You are herecontent / Text of the Downing Street Memo
Text of the Downing Street Memo
Text of the Downing Street Memo - a document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002
Listen to audio of recreation of the meeting.
As originally reported in the The Sunday Times, May 1, 2005
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
- Login to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
why did he have to lie to us?
As members of a private non-profit "think tank" , they also violated RICO criminal laws as well, for using & implementing the "think tank" manifestos (written prior to 2000 election) for illegal pre-emptive wars.
A lie is the first step in the commission of crime. First you lie to yourself that what you're doing is justified. And then you lie when you are caught and about to be punished. After you are punished, you lie that you were framed. And after you are Impeached for war crimes you still claim you are President Of The United States.
Gee, George and Saddam have alot in common.
A Typical Right Wing defense of an impeachable offense. BLAME THE OTHER GUY! It's all Suddam's fault. Yeah Right!
And what about the more than 100,000 innocent Iraqi's that have been killed because of this war, not to mention the few thousand American Troops who have lost their lives...or arms, or legs, or will to live. This war did not have to happend! I know Rush tels you that it did, but it's time to educate yourself my friend. Iraq is a more dangerous place now than it was before, Iraq was not involved with 9/11, Iraq got rid of its WMD's in the early 90's. This war is about Revnge for GW1 and about Oil, for Oil is what runs through the veins of a Bush. Don't lose sight of that my naive little man!
damn strait
And what about the more than 100,000 innocent Iraqi's that have been killed because of this war, not to mention the few thousand American Troops who have lost their lives...or arms, or legs, or will to live. This war did not have to happend! I know Rush tels you that it did, but it's time to educate yourself my friend. Iraq is a more dangerous place now than it was before, Iraq was not involved with 9/11, Iraq got rid of its WMD's in the early 90's. This war is about Revnge for GW1 and about Oil, for Oil is what runs through the veins of a Bush. Don't lose sight of that my naive little man!
It was nice of you to start counting bombing days during Bush, although the US had been bombing Iraq for more than the last decade.
Sorry, my first reply. This wasn't very relative to your post. :)
You're logic is a little specious. Let's look at those quotes again:
"The military were continuing to ask lots of questions...For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one..."
And
"The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged."
When devising a plan (any plan) one should consider all probable eventualities, and devise plans for dealing with such eventualities. You do not decide not to go through with you're plan simply because something might get in the way. Sadaam having WMDs and using them on the first day was, apparently, a consideration for the US military, and thus (please check my logic on this) a probable eventuality; at least in the minds of military planners.
Secondly, it could have been decided that Sadaam had WMDs, but not enough to pose a "credible military threat." This does not mean that what they thought he had was not a threat to civilian populations. Or it could mean that they decided the WMD's posed a "credible military threat", but the US military planners believed that they had a "winning strategy" that would have minimize any affects of WMDs.
So the question is this: Could we have won the war if Sadaam had used WMDs on the first day? I think the answer is "Yes". So Sadaam having no WMDs would not have been a requirement for our invasion of Iraq.
I would also like to point out a weakness in using the second quote as any sort of evidence. This is not a statement of fact. It is a guess about the future behavior of the United States.
I have visited your site 182-times
Horseshit
There are a lot more UN resolutions against Israel so why don't we just invade Israel? 15 of the 19 Hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi's, I don't recall any of them being Iraqi or Afghan, so why was Bush smoking cigars with Bandar Bush in the White House & authorising planes to get the Bin-Ladin family out of the US when we Americans were not allowed to fly. Do you realize how stupid your commentary is, just fix the facts to suit your case, just like Bush. How long will you keep deluding yourself. Are we waiting for more of our men & women in uniform to die so Bush & Cheyne can fill their coffers with blood stained money, I wonder whether you have a stake in it too, Halliburton Shares?
I fully agree. That was a very good analysis.
We should press on to determine the truth. If the Republicans could impeach a President for Sexual Miscondut, how much more should the nation demand an independant enquiry into the whole matter when a President's lies have resulted in the deaths & injuries of several thousand American service men & women & Iraqi's.
