Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Unasked Questions on Iraq War 5 years later

I did not supported Ron Paul's bid for the presidency, but when he was referred to as an Iraq War critic, I looked up what he said about the war before it started. He asked the following questions five months before the war started at the peak of the war propaganda. To my knowledge, neither Hillary or Obama have been as direct in their criticism of the war.

Most of what Paul asks required no particular special or classified knowledge to think up, simply a memory of the recent Cold War, history, and other current events:

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

Everyone in Congress was old enough to know exactly what he was talking about. We have enough nukes to end the world five times over. If that was enough to stay the hand of a country that had as many or more, why would a little country use one or a few on us knowing we would survive but they would be burned off the map?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?
Even the mainstream media got this right for a while--until Karl Rove faxed their new talking points to them.

By the time the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 found that Saudi intel funded and directed some of the hijackers, they were glad to pass over the story as quickly as possible, and forget it once Bush assured them that the Saudis were valued allies and we needed to bomb someone else.

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?
Anyone who watched CNN during the first Gulf War would know we beat Saddam the first time in a matter of days, and they might know that we destroyed 80% of his military and that we controlled his airspace when the current war started. Do you have to be a military expert to figure out Saddam wouldn't have had much offensive capability?
23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

Rep. Ron Paul's speech on floor of Congress, September 10, 2002

More frustrating for me that than trying to get Fox News fans to think about these questions was seeing the mainstream media NOT ask them again and again despite direct access to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell.

I remember yelling questions like these at the screen when they were having asinine discussions about whether Arabs and Muslims were evolved enough to have democracy as if they were apes who just descended from the trees instead of people who did have some democracy until we snuffed them out at the request of oil companies and related geopolitical strategery.

Even today, the closest the Bush administration, the media, and even most Democrats get to telling the truth about the war is saying, "We need that oil!" or more often, we have to protect "our strategic interests in the region.


Our economy runs on oil, and we need it. But if this war was just about getting oil to gas up your Camry, why would Bush be forcing an oil law on the Iraqis that gives 88% of the new oil income to big oil companies and that even the Bush approved Iraqi parliament won't pass? Wouldn't it make more sense to let the Iraqis have whatever kind of oil law they want and strong arm our oil companies to take the terms so the Iraqis will be happy and we'll get the oil without further violence?

Since we are not doing that, isn't it obvious that the war is to give the profits from Iraq's oil to big oil companies and not keep the lid on the price for the rest of us?

Why should trillions of our tax dollars be used to enrich so few?

What will oil companies give us back?

If the United States had just one thing of value, one source of income, and another nation was trying to steal it, wouldn't we fight back?

It is to our undying shame as a democracy that all of our elected representatives in Congress aren't talking about the Iraq War in these terms, but instead lie to us again and again with talk of fighting terrorism, spreading democracy, and regional stability, when all of those things take a backseat to corporate profits.

We are not a real democracy when the real decisions are made behind closed doors, and we only get to choose who will lie to us about those decisions, someone who will comfort us or someone who will scare us.


No comments: