here's how I see Iraq - what's your take ???

[welshTerrier2]

i recently read a book called "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins ... he documented exactly how the US government goes around the world getting foreign governments to commit to huge construction projects (using US corporations) and convinces the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to give them loans they will never be able to repay to fund them ... the "hitmen" falsified estimates of the revenues these projects would generate ... then, when these countries are forced to default on the loan that was underwritten by the IMF, the US "helps" with the debt if the country's government agrees to act as a puppet regime for the US and make things easy for "certain corporate interests" ...

that's exactly what bush is doing, with the support of far too many Democrats, to the people of Iraq ... many may mean well but they are doing serious long-term damage to the Iraqi people by going along with bush's occupation ... Iraq will soon be hopelessly bankrupt and will become forced to become a US colony ... they will be starved for food, water and utilities until they comply ... putting Chalabi in charge of the oil and Wolfowitz in charge of the IMF are two of the three most important elements of this program ... the last piece was supposed to be a US-controlled president but this hasn't worked out so well ... yet ...

so the US military remains until they have full control ... it's time for Democrats to stand up to this colonialism ... but so far, they are just too frightened to do it ...

check out this article ==> http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0505-23.htm

I saw bulldozers in military bases. I saw bulldozers in the Green Zone, where a huge amount of construction was going on, building up Bechtel’s headquarters and getting the new U.S. embassy ready. There was also a ton of construction going on at all of the U.S. military bases. But, on the streets of Baghdad, the former ministry buildings are absolutely untouched. They hadn’t even cleared away the rubble, let alone started the reconstruction process.

<skip>

Why? Because if genuine democracy ever came to Iraq, the real goals of the war—control over oil, support for Israel, the construction of enduring military bases, the privatization of the entire economy—would all be lost. Why? Because Iraqis don’t want them and they don’t agree with them. They have said it over and over again—first in opinion polls, which is why the Bush administration broke its original promise to have elections within months of the invasion. I believe Paul Wolfowitz genuinely thought that Iraqis would respond like the contestants on a reality TV show and say: “Oh my God. Thank you for my brand-new shiny country.” They didn’t. They protested that 500,000 people had lost their jobs. They protested the fact that they were being shut out of the reconstruction of their own country, and they made it clear they didn’t want permanent U.S. bases.

That’s when the administration broke its promise and appointed a CIA agent as the interim prime minister. In that period they locked in—basically shackled—Iraq’s future governments to an International Monetary Fund program until 2008. This will make the humanitarian crisis in Iraq much, much deeper. Here’s just one example: The IMF and the World Bank are demanding the elimination of Iraq’s food ration program, upon which 60 percent of the population depends for nutrition, as a condition for debt relief and for the new loans that have been made in deals with an unelected government.

In these elections, Iraqis voted for the United Iraqi Alliance. In addition to demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of troops, this coalition party has promised that they would create 100 percent full employment in the public sector—i.e., a total rebuke of the neocons’ privatization agenda. But now they can’t do any of this because their democracy has been shackled. In other words, they have the vote, but no real power to govern.<skip>

[eridani]

1. That's how I see it

Nail the Bush lie. We invaded to permanently conquer, period.

[magellan]

2. Word. (nt)

[wiggs]

3. I was naive.

Just reading the same book. Turns out this scenario has been played out many times before in different countries. This time in Iraq we had to invade using military forces...but the goal is the same as for those other counties where our soldiers were poverty, covert action, economic slavery, corporatism, blackmail, assassination, threats of destruction, etc.

We've done this before. Our goal is not to strengthen these other countries, but to weaken them. That's why reconstruction was never really contemplated. A weak and desparate middle east, africa, indonesia and latin american is just fine with us.

There are lots of interesting tidbits in "Confessions"....recommended reading for all....and one of them is the comparison of different empire building adminstrations and the players in official posts. Certains types of people with corporate backgrounds are chosen for secretary of state, defense secretary, head of cia, head of world bank, UN ambassador, vice president, etc. These are key positions in empire building and enslavement of other countries. In the president's choices for these positions, he is following a pattern established by others.

Iraq is not the first country we've done this to and it won't be the last. They are still putting the people in place in key positions to control not only our own nation but to advance this philosohy of corporatocracy and control over the entire world.

I'm completely dismayed by our actions now and in the past and I'm very worried about the future.

[welshTerrier2]

4. Wolfowitz

in the book, Perkins repeatedly pointed out how rigorous the IMF reviews were ... he really needed to make a strong case to convince them to make the loans to the countries he was targeting ...

imagine what making that case will be like for the exploiting corporations with Wolfowitz running the show? too many Americans, noble though they may be, think the harm that will come to Iraq if the US leaves will be civil war ... and they may well be right ...

what they fail to see is that we may well see civil war regardless of whether the US military stays or goes ... and more importantly, they also fail to see that the battle against the US is not only an intra-Iraq battle for power but it is simultaneously a desperate movement to keep Iraq free from US imperialism ...

voting to continue the occupation requires you to accept the premise that the US is not a colonial power interested in exploiting Iraq's resources and using it as a base to broaden it's colonial tentacles ...

[CWebster]

5. Yes, that is it in a nutshell

A high quality post.

:kick:

[Q]

6. Most Democrats know all of this...

...yet they continue to either support this 'war' or remain silent.

This is why I was shocked at Dean's recent statement. Certainly HE knows the truth about why we're in Iraq? Kerry also knew. Why then do they continue to support something they know is morally and ethically wrong?

Silence is definitely betrayal at this point.

[Disturbed]

7. Most Dems in Congress are on board with..

the Bush Junta's agenda for Iraq. These politicians are not stupid, mereley complicit.

[raccoon]

10. Yes. They're all part of the power elite.

I think the Democrats are a shade less repugnant than the Republicans, especially the current admin that doesn't bother to hide their bullying and total lack of concern for the average Americans.

But I think neither of the major parties actually care about the average American and won't do anything to benefit the average American unless people demand it.

[Boo Boo]

8. Yup. Sounds about right.

And, of course, our troops pay for this policy with their lives; not just because they are there fighting, but because the policy fuels the insurgency. I believe that, in a way, the Bush admin needs the Insurgents because it keeps the Shia in line. If the Sunni insurgency were actually crushed and finished the Shia would begin asking us to leave.

Can't do that. We still have to finish those military bases and the largest U.S. Embassy in the world. Clearly, we do not intend to leave.

[Jacobin]

9. It's our newest colony