S.M.B. - Logic and Rhetoric
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
WHY WE'RE AGAINST THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ
It has been a while since I've posted, and over the last few days I've decided that I should get back to why I wanted to write a blog of this nature. I wanted to let everyone know my beliefs and philosophy and to see if there were any people out there who shared them. I also wanted my personal philosophy to be clearer than my specific political views, and to account for the people, questions and concerns that the corporate media doesn't give a hoot about and therefore never mentions.
If you're a regular reader of Society's Memory Bank, it's clear that we're against the war in Iraq AND we're against the occupation too, we think the troops should come out now. Some people, including personal friends and public figures whom I admire, have characterized opposition to the United States occupation as a "far left" or radical position. Maybe it is. Yet, no matter where this position physically fits on the political spectrum, this position is right, and consistent with the moral and political instincts of the people we most admire in history.
If you were against the invasion of Iraq, you should be against the occupation. The war in Iraq is not over. This is something that has become sensitive for me, and not because I've been heavily involved in anti-war political organizations on my campus.
20 year old soldiers in Iraq are more likely to die than any other soldiers. I'm 19, I'll be 20 in five months. It pisses me off that kids who should be chillin with their friends, maybe even writing blogs, or simply having a good time are dying to control bloody oil money.
In an open letter to President George "aWol" Bush on September 20, 2001, a bunch of neo-conservatives made their agenda crystal clear- get Saddam out whether he attacked the U.S. or not.
It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.By no means was this the first time the Neo-conservatives, many of whom work in the Bush Administration, have let their agenda be known. Paul Wolfowitz has championed the notion of U.S. military domination.
"There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."In other words, we've got to let everybody know that if they even think about becoming as powerful as us, we'll get desperate, and we'll threaten them with weapoons of mass destruction (ie "mechanisms").
Richard Perle, another neo-conservative who advises the 'Defense' Department, and sits on the Defense Policy Board, signed the open letter I linked above, and has even more lies to spray. These are excerpts from a Frontline interview in 2001:
"Well, about Saddam Hussein, the essential point is that he's a thug who has been willing to murder some of the people closest to him, who has used chemical weapons against his own people, who has invaded his neighbors. He is probably the most dangerous individual in the world today....Let's stop for a minute. Richard Perle almost sounds like Saddam's motivational speaker for a second there, didn't he? "SADDAM IS CAPABLE OF ANYTHING. Well, maybe he sounds more like Saddam's agent...
"[Saddam is] Capable of anything. Capable of using weapons of mass destruction against the United States, capable of launching other military maneuvers as soon as he thinks he can get away with it...."
"The question of Saddam Hussein is at the very core of the war against terrorism. There can be no victory in the war against terrorism if, at the end of it, Saddam Hussein is still in power....You can click the link and read some more of Perle's hot air. If you're interested in the political background in the Iraq affair watch two frontline shows, 'The War Behind Closed Doors,' and 'The Long Road to War.'
We made a fundamental mistake at the end of Desert Storm: we didn't finish the job....
The people who made that mistake were loath to admit it, so they described the situation in unjustifiably sanguine terms. He was, to use the phrase they adopted, in a box, and safely in a box, and we need not be concerned about him. I think that was wrong. It's been wrong all along, and it is demonstrably wrong today."
We've established that senior Bush Administration officials have wanted to take out Iraq since 1991, if not before, that the occupation is the war, and the war is not over, as George 'aWol' Bush claims it is over (and accomplished). Furthermore, no occupation resulting from an unjust war can be just. The United States Military controls Iraq right now, the Iraqi people do not. The American military, which perpetrated an unjust war, should not be rewarded with the power over Iraq's resources, infrastructure and sovereignty. American corporations that the Republican Party creams for campaign cash are the companies that are being rewarded with multi-billion dollar contracts in Iraq.
The United States should pay Iraqi companies to rebuild Iraq. The Military should pull out of Iraq, stop the bombing campaigns, stop the cavity searches of Iraqis, and stop the milking of the Iraqi national resources. We need to stop the war, altogether, once and for all.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003