgm that formed US foreign policy from 1945 to 1989. The fall of the Soviet Union left a void in the US foreign policy establishment and it was filled by a point of view so heavily-colored by Zionism that it turned the USA into a Golem state. I wouldn't have a problem with this if it were something we could have an open and frank conversation about in the MSM but that is not happening. This agenda is in certain ways quite open in support and commitment to Israel. But there is a more underhanded aspect to it as well - with critical decisions of war and death being sold as issues relevant to US national security (Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc) which are in fact almost entirely about Israel's national security. This is subversive activity.

Anyway, what do you care about that. The Great Satan Amerika needs to be destroyed so the global socialist utopia can come into being. By the way, was imperial Japan going to liberate the Philipines the same way they liberated China? Apparently your critical discernment operates in only one direction: America's

Posted by: J. Bradley | Mar 21 2013 0:08 utc | 54

J. Bradley - 54

"What on earth does the genocide against the Indians have to do with the current events in the Middle East?"

Debs was using an irrelevant strawman there.

"I wouldn't have a problem with this if it were something we could have an open and frank conversation about in the MSM but that is not happening."

The main thrust of hasbara is to prevent such at all costs. And it works:

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/03/another-korea-war.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef017c377422cf970b

"@вот так - your conflating of U.S. and Israeli interest as one and of Zionists as some rulers of the world is nonsense. Keep it away from your comments here or go elsewhere."

The censorship is just as prevalent in alternative media, only usually involving more subtlety.

"The Great Satan Amerika needs to be destroyed so the global socialist utopia can come into being."

The kind of socialist utopia Debs represents is that which exists in Israel. IE: a it's just another marketing ploy.

"By the way, was imperial Japan going to liberate the Philipines the same way they liberated China?"

Basically the "history" in Debs comment was bogus throughout. The USA didn't trade arms for silence to Europeans so they could rape the Philippines and the bit about Japan is rubbish. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance was created in 1902, for example. Europeans maintained far more weapons trade with Japan than the USA right up to WW1. Europeans hardly bought any weapons from the USA till WW1, and those were to fight that war, and had nothing to do with the earlier American expansion into eastern Asia.

The rest of his comment can be taken apart in similar fashion. It's just irrelevant rubbish to obfuscate zionist influence and is written in the standard bullying conversation killing form one sees these people constantly doing to generate a climate of antagonism and browbeat others into silence. RE:

"For go's sake here we go again. I'm referring to the weird logic in #49!...Wake up all you stupid fucks."

Posted by: вот так | Mar 21 2013 0:57 utc | 55

I imagine a huge reason for the war was the giant profits made straight from the war itself - those extra trillions poured into the Millitary-Industiral complex, a huge new private army (Blackwater/Xe/WhateverTheFuckItsCalledNow) formed for use both around the world and here at home with billions in tax payer dollars. All those stories of arms contracts, going to many large companies but also enriching a new class of war-profiteers with the "small business" requirements for military contracts.

It's my guess that the money made from royalties on years of capital intensive drilling pales in comparison to the huge amounts of quick, effortless cash made by war-profiteers of all sorts and sizes.

What I can't tell now is if the United States is just trying to play damage control due to the military and political loss and Iran's growing influence by stepping up sectarian conflict, or if this is all part of some larger concept from the beginning.

I am also not sure if the destruction of Iraq, a complete and thorough destruction of a country in a way that most occupations don't bring on - was carried out by the US by design, out of spite for losing the war, or sheer incompetence.

I also like to play alternative history where Gore took the oath of office in 2000. Assuming 9/11 occurs, it is entirely possible we'd still have gotten some sort of invasion of Iraq. After all, Gore did pick ultra-hawk Lieberman as his VP. Maybe it would have been more along the lines of a color revolution and then UN invasion - I have no doubt he could have done it smarter than GWB and those moron NeoCons - but probably with the same end results is my guess.

Posted by: guest | Mar 21 2013 1:14 utc | 56

Daniel Rich - 29, Penny - 31

My who owns the media line was to the article I posted. It was somewhat lacking in sourcing the malaise, though OK about some of the symptoms shown. In the USA, more than 90% of the media is owned by less than 10 people/corporates. Most of the non-majors derive their content directly from the majors, so even if independently owned, their content is usually the same as the majors. The western media is all "Movietone news" now as far as content quality.

Posted by: вот так | Mar 21 2013 1:56 utc | 57

DID @ 52: Apparently, some folks don't get what's afoot in the world today. To me, the operative phrases are:

" amerikan capitalism depends on bullshit 'expansion' to survive"

" (only one style of economy is permitted with amerikan corporate capitalism - no mixed economies for them as much of the world has finally learnt)."