... that wealthy people do not need money, however if a wealthy person robs a bank it is a crime. Members of the Bush administration will be impeached, if justice is to be served, and live to experience an investagation that removes all doubt of obvious immoral conduct. I look forward to the impeachment, or even war crimes, hearings that will reveal the truth of the matter.
The fact of the matter is that the UN inspectors were already in Iraq.Bush wanted to invade BEFORE the UN inspectors finished and gave a finding of NO WMD!The "DOWNING STREET MEMO" clearly states that "the facts were FIXED around the policy for going to war"That "smoking gun" memo is enough to impeach these criminals.Their subsequent criminal actions leave no doubt about the mentality of these crooks and liars! Violations of the FISA law, spying on the American people without a warrant, violations of the Geneva Accords,TORTURE,private rooms supplied by At&T to listen to telephone calls,habeus corpus, behavior you would expect from fascist NAZI's!Democracy is in danger from these dirt bags, they disgrace America.Anyone who defends these criminals are either ignorant or as evil and intellectually dishonest as they are .Ask yourself: What kind of people would destroy a country,have our young killed or come back home with no arms or legs for record oil profits? How sick can you be? If you are one of the few who believe we are there to establish freedom and democracy, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you! Is that why we overthrew Aristide in Haiti? A duly elected president? Or Allende in Chile and installed Phenichot, a dictator? or installed the Shah of Iran? Wake up ,fool!Stop relying on the corporate news media for your information, they aren't giving you any! Very Sincerely, Arthur J Caputo
there were weapons inspectors on the ground stating they needed more time 2-3 days before the bombing started. just because you rewrite history does not make it so. the bottom line is that he lied...he has killed...he has bungled...he has put lives on the line and would not put anyone in his family in harms way.
stop fooling yourself. this president has not done a job worthy of keeping.
I hope you all die..................agonisingly!
the foot soldiers were not told that there were no WMDs, and, in any case, very few were actually equipped, or prepared, for the eventuality of chemical/ biological attack.
which WMD armed countries have you "attacked before"? who is "we", i.e. who exactly attacked whom?
Bush is like my sister's ex-husband. Only my sister's ex-husband did not kill people or steal,he just lied. I invested the time to decifer and diagram a formula,when applied to what comes out of Bush's mouth will afford one a point of which to capture a bearing towards the truth and reality.
Bush speaks in 5 different speeds and has no brakes. He is either 1. Starting a lie. ( starting a new one ). 2. Adding a lie. ( just adding on ). 3. Expanding a lie. ( he is really lying now ). 4. Denial ( defending lies ) 5. - ( just reverse everything he says and you will be pointed in the right direction ).
He is always in 5th trying to downshift. But, he has no brakes because he is a lier and soon he will be out of gas.
Must read a quote from his ex-teacher would characterizes him as a pathological lair-stating that he would always make mistatements and then when called on them deny making them. Sometimes him would deny something he had said just seconds ago. You can find this on the net-google-bush lies-teacher says
Similarities between Iraq war and drug war
1) Republican presidents
2) Joins the hands of Corporate greed and Religious Right (ignoring the root of all evil)
3) Growth of federal government over its people and civil rights diminish
4) Fear (without true reason= lies) lead reason in gathering support
5) "With us or against us" forcing freethinkers to be against USA
6) No positive effect in sight which couldn't have been accomplished using diplomacy, education, and control.
7) Knew (from our history of prohibition and Israel) neither would work
Why? I just cant believe that they would do this for oil, they didnt even get it. Also, if you want to know whos behind something you have to look at who benefitted from it. And in the case of the iraq war, the corporate cronies that made out big are the same ones that made it big after 9/11, also Israel has been able to milk even more from this whole charade out of our country. Whats going on? I think this might even run deeper that revenge for GWI and money, it seems like there is a whole conspiracy againt Islam, i mean i keep hearing about how theyre terrozing the world and we're the ones boming everyone? i just dont know who to trust, this is getting more and more confusing everyday. Thanx for giving me a place to put my thougts.
why just cuz its only muslim countries theyr after. Thats probably coincidental. muslims make themselves easy targets anyways, well the media makes them easy targets.
