When the Democrats ran for office in 2008 denouncing the Bush policies, I knew that this was nothing more than a smoke screen to cover-up the fact that nothing would change. The organizing principal of any society lie in its war powers (to borrow from a movie). But, yet this is true. The American people scared into believing that if we didn’t act on Iraq and act quickly would suffer the consequences of being annihlated, gave the green light to unending war. But lets looks at the United States’ history with Iraq.
- In 1991, then President George H.W.Bush, urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein.
“There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: And that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations‘ resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations.”
- However, when the slaughter started and Hussein was able to maintain control, the United States, under this President, was nowhere to be found.
- Bush Sr. would later state that he did “not mislead anybody about the intentions of the United States of America”…”I made clear from the very beginning that it was not the objective of the coalition or the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
You can read more on the unprisings of 1991 here.
Sanctions don’t kill dictators, they kill the innocent…
If history can teach us anything, it is Iraq. The biggest bungled, malicious, accesory to murder that this government has ever done since the genocide of the Native Americans. A few facts for you:
- Since their inception, the sanctions have killed a million or more Iraqis by means of malnutrition and disease. Many victims are children under the age of five. Reports by the United Nations and several humanitarian groups have documented the deaths, although estimates of the number of people killed vary. Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. attorney general, has published two books detailing the effects of the sanctions and the loss of life that has resulted.
- Madeleine Albright, a secretary of state under President Clinton, went on record (interview with Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes, May 12, 1996, when Albright was U.S. ambassador to the UN) as stating that the price (in terms of deaths — about 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died by the time of the broadcast) was worth it to contain Saddam Hussein.
- Richard Reid, the person who tried to blow up an airliner with a shoe bomb, said he wanted to do it because U.S. sanctions had killed two million Iraqis.
More than a million Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion and more are still to come. This is the sort of foreign policy that your government endorses and will continue to endorse.
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, August 13, 2010
Iraq’s top general has called for U.S. troops to stay in the country until 2020, a telling reminder that President Barack Obama’s supposed withdrawal more than seven years after the 2003 invasion is nothing more than a publicity stunt, with tens of thousands of U.S. forces remaining as a residual occupying army for decades to come.
“At this point, the withdrawal is going well, because they [U.S. forces] are still here,” Lt. Gen. Babakir Zebari told a news conference in the Baghdad. “But the problem will start after 2011.”
“If I were asked about the withdrawal, I would say to politicians, ‘the U.S. army must stay until the Iraqi army is fully ready in 2020,’” he said.
Despite public pronouncements by Obama that a plan to fully withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 is in progress, the details of the agreement actually establish a permanent presence of a sizable occupying force in perpetuity.
As the New York Times reported when the plan was first made public in February 2009, after the supposed “full” withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, “Obama plans to leave behind a “residual force” of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down foreign terrorist cells and guard American institutions.”
Why troops would be needed to “guard American institutions” when, according to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the plan is to “turn over bases that Americans have been on to the Iraqis” by the end of this month, doesn’t make sense, unless the bases are to remain under U.S. control.
A senior military officer made it clear that there would not be a proper withdrawal under the plan when he told the Los Angeles TImes, “‘When President Obama said we were going to get out within 16 months, some people heard, ‘get out,’ and everyone’s gone. But that is not going to happen,’ the officer said.”
In all, some 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq after the so-called “pullout”.
The date for the final pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq keeps being pushed back further and further. Obama campaigned in 2008 on the promise that he would “immediately” withdraw troops from Iraq, then that was put back to June 2009, then it became August 2010, and now the date has been pushed back to the end of 2011. Every time a deadline gets close, the Obama administration simply insists that the situation is too unstable for withdrawal and the date is pushed back again.
While grandstanding about troop withdrawals, the administration has completely failed to address what will happen to the estimated 132,610 military contractors in Iraq, 36,061 of which are American citizens.
In addition, even if Obama does withdraw a significant number of troops from Iraq, it seems inevitable that they will either be sent to Afghanistan or even used in a potential upcoming military assault on Iran.
Obama’s two-faced con in announcing that there will be a full withdrawal from Iraq while in reality tens of thousands of troops and contractors will remain as an occupying force for years if not decades strikes at the root of Obama’s hypocrisy and the fact that, while posturing as a peace advocate, he is firmly in the pocket of the military-industrial complex.
As Chris Floyd wrote when Obama’s “withdrawal” plan was first announced, “The hypocrisy – the literally murderous hypocrisy – of claiming that this plan “leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war,” as Obama asserted in his State of the Union speech, is sickening. It does no such thing, and he knows it.