Quote:
|
Originally Posted by <StG>Nighthawk First, for those who keep saying that Bush is only there for money, prove it. Undeniable proof, not what you think. |
Oh brother... First of all, quit acting like the burden of proof lies with the critics of the war. That's not how it works.
Bush dragged us into this war on the false pretext that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. Guess what, those WMD never existed!
The burden of proof now automatically falls on Bush, for he's the one that made the accusations in the first place. Bush is the one that left holes in his explanations, fabricated and distorted evidence, and made excuses after the fact. It's our
responsibility, as citizens and patriots, to be skeptical.
You should not be asking for proof from
us, that's completely ridiculous. Why not ask Bush for proof? Proof of WMD, proof of terrorist connections (though those did exist, to an extent), etc, etc. He's the one who has yet to provide satisfactory evidence for any of the claims he made in his case for war. Yeah, we found a few old canisters we knew were there, we found out that Saddam had a conversation with bin Laden over the telephone in 1992 or something. These things do not constitute sound evidence however. They are not "proof of WMD" in anyway. So, where's
his "proof"? He started a war, for little to no real reason, that has led to the deaths of tens of thousands - and will inevitably lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of more - innocent civilians and you are complaining because we're questioning his honesty and motives!?
Have you ever heard of the Future of Iraq Project? "Starting in October 2001
(!), about a year and a half before the US and its allies invaded Iraq, the State Department spearheaded an effort called the Future of Iraq Project. Dozens of Iraqi exiles and international experts were brought together to figure out how to create a new Iraq should Saddam Hussein somehow be taken out of power." (
Source)
Interesting, no? Take a look at the first item on the agenda. It turns out that the US State Department
started planning a post-Saddam Iraq not a week after September 11th, 2001. (The document in it's entirety can be found in link above) It's especially interesting considering that Bush was busy making a case for war all through 2002. He couldn't possibly have been trying to hoodwink us, could he have been?
Anyway, you want to know why Bush invaded Iraq? Well, first of all, there's the oil. Oil is the blood of any industrial nation. That's no secret. Those in the Bush administration have been eyeing the Middle East's oil reserves for decades now. Bush didn't invade Iraq so that we could instantly start shipping cheap oil back to the states; It was about giving US oil giants another foothold in the region. Here's why Iraq was ripe for the picking:
"Iraq alone has the third largest oil reserves on the planet – accounting for 10% of the world total. Iraq is also reckoned to have the world’s largest unexplored potential, primarily in the Western Desert. On top of its 115 billion barrels of proven reserves, Iraq is estimated to have between 100 and 200 billion barrels of further possible (as yet undiscovered) reserves. Furthermore, not only are Iraqi and Gulf reserves huge, they are mostly onshore, in favourable reservoir structures, and extractable at extremely low cost." (
Source)
“By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? ... While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies... Even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow” - Dick Cheney, 1999. Dick Cheney is a long-time member of the Project for the New American Century, a well-known neoconservative think-tank. (
http://www.newamericancentury.org/) Read about what he openly advocates:
"Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership."
"We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."
Another interesting bit of information concerning oil in Iraq and the Future of Iraq Project: "The “Oil and Energy” working group met four times between December 2002 and April 2003. Although the full membership of the group has never been revealed, it is known that Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, the current Iraqi Oil Minister, was a member. The 15-strong oil working group concluded that Iraq “should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war” and that “the country should establish a conducive business environment to attract investment of oil and gas resources.”" (
Source) So much for keeping Iraqi oil nationalized, eh? BTW: I
implore you to follow that link. It provides an extremely comprehensive look at how the Bush administration ripped off - and is and will be ripping off - Iraq, its people, and it's oil reserves.
See what I'm getting at there?
There's also the matter of post-war reconstruction. Who do you suppose was landed with the "obligation" to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed? Why, it would private American contractors! The Future of Iraq Project was really just a plan to hand over post-Saddam Iraq to US corporations.
http://www.parsonsiraq.com/english/draft_projects.asp
Parsons is listed on the US Army Corps of Engineers websites as an essential Iraqi contractor, as well as Betchel.
http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/portal/page?_pageid=95,77646&_dad
ortal&_schema=PORTAL http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/activities.html#contracts ...scroll down, to see who got the two big contracts right from the start!
According to USAID, Betchel got a contract to implement "successful design, rehabilitation, upgrading, reconstruction and construction to Iraq of one port, five airports, electric power systems, road networks and rail systems, municipal water and sanitation services, school and health facilities, select government building, and irrigation systems, as well as institutional capacity building for operation, maintenance and roadmaps for future longer term needs and investments in support of the Iraq infrastructure reconstruction program."
A USAID apologist admits: "On January 13, 2003, the USAID acting administrator exercised, inter alia, the authority ...to waive normal contracting procedures, including formaladvertising requirements, by making a written determination “that compliance with full and open competition procedures would impair foreign assistance objectives, and would be inconsistent with the fulfillment of the foreign assistance program.”5 "...multiple firms were placed on a “short list" and invited to bid on the contracts. USAID career employees decided which firms were on the short list based on past performance and an estimate of the capacity of the firms to perform. Six companies competed aggressively for the large infrastructure contract ultimately awarded to Bechtel..."
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/contracts/jmgarticle.pdf
2004 Contact record:
http://www.export.gov/iraq/market_ops/contracts03.html
2005 Contact record:
http://www.export.gov/iraq/market_ops/contracts04.html
The article's endnotes included this: "The $680 million contract awarded to Bechtel National, Inc., in April 2003 was the largest single direct contract awarded by USAID in its 42-year history and is thought to be the largest single nonmilitary foreign aid contract to be awarded since the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe after World War II."
So you see, it
just so happens that the biggest USAID contract in history was given to a dominant, politically vocal american company, chosen from a "short list" of American companies. Now, do you think is it merely a coincidence that the invasion (and occupation) of Iraq was completely half-assed? Seems to me like American corporations are sitting on a nice big pile of cash watching Iraq go to hell. The American taxpayer exclusively supplied the $680 million contract mentioned above. Will US companies recoup the whole of US taxpayer outlays? No, but why would Betchel or Parsons care?
The Pub 
Re: Should iraq be split up? 
Linear Mode