I have never really bought into the idea that Iraq was about oil, mainly because I didn't see how the Bush WH would be able to control the revenue from the oil production (at least in the long-term); but I do question the motives, the role of the defense industry, and if I let me questions continue in this path, the motives behind this brutal display of force are very troubling; it seems like we are grossly missing the boat - and we need a definitive answer as to how GWB justifies his assault on another country; if we put ourselves in the shoes of those innocents affected by the Iraq offensive, then perhaps we can feel their pain and start working towards peace instead of more aggression;
if you look around the room you are sitting in right now, you will realize that virtually EVERYTHING you see either has oil as a component in its make-up, uses oil in its manufacturing process, or (often) both.
this war is definately about oil...iraq sits on the world's 2nd largest field. without oil, the u.s. (and most of the world) would be unrecognizable. what's scary is that with the nut cases in the current administration, this is also about christianity.
Have u heard of Halliburton? Trust me, Cheney and Bush's cronies are profiting immensely from this. Cheney claims he has no involvement with Halliburton anymore, but I'm skeptical. Bush and many in his cabinet have been involved in the global oil trade for decades. Do some research and you'll find pictures of a young George with his dad in the Middle East some 40 years ago working on oil deals. While it's true that they don't own Iraq's oil fields outright, they're trying to ensure that the oil fields are in the right hands. The world runs on oil. Computers, shoes, basically all synthetics, even our agricultural industry is built on fertilizers made from oil. It's not just fuel for cars. If not for their oil reserves there is no way we would have invaded Iraq. I agree, it's confusing, and I don't know who to trust either, but a conspiracy against Islam? I don't think so. Perhaps the Bushies have used Islam as a scapegoat, but I don't think they're actively seeking to undermine the Muslim faith. But, maybe you do have a point. I've heard crazier tales, and they do seem to be championing Christianity more and more. Personally though, I think they're all just trying to stuff their pockets as much as possible before things start to go to hell. Peace out.
ON THE RECORD about if they will support an investigation into the DSM, into Treasongate with Cheney, Rove, et al!!!
And futhermore, we must continue to write LTE's and send our emails out, post this information everywhere, and continue talking to people.
WE ARE THE MEDIA and WE WILL HOLD THIS EVIL MAN AND HIS ADMINISTRATION acountable!
This is very true the old media is dead-the internet exchange of ideas is the only living source of information-so far-they have not found a way to control it-yet
Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance (1996)
by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade of The National Defense University
http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html
"In assessing the future utility and applicability of Rapid Dominance, it is crucial to consider the political context in which force is likely to be employed. As we enter the next century, the probability is low that an over-riding, massive, direct threat posed by a peer-competitor to the US will emerge in the near term.
"Without compelling reasons, public tolerance toward American sacrifice abroad will remain low and may even decrease. This reluctance on the part of Americans to tolerate pain is directly correlated to perceptions of threat to US interests. Without a clear and present danger, the definition of national interest may remain narrow."
"Many challenges or crises in the future are likely to be marginal to US interests and therefore may not be resolvable before American political staying power is exhausted. In
this period, political micro-management and fine tuning are likely to be even more prevalent as administrations respond to public sentiments for minimizing casualties and, without a threat or compelling reason, US involvement."
"Americans prefer not to intervene, especially when the direct threat to the US is ambiguous, tenuous, or difficult to define."
"Second, it is relatively clear that current US military capability will shrink. Despite the pledges of the two major American political parties to maintain or expand the current level of defense capability, both the force structure and defense infrastructure are too large to be maintained at even the present levels and within the defense budgets that are likely to be approved. Unless a new menace materializes, defense is headed for less of the same. Such reductions may have no strategic consequences. However, that is an outcome that we believe should not be left to chance."