These corporate capitalists are coming to everyone's neighborhood. They've been in the world forever, only now, they have more influence. Don't think much of the world has "learnt" yet, but, they will Debs. Good rant.

Posted by: ben | Mar 21 2013 2:26 utc | 58

@ 54:

"You are obviously a guy who believes that the USA is an intrinsically evil imperialistic entity. Satan in the form of a country."

Yep, you can put me in this camp. I haven't always been there, but given the state of our nation today, IMO, no other conclusion is possible.

Posted by: ben | Mar 21 2013 2:37 utc | 59

bot tak @59
re: the comment at 52

I would characterize that comment as "muddying the waters"-confusing the issue.

debsisdead throws out much irrelevant to the topic info in an angry fashion hoping to guilt or shame others for holding the views they have. Hoping to silence discussion.

All the places and happenings mentioned are irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I had noticed this when debs had one of it's previous outbursts
glad someone picked up on it

Was Israel one of the reasons for the attack on Iraq?
Absolutely!
Israel bombed Iraq.(nuclear reactor)
Israel wanted a weakened Iraq leaving Israel more powerful in the ME.
Israel had Gerald Bull assassinated working on a supergun and scuds for Iraq etc
(There is an alternative theory that it was Iran, however that seems less plausible)
Since Israel has been gunning persons down worldwide
Including nuclear scientists in Iran
Then there is the water issue
Therefore with so much at stake for Israel regarding Iraq, one can say quite safely Iraq destruction was Israels benefit
And that Israel was directly involved as they are with Syria presently.

Even the issue of capitalism? Capitalism requires expansion
I don't know about that. Certainly empire and imperialism do.
So let's call all this war making what it is-not capitalism
Empire. Domination. Global in it's scope. Tyrannical in it's aims
Capitalism is supposed to be about trade and commerce
Fascist, global empire building is something else entirely

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

Twenty five ways to Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinfo
Read through them and reread the 'debsisdead' comment
I see at least six of the twenty five fit debs comment...

Posted by: Penny | Mar 21 2013 11:15 utc | 60

Oil. That is always the explanation given by many folks specially of the "left" variety who believe economic determinism trumps everything else. IMO, that is lazy analysis. I think there are more credible alternate explanations to oil as the raison d'etre for the Iraq invasion - delusional groupthink; hubris; domestic US politics; zionism uber alles; etc that should be examined!

Col.Pat Lang's "Drinking the Koolaid" is one such alternate explanation worth a read.

Posted by: ab initio | Mar 21 2013 19:12 utc | 61

_Drinking the Koolaid_ has "economic determinism" written all over it. Namely, how does the US of A get its hands on the world's loot for a song and keep it. Keep its armchair hoplites at their desks and podia, its military machine rolling across the earth. Its people enjoying panem et circenses while rest of the world burns.

Posted by: ruralito | Mar 21 2013 21:30 utc | 62

re 52.

I don't think that I've ever heard such an ill-arranged rant from you, DiD. Playing the US as the evil monster in the Pacific, as I understand from someone in New Zealand, I find comprehensible. Excuse the Zionists, you've got your argument wrong

The Zionists in the States have an important role, not to be ignored. What makes the zionists in the States exceptional is that they have a tradition of arranging their affairs by penetration of power. It is what Jews did in Ottoman Istanbul. Today, however, they have to protect a territorial power, Israel. All the techniques which were needed to keep Jews alive are now being used to keep Israel alive.

Posted by: alexno | Mar 21 2013 23:28 utc | 63

Just read about the birth defect and death in Falluja - it's worse than Hiroshima or Nagasaki...
Genocide.

Posted by: Reason | Mar 22 2013 8:28 utc | 64

I think the Iraq invasion was much more than a lust for oil / control of it.

It was an invasion for war’s sake - lust for blood and destruction, and various money-making oppos. (Contractors, defense, arms etc. - taking in tax payer’s money, scams, etc.) The will to impose a new model of society (framed as democracy, freedom, etc.) was genuine as well, or at least credible and heart-felt to a point, a post-2000 version of colonialism, within the inner circles. The burning glee, desire, to impose a model that was already failing at home.

Oil executives, at the time, iirc, were against it, simply because they loathe instability and therefore war. The oil biz seen from the US is run by private Corps in multiple complex profit sharing deals with other private Corps, subcontractors, and Gvmt(s) > plus banks, investors, share-holders, etc.

