Sorting Through American Lies on Iraq
By Wes Edwards
(An edited version of the presentation already in the archive)
Sabre-rattling from the US towards Iraq is nothing new, but it has reached a fever pitch crescendo in the past few months. Bush
wants to finish off what his father failed to do... or is there more to it than that? There have been several different reasons
cited and each one is based on a lie.
One of the more commonly heard reasons is that one of Saddam Hussein's intelligence agents met with Mohammed Atta (one of the
alleged 9/11 hijackers) in Prague last year. This was the only connection that anyone has uncovered between the 9/11 attacks and
Iraq and it has not been proven to be true. It is absurd to think that Hussein and bin Laden were working together. When Iraq
invaded Kuwait, Osama bin Laden offered the Arab nations the services of Al Quaeda to repel the Iraqis. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin
Laden are not on the best of terms.
Bush claims that Hussein is a threat to his neighbours. This comes as some surprise to them as most have maintained more-or-less
peaceful relations since the Gulf War ended. Though there are still tensions between Iraq and Kuwait, relations have improved with
time. Kuwait has balked at the idea of an invasion of Iraq or of US bases being built or used within Kuwait. They are insisting that
the US follow the procedures of international law before any invasion takes place. Similarly, Saudi Arabia has refused to allow
Americans to use their country as a staging point for an invasion. Jordan is a bit of a mystery. It is traditionally an American
ally though like the Saudis, the people of the country are more anti-US than the government. Jordan and Iraq have a mixed history of
friendship and aggression. Syria has never been very friendly to American plans for the region. It completely opposes a strike on
Iraq.
Turkey and Iraq are not friends. Indeed, Turkey regularly invades Northern Iraq to assault the Kurdish people who live there.
Hussein of course also has a bloody history fighting against the Kurds in that area. It was here that Hussein earned the reputation
for gassing 'his own people'. Of course, to be fair, it was the US who provided the chemicals, encouraged the Iraqis to use them and
continued normal relations with them after the fact (this was before the Gulf War). The Turkish president is not loved by the
Turkish people and like many Arab countries would face severe reaction if he helped the US in an attack against a neighbour.
Iran and Iraq are former enemies however, both nations are now on more-or-less friendly terms. There have been rumored attempts by
Iraq to buy weapons from Iran to defend themselves against an attack by the Americans though this is probably not true. However, it
must be remembered that Iran and Iraq along with North Korea were declared to be part of Bush's "Axis of Evil" and therefore Iran
may end up as an additional target rather than just a bordering witness. Iran has more reasons to remain neutral than to antagonize
Iraq. Iraq certainly has no reason to antagonize Iran.
Although not a bordering country, Israel and Iraq do have a history of hostility. In 1988, Israel bombed a nuclear power facility
outside of Baghdad without provocation. During the Gulf War, Iraq did launch many of its Scud missiles at Israel. Israel for the
most part stayed out of that particular war, probably because the Americans would have had no Arab support had they taken a more
active role. Additionally, Hussein has declared solidarity to the Palestinian cause and has even offered large cash rewards to the
families of Palestinian suicide bombers. This has earned Hussein a certain amount of respect from many Arabs. Additionally, if it
were true that Iraq still has some of its chemical and biological weapons stockpiled and hidden from sight, Israel would be the most
likely target for an attack.
Another commonly used justification for a war on Iraq is that Hussein has not allowed weapons inspectors into his country since 1997
and that this proves that he is rebuilding his chemical and biological weapons programmes and probably seeks to build a nuclear
weapons programme as well. Therefore, the US must attack Iraq and prevent this from happening before it is too late. This is often
compared to the kind of attack that would have stopped Hitler before he became too powerful. The fact is that there is simply no
proof that Hussein is building up arsenals, nor most likely does he even have the capability, thanks to the draconian sanctions
imposed on Iraq.
It is ironic that Iraq should be accused of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction when it is the US who has the largest stockpile
of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on the planet. Indeed, the US has taken measures recently to block Iraq from complying
with inspections and treaties. It is simply not in their interests for Iraq to be seen as a law-abiding country, especially when
their own hypocrisies are starting to wear thin with the rest of the world. Iraq was quite ready to sign the proposal from the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. It was a sign of Director General Bustani's effectiveness that he had managed
to greatly increase the number of signatory countries and was about to sign Iraq, a country that is synonymous with the use of
chemical weapons. Bustani was fired from his post. When seen along with the recent American attempts to undermine talks on
biological weapons, small arms trade and even torture... it's not hard to see who the real 'bad guy' is.