"In both relative and absolute terms, since the end of World War II, the military strength and capability of the United States have never been greater. Yet this condition of virtual military superiority has created a paradox. Absent a massive threat or massive security challenge, it is not clear that this military advantage can always be translated into concrete political terms that advance American interests."
"Beyond prudence, however, it is clear that without a major threat to generate consensus and to rally the country around defense and defense spending, the military posture of the United States will erode as the defense budget is cut."
"The absence of a direct and daunting external security threat is, of course a most obvious aspect of the difficulty in defining the future defense posture of the nation. The United States has long resisted maintaining a large standing military and the Cold War years could prove an aberration to that history. Extending this historical observation of small standing forces, it is clear that there is no adversary on the horizon even remotely approaching the military power of the former USSR. While we might conjure up nominal regional contingencies against Korea or Iraq as sensible planning scenarios for establishing the building blocks for force structure, it will prove difficult to sustain the current defense program over the long term without a real threat materializing to rally and coalesce public support."
http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html
"Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski publishes a book in which he portrays the Eurasian landmass as the key to world power, and Central Asia with its vast oil reserves as the key to domination of Eurasia. The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. "The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor", he says. Because of popular resistance to US military expansionism, his Central Asian strategy can not be implemented except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
From "The Terror Timeline" by Paul Thompson
"History is replete with instances in which warnings signs were ignored and change resisted until an external improbable event forced resistant bureaucracies to take action. The question is whether the US will be wise enough to act responsibly and soon enough to reduce US space vulnerability. Or whether, as in the past, a disabling attack against the country and its people - a space Pearl Harbor - will be the only event able to galvanize the nation and cause the US government to act."
-The Rumsfeld Commission (assigned to assess US National Security Space Management and Organization) January 11, 2001
"You and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don't have enough money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile defense, and you fear that you'll have to dip into the Social Security funds to pay for it.
Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase defense spending, to dip into Social Security, if necessary to pay for defense spending- increase defense spending?"
-Donald Rumsfeld (speaking to Senator Carl Levin) September 11, 2001
"To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan, but for what happened on September 11."
Tony Blair (July 2002)
From "The Terror Timeline" by Paul Thompson
"You show me one reporter, one commentator, one member of Congress who thought we should invade Afghanistan before September 11, and I'll buy you dinner in the best restaurant in New York City."
Sandy Berger (former National Security Advisor)
- "The Cell" by John Miller, Michael Stone, and Chris Mitchell, 8/02, P.219
"A question has been asked whether or not there is evidence that other hijackings and attacks were prevented by the actions that were taken that day. There are classified reports, media reports and investigative documents that indicate that other attacks may have been planned. But the evidence on this question is speculative at best, and I do not believe anyone can assert that other attacks were thwarted on that day unless he or she is the one who either planned the attack or planned to carry it out."
Norman Mineta (public hearing before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States,; May 23, 2003)
REMEBER THE 2000 ELECTION? THE ONE WHERE CHOICE WAS TAKEN FROM THE PEOPLE AND PLOPPED IN THE LAP OF THE SUPREME COURT? THIS WAS A BLOODLESS COUP WHICH ALL OF US STOOD BY AND DID NOTHING! AS SANDRA DAY-OCONNOR STEPS DOWN,SHE HAS BEEN HERALDED AS THE VOICE OF MODERATION; BUT REMEMBER, SHE VOTED AGAINST THE FLORIDA RECOUNT FACILITATING BUSH'S "SELECTION". HER REPLACEMENT IS MORE OF THE SAME,A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN WHITE MAN, A WILLING LAP DOG OF THE RIGHT. DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA CEASED TO EXIST,NOVEMBER 2000.
