Friday, October 12, 2007

How, When, Where, Why, and Who Got Us in This Mess

Iraq:Why Did The USA Want"Regime Change"?
Do not simply believe anything on this web site - always check for yourself.Treat the stories and quotes in these pages as pointers to find out more.Learn to think for yourself and check all information
Your life depends on it.


In 1998, a USA think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), wrote a letter to USA president Bill Clinton advising him to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq without mentioning moral reasons, human rights, or terrorism.
The PNAC describes itself as a "non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."
These authors became advisers to USA president George W Bush in 2000 and include Bush's current Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle; Richard Armitage, the number two at the USA State Department; John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, under-secretaries of state; Elliott Abrams, the presidential adviser for the Middle East and a member of the USA National Security Council; and Peter W Rodman, assistant secretary of defence for international security affairs, Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition; ex-director James Woolsey and Robert B Zoelick, the USA trade representative.
Part of the letter states: "We urge you to seize [the] opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the USA and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power."
In September 2000, The PNAC published a document called Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century. It clearly reveals that the USA has been planning to take more control of the region in around the Middle East (including the Gulf) even before the attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001. On page 26, the following paragraph appears:
"In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semi-permanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (In a criminal trial this would be called "premeditation" but law does not apply to this crowd).

They were afterall appointed by:

more, On Page 29 we read:
"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S.interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."
There are many more revealing quotes from this document.
In the middle of 2002 the USA announced that it wanted to attack Iraq and change its government by removing its leader, Saddam Hussein. The UK immediately fell into line closely following the arguments put forward by the USA.
In May 2003, USA Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, admitted in an interview with USA television station WABC that the USA had wanted to remove Saddam Hussein for several years: "If you go back and look at the debate in the Congress and the debate in the United Nations, what we said was the President said that this is a dangerous regime, the policy of the United States government has been regime change since the mid to late 1990s … and that regime has now been changed. That is a very good thing."
The USA Assistant Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, admitted that the decision to invade Iraq was made in September 2001: "To the extent it was a debate about tactics and timing, the President clearly came down on the side of Afghanistan first. To the extent it was a debate about strategy and what the larger goal was, it is at least clear with 20/20 hindsight that the President came down on the side of the larger goal."

In April 2004, the former UK ambassador to the USA, Sir Christopher Meyer, admited that USA President, George W Bush and UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair agreed to remove Saddam Hussein on 20 September 2001 at a dinner party in Washington, USA.
Ray McGovern, one of the CIA's most senior analysts admitted to journalist, John Pilger: "It was 95 per cent charade. And they all knew it: Bush, Blair, Howard."
government documents leaked in September 2004 show that, in the words of UK MP Robin Cook: "there was no legal justification for the war, and therefore they should use the UN to 'wrongfoot' Saddam". He adds that "the only reason for the war in Iraq was the Bush administration's obsession with regime change".
The documents show that the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, told USA National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice in March 2003 that he was fully signed up to toppling Saddam but would need a cover for any military action.
More at:

the source ..which also outlines the reasons given for the illegal invasion and the real reasons.


Post a Comment

<< Home