Getting the oil out of the ground, refined, and to market is today so crushingly expensive and complicated it requires 10-year plans (at least!) and enduring efficient cooperation between x entities, all working together to create and act in a predictable (financially fixed..), ‘safe’, upper ground (not to mention down below..)

Which includes, amongst others, solid labor laws, respected contracts, stalwart banks, and, crucial: secure, unproblematic transport, laid down routes, means. All that depends on some stable Gov. or world arrangement. Cheney and other neo-cons surely understood this but ignored it, and I guess (?), never listened to anybody in the Oil Biz.

Oil was a touted as ‘added bonus’, a kind of greedy, legit, excuse.

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 22 2013 16:06 utc | 65

Halliburton - Basra Jobs

Youtube: US troups talk about Halliburton in Iraq

Posted by: somebody | Mar 22 2013 17:27 utc | 66

American Book of the Dead: The Possessed

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/03/american-book-of-the-dead-the-possessed/#more-48165

(from the middle)

"...He worries that somehow The System will fail him. It has not failed him to this point, merely placed him at his rightful place in the hierarchy. But he fears that the system, based on protocols, laws, unwritten rules, tacit agreements and technologies that he can never hope to understand, will collapse of its own weight and intricacy. He does not understand how the Network works, or how food gets to the supermarkets, or how the parent company trickles his paycheck down the many holding companies and through his department and into his bank account. He does not understand the high level of partnership between the bank and the corporation that owns it, which is the parent of the company he works for, and where he will spend his days before being traded or shuffled off in some arcane corporate deal or merger or is fired outright. Laid off. And then what? Sending out resumes as he’d done as a kid fresh out of college and as a young married man with his expensive MBA?

He fears limited resources, so he does not read the hard copy of the City News, but browses the paper’s site on the Network. But when does he have time to read this, working nine to five as he does, which is not nine to five at all, but eight to six, seven, sometimes ten o’clock? By which point he is exhausted, despite his clockwork consumption of caffeine and nicotine.

And when he does call up the news from the Network sites he realizes how small he and his life are, even in the context of the corporation, not to mention the role of the parent company in international affairs. Good god. The corporation is everywhere, in every country. Many of these countries are at war with each other, and if the corporation’s interests are seriously threatened, might go to war with The Nation."

Posted by: вот так | Mar 23 2013 8:41 utc | 67

(more)

"...But The Nation is already at war. He is glad that The Nation possesses the most well-trained, technologically advanced military force on the planet. He had not gone to the last war, for he was in graduate school. But the current war terrifies him, the destruction The Nation wreaks upon its challenger with missiles paid for with his tax money. He has been extremely nervous since the current war began. But he does not doubt that after the slaughter the Citizens will be treated to parades and celebrations on television and he will watch flag-waving marchers outside his office window.

He is neither angry nor satisfied with the affairs of The Nation any more than he is or could be with the machinations of the parent company. It is all beyond his grasp. He is, if not happy, grateful to be able to rise each morning, take his pills, and begin the commute to his job and arrive at his job, no matter how demanding. No matter how trivial. No matter how wasteful of his time on earth. The countless meetings, the talk talk talk. The assignments from his superiors that he organizes and delegates to his subordinates. Often he finds himself with nothing to do, no actual work, but virtual work, deadlines planned for the future, the possibility of truckloads of data hanging over his head. So he spends many hours — those not spent attending meetings — creating plans and memos and scenarios for the monstrous jobs, the impossible tasks to come..."

Posted by: вот так | Mar 23 2013 8:42 utc | 68

Petras' latest is a tour de force. This is reflective thread on the Iraq war probably fits it best, given it's wide scope.

Selling Death and Buying Assassins in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia

President Obama’s Second Term

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/03/selling-death-and-buying-assassins-in-the-middle-east-north-africa-and-south-asia/

"As President Obama enters his second term with a new Cabinet, the foreign policy legacy of the past four years weighs heavily on their strategic decisions and their empire-building efforts. Central to the analysis of the next period is an evaluation of the past policies especially in regions where Washington expended its greatest financial and military resources, namely the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa.

We will proceed by examining the accomplishments and failures of the Obama-Clinton regime. We will then turn to the ongoing policy efforts to sustain the empire-building project. We will take account of the constraints and opportunities, which define the parameters resulting from imperial military ambitions, Israeli-Zionist influence in shaping policy and the ongoing anti-imperialist struggles. We will conclude by examining likely polices and outcomes resulting from current strategies..."

Posted by: вот так | Mar 23 2013 11:18 utc | 69

Stupid Iraq war quotes:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stupidquotes/a/iraqquotes.htm

Posted by: Susan | Mar 24 2013 4:34 utc | 70