Bush v Gore was, and is, the worst "decision" of the SCOTUS since Dredd Scott...aand God save us from the aftermath
Al Gore is responsible for the fiasco in Florida, not the Supreme Court or G.W.Bush. All the Supreme Court did was stop the endless re-counts, each of which had GWB winning in Florida, often with a larger margin than was previously reported. Al Gore was trying to have votes thrown out, and he focused his efforts in Democrat counties. The Supreme Court merely upheld the law, which is what their job is (not re-interpretting the law as 9th Circus Court of Appeals does repeatedly). Al Gore LOST - accept it and get over it. Just because your side lost doesn't mean that democracy is dead; it actually shows that it is alive and well. THANK GOD that Al Gore and John Kerry LOST!!!
you, my friend, have been listening to too many r-wing radio no-nothings. the job of our courts is NOT to UPHOLD any enacted law... their job is to determine if the laws passed by our various legislatures are CONSTITUTIONAL. lawmakers can pass a law that says blue-haired ladies over the age of 73 can't shop at wal-mart on saturdays. if you take the time, you'll find that many laws, just as idiotic, have indeed been passed in this country's history. we have THREE branches of government (very wise of our fore-fathers) for good reason, and i'm tired of the r-wing discounting the importance of the judiciary simply because so many of their self-serving UNconstitutional hair-brained schemes are slapped down by the courts.
When a court of non-elected elites is the determining factor in an election-by definition it is not a democracy. But thats not important because your side won, right-wrong the right-wing elites don't give a fuck about you or your needs-but they appreciate and rely on your support-nice work tool-you have served your purpose.
Welcome to the machine
wAR WAR AND MORE WARS.wHY SO MANY WARS? Most Americans just don't get it. Americans these days have forgotten the old saw,"IN TIMES OF WAR TRUTH ITSELF IS THE VERY FIRST CASUALTY. gOVERNMENT AND aMERICAN GOVERNMENT IS NO EXCEPTION LIE FOR TWO BASIC REASONS.oNE TO FOOL THE ENEMY,AND TWO TO FOOL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Therefor you can't trust the government to tell us the truth in times of war.
That said, this forum is full of people expressing their doubts as to why the Iraq war and I for one have not heard expressed in any of the various news media channels anyone addressing the true reason why we went to war in Iraq.
Actually the reason for the Iraq war is the same reason why America has been involved in so many wars. Most Americans don't realize just how offten America goes to war because most of these wars are on foreign soil and relatively few American casualties but the truth is America is a nation through out our history been a nation constantly at war.
Just how offten? Well Gore Vidal has written a book the tittle of which is "PERPETUAL WAR FOR PERPETUAL PEACE" He records 0ver 240 wars since world war II alone. The title sugest the rationale that sells these wars to the American people.We are sold these wars on the grounds that we are fighting for peace. Americans are hoodwinked into believing that we are fighting for peace. It never seems to occur to us that you can't have peace while fighting a war! War is the very opposite of peace!!
We are sold the bill of goods that there can be peace through strength. This is a myth! If history reveals anything at all it shows that the stronger a nation's military is the more at war it inevitably becomes.Its self fullfilling prophecy.
We all heard at the endo of the first gulf war,Isn't a good thing we had those smart bombs? Truth is it is because we had those 'SMART BOMBS' that we had the war. We are tricked into believing that one more submarine, one more stealth bomber, or one more missele and we will have peace,persumably because no one will dare attack us.
Well since world war II America has been the lone supper power.
but where's the peace? We have been involved in more wars than ever before. Since America took on the mantel globeal Cop there has been more wars no less. America usually succeeds at whatever we try to do. Why then are we failing at providing peace?
Could it be because we are not really interested in Peace.? Could it be that we are really succeeding in our true objective? Could it be that our true objective is War?!! If war is our true objective why do we want war?
Enter Dwight D. Eyesenhouer who himself A military man and President of the United States at the time he said,BEWARE THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX SO YOU CANT'T SAY HE WAS UNAMERICAN OR AGANIST THE MILITARY TOLD US WHAT IS THE REAL REASON WE WENT TO WAR IN iRAQ AND MOST OF THE OTHER WARS WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN.
