<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Coop et. al.<BR>
<BR>
Maybe this time you could answer the arguments and facts I present here? You clearly are avoiding responding to my fact based logic in these V2020 discussions on the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Bush administration's approach to the War on Terror.<BR>
<BR>
"Faulty intelligence" in the assertions made by Bush, Rice and others?<BR>
<BR>
In a few hours on the Internet in the months before we invaded Iraq I discovered that the aluminum tubes obtained by Iraq that were claimed to be for a centrifuge for nuclear fuel processing was a false claim. Also, the yellow cake from Niger that supposedly was obtained by Iraq for nuclear weapons production was a false story. Both Hans Blix and former marine Scott Ridder, experts on WMDs in Iraq, both asserted that there was no evidence that at that time in the year before we invaded that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, much less any means of delivering them to US soil. <BR>
<BR>
As I said, I learned all of this in just a few hours on the Internet before we invaded Iraq. How can these false claims used to lead us to war be "false intelligence" when the information was available to anyone that revealed the claims of Iraq WMDs by the Bush administration to be highly doubtful?<BR>
<BR>
The Iraq WMD threat spread by the Bush administration was a deliberate orchestrated propaganda effort using trumped up scare stories aimed at whipping the US public and the US congress into a war fever based on fear, hatred and anger to push the invasion.<BR>
<BR>
At the bottom of this post I offer my V2020 post dated Jan. 20, 2003 before we invaded Iraq, where I elucidate the ten real reasons to invade, and most definitely I deliberately left out WMDs based on my research on this issue, though I do mention that I skipped this as a reason because of the lack of a sound basis in fact.<BR>
<BR>
Developments since the invasion of Iraq, as we all know, have shown no WMDs there.<BR>
<BR>
The statements make by Bush, Rice and others were definite and unambiguous that Iraq had WMDs and the capacity to deliver them to US soil. The image of a "mushroom cloud" over the US, and I am quoting Bush, was used to scare the US public into endorsing the invasion of Iraq.<BR>
<BR>
This was not a case of faulty intelligence. These were flat out lies told to the US public by our president, Condi Rice and others. For the leader of our nation to lie to the citizens of the US to lead them into war must rank as one of the most egregious offenses a president can commit.<BR>
<BR>
It's possible that our commander in chief just swallowed whatever he was told to say to the US public about WMDs in Iraq and never checked on the facts himself directly. So though he would then be an incompetent president, he might have really believed what he was saying. This also renders him a failure as a leader.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
<B>Ted Moffett </B><A HREF="mailto:ted_moffett%40hotmail.com">ted_moffett@hotmail.com </A><BR>
<I>Mon, 20 Jan 2003 00:18:20 +0000</I> <BR>
Previous message: <A HREF="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2003-January/000217.html">[Vision2020] In the Iraq aftermath </A><BR>
Next message: <A HREF="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2003-January/000221.html">[Vision2020] In the Iraq aftermath </A><BR>
<B>Messages sorted by:</B> <A HREF="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2003-January/date.html#218">[ date ]</A> <A HREF="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2003-January/thread.html#218">[ thread ]</A> <A HREF="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2003-January/subject.html#218">[ subject ]</A> <A HREF="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2003-January/author.html#218">[ author ]</A> <BR>
<BR>
All:<BR>
<BR>
Either Krehbiel is refreshingly honest in his approach to capitalism, <BR>
rejecting the propaganda of sugar coating militaristic imperialism with some <BR>
grand holy moral cause, or we have a sarcastic writer playing games.<BR>
<BR>
It is already decided we will topple Saddam, I agree. And the history of <BR>
British involvement in the oil resources of Iraq and Kuwait, coupled with <BR>
the dominant role Britain plays as the number one US ally, almost guarantees <BR>
Britain's assistance. The extreme "right wingers" who dreamed of a new <BR>
"Pearl Harbor" to justify an expansion of American military, political and <BR>
economic power found their wishes fulfilled on 9/11. Toppling Iraq is just <BR>
one step in this process.<BR>
<BR>
The "Top 10" reasons we will topple Saddam are, in no particular order, and <BR>
skipping the complex analysis to explain some of the reasons:<BR>
<BR>
1. Protect Israel.<BR>
2. Block any future attempts to unify the middle east especially using oil <BR>
resources as economic weapons against the west.<BR>
3. Gain immediate and future western control over Iraq oil.<BR>
4. Bolster the family pride of the Bush clan.<BR>
5. Feed the power and greed of the current cabal of hard line militarists in <BR>
the Bush administration and Pentagon.<BR>
6. Give notice to other states who may challenge US economic and political <BR>
hegemony that we will use military power unilaterally against them.<BR>
<BR>
The following 7, 8 and 9 numbered reasons are more related to keeping Bush <BR>
in office for a second term, and other agendas of control over the US <BR>
public.<BR>
<BR>
7. Keep the American public focused on foreign "threats" rather than <BR>
domestic economic and social problems.<BR>
8. Continue to generate a climate of fear to create a psychology of <BR>
"sacrifice" so that Americans will willingly endure the just mentioned <BR>
domestic problems.<BR>
9. Continuing the assault on civil liberties with a "1984" style endless <BR>
"War On Terror" to consolidate legal and law enforcement control over future <BR>
potential "unrest" in the USA.<BR>
<BR>
10. And one of the main reasons to go after Iraq: We can get away with it! <BR>
Iraq is an easy military target. Iraq is weak and cannot militarily damage <BR>
anyone, unlike N. Korea who could unleash horrors on S. Korea. Iraq has no <BR>
allies who will step in to defend them.<BR>
<BR>
Anyone with other reasons I overlooked?<BR>
<BR>
But what, you might say, about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq <BR>
sponsored terrorism? I think any realistic analysis of these threats <BR>
exposes them as minor, blown way out of proportion to be used as moral <BR>
justifications for what is nothing more than good old fashioned imperialism. <BR>
Numerous other states are more of a threat with weapons of mass <BR>
destruction and sponsoring terrorism.<BR>
<BR>
Anyone with good advice on investment options?<BR>
<BR>
Ted<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>