The US has nuclear weapons and furthermore they have used them... twice. The US has also used chemical and biological weapons
against the Cuban and Chinese people among others and has tested such weapons on Americans and Canadians! (Gassing your own
people...sound familiar?). Why should Iraq be subjected to the humiliation of such inspections when other countries are not? This is
an obvious double standard. Additionally, the last time inspectors were allowed into Iraq they ended up being composed mostly of
American spies. Scott Ritter, an American member of the inspection team, has confirmed this fact. Nevertheless, Iraq has recently
offered to comply with the inspection teams and even invited members of the US Congress to look for weapons stockpiles themselves.
The UN has surprisingly rejected Iraq's offer to let inspectors back in, which makes one wonder what the US is holding over them
this time.
It is obvious that no matter what reasons the US claims for invading Iraq, their real reasons are not being shared. In 1991, Richard
Haas of the State Department let slip that "What we want is Saddam's regime without Saddam". More recently, several in the Bush
administration have talked openly of forcing a 'regime change' and have stated that this will occur regardless of Iraq's complicity
with inspectors and other demands. It appears that the US wants a coup. Although there are people within Iraq who would love to see
Hussein removed from power, they appear to be a small minority. And is it really up to the United States to decide who should lead
another nation? Perhaps if Bush had actually been elected he might have more respect for the concept of democracy.
But why replace Hussein? He hasn't really threatened anyone since the Gulf War, nor does he have much to threaten with. Is he a
threat to the US? Hardly... he can't even shoot down the American planes that have daily bombed Iraq since 1990. What would the US
gain from a regime change? The answer most likely is the control of oil resources and the profits that come from selling those
resources. The Americans monopolies want the profits from the sale of this oil. If they don't control the oil, it's likely that
French or Russian corporations will reap the profits. This is banditry on a worldwide scale. It's also standard operating procedure
for the crony capitalists that make up the Bush administration.
Another possible reason for invading Iraq is the upcoming November Congressional elections in the US. The Bush administration has a
vested interest in seeing the House dominated by Republicans. Bush's support has at times dropped to pre-9/11 levels and a war is
the kind of thing that might be needed to boost his image. Having the entire US government apparatus dominated by Republicans is a
wet dream for his warmongering administration. Additionally, Congress still technically has the ability to prevent the US from going
to war. This seems to have been forgotten in the recent past but if a war loses popular support it is still within the realm of
possibility that Congress could step in to stop it. Many experts believe that the war on Iraq will commence in early November to
maximize the effect it will have on these elections. Some are saying that Bush will wait until after the election to ensure that
Congress won't try to stop it. Nevertheless, the election may play a major part in the timing of the attack.
So what can rational people do to stop this insane war from happening? Not much, unfortunately...if the Bush administration cared
what regular folk thought, they wouldn't have cheated to get George into the White House in the first place. It is still possible
that a war will not occur. Bush is experiencing a lot of pressure from many sides opposed to a strike against Iraq. Many of the
senior Pentagon generals are opposed to the war and unlike Bush and his cronies they have actual experience in combat. They know
what they are talking about when they suggest that an invasion will fail. Additionally, there are many who question the cost of such
an operation. American troops are now stationed in over 150 countries and some are asking how the US can support this modern
imperial army. They are already greatly over-extended and without instituting military draft it is unlikely that they will be able
to keep control of so many diverse areas at the same time. If the war starts to hit Americans where it counts, i.e. in their
pocketbooks, support will rapidly decline. The price of oil will rise dramatically and this is something that most people do not
want to see happen, especially with the US economy already in decline. Bush's father faced a lot of the same concerns after the Gulf
War, but unlike his son he was not seen as a corrupt corporate-pandering idiot as Bush's image is quickly becoming.
The lies surrounding Iraq can be defeated, not with war, but with the truth. If the plentiful and easily verified facts that dispute
the Bush administration's lies can be brought to the public, support for this war will fade fast. The recent corruption scandals of
Enron, WorldCom and others are making people a little more hostile to the ruling classes than those classes seem to think. The
Americans are doomed to failure no matter what they do. Their economy is sinking fast. Their military is over-extended and hated by
every country they occupy. Their public image is that of a unilateral and immoral empire that ignores international law. Their
former allies are refusing to co-operate with them. In short, the American Empire is not as powerful as it seems to think. It will
fall sooner or later, due to over-extension, bankruptcy or simple entropy... but it will fall. And you can be certain that I will be
celebrating when it does...
NAVIGATION
Homepage -> Archive of Writings -> Sorting Through American Lies on Iraq