Eyesenhower wasalerting us to the fact not theory that we have a war bassed economey.THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX he warned is so huge that it has a strangle hold upon the American economey. As goes this industry so goes the economey. What has to happen inorder for the so called defense industry to do well? Certainly peace is not in the best interest of a nation whose economey is driven by the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX War and lots of them are what is needed by a nation that has a war bassed economey.
So why are we in Iraq?
. Not for the oil,not as part of the war on terror, not to rid the world of evil,and not to promote democracy. Hell we don't even have democracy here in the U.S.
We are in Iraq for the same reason we fight most of our wars.Iraq presented a good excuse to have a war a war that would keep America's enconomey humming along.The U.S makes billions of dollars selling weapons of war which after all is the products of the MILLITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.
Once you understand that our economey is war bassed you will understand this. Like any salesman,the U.S. wishing to sell weapons need wars to both demonstrate them which create desires to obtain them by all nations and get the existing supply depleted so that more can be sold.
So we have a nice little merrygoround.We foster a war some where,then we supply one side or in some instances both sides but in any case our weapons are being effectively demonstrated and presto everyone sees their effectiveness and the reults is huge profits for the U.S..the Millitary Complex is keapt bussy and in profits and the American economey is stimulated.
Once we understand this dynamic we will understand that most of Americ's numerous wars are all about enabling Americans to live high off the hog. This is America's dirty little secret.Most of our alleged reasons for our wars are but smoke and mirriors designed to hoodwink us into susporting them.
Sollution We can not exspect to have peace in a world where the lone supper power,the U.S. has a war driven economey. Peace is not in the best interest of such a nation. Infact peace itself is the enemy in such a situation.
All those desirous of peace must take the profit motive out of war by depivateitising the defese industry. In short we must fix the economey so that it is not war driven. Until then the U.S is the biggest threath to world peace because a prolong peace would wreak our economey.
Marvel not that you don't want to accept what has been said here. You as most Americans suffer from a moral superriority complex. We think we are the good guys and what has just been said here does not fit our good guy image. Jesus wen confronted with beeing a good many, replied there is none good but God. Therefor get out of you head that we are the good guys fighting evil.If George was a true Christian he would know that this is not a war where good versus evil.It is an evil war where evil people on both sides are fighting each other.
would the day ever come when a dragon slayer having slain yet annother dragon would look down into the pool of blood of the slain dragon and see reflected back to himself an image very much like that of the slain dragon.
We went to war because energy (oil) is power and we wanted it.
Who ever wrote this is right on the money, but your spelling is pathetic and embarassing horrible. Don't you spell check?
don't YOU mean embarassingLY horrible?? quit being the hall monitor toots.
Surely you all meant embaRRassingly. To embarrass is one thing. But to embar-ass - yikes, I recommend covering your copper rings, gents.
Correct-MILLITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
That was very passionate. I appreciate the content. Thank you...makes sense to me.
Has EVERYONE forgtten and forgiven Bush Sr. and his 3 sons for the Savings and Loan Scandal???? Read up on that, please, Thank you, SS
i keep reminding people of the silverado savings and loan scandal, but it has been thoroughly and conveniently deleted from public memory. people have very short memories and are too easily swayed through rhetoric and propaganda. i have vowed to chronical and always remember the details of everything important along the way. please do the same, all of you, for the sake of us all and future generations. never let it be said that you were fooled and duped by the propaganda machine.
imamuzd
As a Democrat, I think that Cindy and Valerie Plame (as connected to the contents -'fixed intellligence'- of the Downing Street memos) are the main points to which we have to stick if we really want some change after next year elections. Karl Rove's main point in 2004 would not have been bully tactics like the Veterans Swift Boat for the Truth but an effective work of repositioning (in its marketing meaning). We have lacked, then and now, putting a human face on the issues so we won the debates and lost the elections. We needed the faces of the mothers, wives and children to show the real cost of the war for each American family, otherwise no matter how flawed the reason for the war or how clear the exposure of the lies invoked, people would not like to know. This is the key result of Rove's repositioning work: people does not want to know. We need more Cindys to make people accountable for their votes, to make them realize that is not that easy as saying 'let's go to kick some asses.' We need to show them who pays the bill. Only when people be willing to know again, we will need to reinforce providing them all the information the media did not give them (at the beginning of the Rove's repositioning work) fearing be labeled as unpatriotic.
