That is from a statement made Labour MP Tam Dalyell in the House of Commons before the war/invasion of Iraq ever began.
From a 2003 article from the Sydney Morning Herald:
Beginning last year, responding to the PNAC study, long-serving Labour MP Tam Dalyell raged against it in the House of Commons:
"This is rubbish from right wing think tanks where bird-brained war-mongers huddle together - people who have never experienced the horror of war, but are infatuated with the idea of it."
This article includes statements from Europeans who knew what Iraq was about even as our politicians and media were leading us with war drumbeats.
Similarly Harald Mueller - a leading peace researcher - has long criticised the German Government for "assiduously overlooking and tacitly endorsing" the dramatic shift in US foreign policy of 2001. He says the agenda of the Bush administration is unmistakable:
"America will do as it pleases. It will obey international law if it suits, and break that law or ignore it if necessary ... The USA wants total freedom for itself, to be the aristocrat of world politics."
There were further warnings. This one really hits the nail on the head.
From the same SMH article:
A think tank war: Why old Europe says no This so called pre-emptive war that the PNAC ideologues have longed for against Iraq also serves, in the judgement of Uri Avnery, to take the battle to Europe and Japan. It brings US dominance of Eurasia closer.
Avnery notes:
"American occupation of Iraq would secure US control not only of the extensive oil reserves of Iraq, but also the oil of the Caspian Sea and the Gulf States. With control of the supply of oil the US can stall the economies of Germany, France and Japan at will, just by manipulating the oil price. A lower price would damage Russia, a higher one would shaft Germany and Japan. That's why preventing this war is essential to Europe's interests, apart from Europeans' deep desire for peace."
"Washington has never been shy about its desire to tame Europe," argues Avnery. In order to implement his plans for world dominance, says Avnery, "Bush is prepared to spill immense quantities of blood, so long as it's not American blood".
The article uses the phrase
"the Cavalry on the New American Frontier".That phrase is from the PNAC documents which we were reading but were unread by so many in our congress. What a shame.
That word "calvary" was mentioned in a document from the AEI in 2003.
It was called
Toward a Global CalvaryThe first paragraph is as chilling as the use of the word "calvary" in the first place.
Defense transformation is turning out to be a far larger project than the Bush administration envisioned when it first embraced the concept during the 2000 presidential campaign. Far from being a "cheap hawk's" answer to America's post-Cold War defense needs or a justification for new weaponry, transformation involves a world's worth of new missions for the U.S. military, which is fast becoming the "global cavalry" of the twenty-first century. Among the most vital components of this transformation is the radical overhaul of America's overseas force structure, which seeks to create a worldwide network of frontier forts.
Be sure to read all of the AEI article. It lays out our plans for Europe and Asia and everywhere.
And wait till you hear what Doug Feith said in 2003. Too bad our congress did not know of these plans. Yes, that is said a wee bit sarcastically.
'Everything Is Moving Everywhere'
Today's U.S. global force posture is an anachronistic, but entrenched, inheritance of the Cold War. More than 80 percent of U.S. soldiers in Europe are stationed in Germany, waiting for a Soviet invasion that will never happen. In the Pacific, over 75 percent of U.S. troops are bottled up in South Korea and Japan. The Bush administration has recognized that the status quo is no longer acceptable; that the preeminent mission of the U.S. military is no longer the containment of the Soviet Union, but the preemption of terrorism. This is the strategic reality that is driving the realignment of the network of American bases and installations overseas. "Everything is moving everywhere," said Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy. "There is not going to be a place in the world where it's going to be the same as it used to be. We're going to rationalize our posture everywhere."
It boggles my mind that the world knew, we knew around the forums, editors knew, writers knew. But all were ignored.
It was not just Bush misleading us to war, but many of our Democrats went along.
Misled to warThe official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence. The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing. In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.
Policeman, calvary, there it is again. Donald Kagan of the PNAC even said we were going to be like Gary Cooper in High Noon.
"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."
Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena.
The worst part of all was Clinton's Defense Secretary William Cohen's statement on TV in 1997. I am glad I missed it.
In a November 1997 Sunday morning appearance on ABC, Defense Secretary William Cohen held up a five-pound bag of sugar for the cameras to dramatize the threat of Iraqi anthrax: "This amount of anthrax could be spread over a city -- let's say the size of Washington. It would destroy at least half the population of that city. One breath and you are likely to face death within five days."
"It could wipe out populations of whole countries!" Cokie Roberts gasped as Cohen described the Iraqi arsenal. "Millions, millions," Cohen responded, "if it were properly dispersed."
Poor Cokie, she must have been terrified. :shrug:
A new poster here this week named Junofeb said something in just a few words that impressed me so much. I quote him.
"Bill could have said, "well, Iraq is disarmed, perhaps there is a peaceful solution"
He could have said, "Iraq is disarmed, you're safe now from that threat"
He could have stopped the bombing and the starving of children thru sanctions on FOOD AND MEDICINE!
But he let his minions say "Look closely at this scary sugar bag. If we don't bomb these people, this will happen to you."
Amen. What a tragic and needless war and occupation.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