The repositioning work has had other distorting results in state social programs, relation religion-state and immigration and, for those who understand what that word means, it is not an easy work to break such a work.
I have listened to Cindy and I have not heard she proposing an immediate withdrawal like that of Saygon but many right wing leaders are suggesting it. I ask my fellow Democrats not to leave Cindy and Valerie alone. The fact that the right wing agenda of five years have suddenly embottled the attention of the Congress of the media in the last 3 months, says too much because it is the same period in which Cindy and the case of Valerie Plame, not to say the Downing Street memos, have come to the media and I do not think that that is a coincidence. They fear these women for a reason and we need them to get a change next year.
OIL and control of the middle east, the caspian sea, EVERYTHING.
But also the desire of Zionists has been to wipe out all of Islam, and abolish the entire world trade law. Why did they wish to do this, for years this has been their main goal.
Islam is a threat to Zionism
Those who will not bow down to Zionism, not Islam are tortured and put to death.
The conspiracy has been ongoing for a long time, and these terrorists are now inside the state department. As you can see the war between Zionism and Islamists has been ongoing for years and years, over their very resources and over the oil.
Zionism is a totally out of control extreme policy, and has led to Islamic Fundamentalists everywhere. Islam for the most part is a peaceful religion until Zionism started destroying countries left and right.
The USA has gotten in the middle of the genocidal, xenocidal war by direct force and coersion. The war between this hate will never be won, until the zionists of this front are done away with forever. And the islam fundamentalists leave, and bring peace back to Islam and their oil reserves.
The words about ISLAM being pure evil are bullshit Zionist lies, propaganda force fed on the masses. ISLAM is a seperate world from Zionists and wants to be left alone, given their own country and freedom. Zionists want none of that and wish to own the entire world bank government and control all the resources under one nation.
Doug E.
All I can say is that Doug E. is a complete fool if he truly believes the nonsense he wrote in his comments regarding Zionism and Islam. Muhammed founded Islam with warfare. Within 100 years Islam had violently spread into all of the middle East, much of south east Europe, north Africa and even into Spain - through warfare. The Islamic nations have been warring with themselves ever since, and it wasn't until the early 1900's that they were unified in their hatred of the Jews and their all out attempts to prevent a Jewish state from emerging in 1948. The Islamic nations have started several wars with Israel and been handed their asses each time. Isreal has been merely defending itself since the day they declared themselves to be a ntion. The Islamic world has made it clear that they wish to eliminate the Jews fromt he planet (not just the Middle East) while Islreal has tried to live peacefully amongst a group of thugs for nearly 6 decades. And try to remember a bit of historic fact - a Palestinian state was established at the same time that Isreal was established - called TransJordan - but was quickly assimilated/confiscated by Jordan. They stole the Palestinians land, not Isreal. That's right, the Muslims stole it, not the Jews. Your hateful rheoteric against the Zionists will never solve anything. Islam NEVER HAS BEEN and NEVER WILL BE a peaceful religion. Don't believe me, try reading the Koran - it's all in there!
You have never read the koran or the bible or any other religious work-your "facts" are misconceptions due to the fact that you do not read orginal works-but instead rely on the analysis of right-wing ideolog's to develop opinions-It is obvious in your writing. Don't express yourself if you have nothing to say, because you are not expressing yourself-you are a mouthpiece for someone's ideas. You are a tool and have no understanding of why you say what you do or where it comes from. If you don't think for yourself are you are really alive?
PS work on your spelling
I chuckled as I read your postscript. You admonished the writer to work on his spelling. However, you made several errors in sentence structure. For example, you are not supposed to end a sentence with a hyphen and you should do a spelling check for yourself. Let not the pot call the kettle "Black!".
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering - Hitler's right hand man - Comments he made during the Nuremberg trials
Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."