Home | About | Donate

Lies, Damned Lies and the Invasion of Iraq


#1

Lies, Damned Lies and the Invasion of Iraq

Said Arikat

For almost two weeks, the political buzz in the US has focused on those who have already declared their candidacy for the 2016 presidential run, Republicans and Democrats, and their reaction to "knowing what we now, would you still support the Iraq invasion?"

Of course there is nothing new in this question, and candidates have come to expect it. It was incessantly asked by journalists of Democratic party contenders seeking their party's nomination during the 2004, 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.


#2

Thanks for stating the truth: the invasion was based on lies, not mistakes or "faulty intelligence." It's infuriating that these criminals are being allowed to rewrite history again! Unfortunately, many people believe them. We're doomed.


#3

True the American politicians lied. And so too did the British, led by Tony Blair and Jack Straw, with that dodgy dossier. In case some of you forgot this little detail, it was asserted that there was evidence that Saddam Hussein had a 'super-gun' capable of hurling explosives etc as far away as Cyprus, and that meant an awful threat to Israel and other US and UK vital interests. Odd though that earlier, when visiting a firm in the Midlands, I found a photo of this 'super-gun' proudly displayed in the foyer. And in the photo with the company CEO was the local MP. Later it emerged that this MP had informed the - er - 'intelligence' people about this unusual export.
In short, the exporting of this 'super-gun' was carried on under the noses of the authorities, and presumably with the approval of the government. So that super-gun threat was something "made in Britain", OK'd by the government and probably OK'd by the CIA etc.
As with most wars, the real reasons for the war were not what we were told. It is only afterwards, when peace treaties are signed, that we may find that the real bone of contention was to do with control of oilfields or geo-strategic places like the Suez Canal or the Gulf of Aden.
But what of our interests? Fact is in times of war the concerns of the 99% are not at issue. The 1% use us to fight their wars and, at the end of the day, heroes are laid off as redundant, surplus to requirements. As for all that jingoistic nationalist BS, that's strictly for the birds.
Cheney and his sort are typical war-profiteers - and the US has a long tradition of such scum-bags who see war as a great opportunity to get filthy rch, by rip-offs and cons of great ingenuity.
Wars are caused by the competitive nature of capitalism,
The real cause of wars is not ideology - it is capitalism.


#4

Once upon a time it was illegal for any branch of the US government to use propaganda on its people.

Now, it seems, it's mandatory.


#5

It seems after approx. 10 years of training by the USA, the only ones willing to fight for their land joined ISIS. The others only retreat!


#6

Cheney had his own Dept. in the Pentagon to oversee the data that then Cheney received and gave his own analysis of the "doctored" data. Lies to the congress and country. He is continuing those lies and trying to doctor history


#7

Some of what you say is true, but if wars were ONLY about capitalism, how would you explain their existence in lands that are not capitalism-driven or the many zones that pre-dated capitalism beset with war and conflict. Your argument is too simplistic as are ANY that think in terms of ONE frame and ONE causative agency.


#8

"This lie is not in the past, it is a living lie. That false narrative lives on and is important to know because many of the same people are continuing to favour military action against Iran, as they died before with Syria.

The idea of the LIVING LIE is brilliant and morally compelling. In my view, the quote above is incredibly important and can never be stated often enough.


#9

I agree that the use of the term capitalism is inaccurate. Replace it with "Greed" OR "Resources" and the criticism begins to weaken. When the fact that ethnic revelries are often based on disputed claims to territories / resources the criticism loses most of its relevance.

In today's vernacular "Capitalism". stands for exploitation of the weak by the powerful. And that is a universal component of War.


#10

Anyone with a brain knew what would happen when the metastable post-1919 construction of Arabia was broken. The place would disintegrate into a 3-cornered war until some group (such as ISIL) gained the strength to unite, brutally no doubt, what had been since 1919 a deliberately fragmented collection of nation-states, each one held together by dictators.

One assumes people like Tony Bliar, and his assorted mates in Washington, are moderately intelligent and knew precisely what would happen. There can be no plea of ignorance before the event. None whatsoever.


#11

Sorry; but people living as hunters and gatherers had their own small territorial wars. Long before they became "capitalists".


#12

Off with their heads!


#13

Mr. Arikat you should also debunk the other major lie about the "justification" - WMD's. During the decade or so between the first American Gulf War and the 2003 invasion occupation there were regular stories carried on the TV news showing UN weapons inspectors destroying and dismantling the Iraq WMD industrial capacity. It was not a joke or a sham or a ruse, it was being done. The chief UN weapons inspector stated that Iraq pre-2003 no longer had an effective WMD capacity. I offered to bet several people a month's wages over the non-existence of Iraqi WMD's and none of those hawks took the bet.


#14

What we need also is "Lies, Damned Lies and the Invasion of Afghanistan", which includes "Lies, Damned Lies and 9/11" !


#15

Since the capitalist system - production for profit based on the wages system - has been global for decades if not longer, I think my argument stands. I cannot think of any wars of the 19th or 20th centuries, let alone the 21st century, which are not about trade routes, colonies, spheres of interest, raw materials, markets, etc.
In our time, almost every war seems to be related to oil and gas. Now, it's a fact that the 99% don't actually own oil-fields, oil-wells, or have any personal interest in oil and gas pipelines. But the Big Oil multinational conglomerates are interested in these, as are certain governments.
Even what seem to be civil wars apparently based on ethnic or religious divisions are usually found to be based on international geo-politics, and again not unrelated to trade routes, gas and oil supplies, and comtrol of vital economic resources.
For instance, in South East Europe, where Putin plans to run a new gas and oil pipeline via Turkey and Greece, through Serbia, Hungary and Austria to supply Europe while bypassing the Ukraine, there are some early indications of political strife on the streets of Macedonia, with ethnic Albanians - a minority- in conflict with the (Serbian) police. Likewise, with the wars in the Caucasus - especially Chechnya:: you only have to look at the map to find that there's a key railway line running down through the Chechen capital Grozny, with its oil refineries - a railway line which links Russia with the Black Sea. Go back in time to the Boer War: the British state had a serious reason for crushing the Afrikaans-speaking Boers in their struggle for undependence. South Africa had gold and diamonds - important not to lose control of those.
Or consider how many wars the US has fought over trade routes such as the Panama Canal. Or the probability of the Vietnam War having been prolonged by Washington due to the likelihood of offshore oil
( v. writing by Michael T Klare in the 1960s on this).
My view is that whatever the idological or other 'patriotic' explanations used to persuade the publc that a war is "justified", and necessary to "defend freedom" or " our way of life", the real causes of wars are nothing to do witth such notions. .Propaganda is one thing - reality is something else. And wars in this capitalist world are fought over capitalist - commercial / business / financial - interests. Nothing to do with our mortgaged or rented homes, our secondhand cars, or our " way of life".
In the modern world there are very few societies still surviving of a 'hunter-gatherer' or prehistoric type. Most have been crushed by the march of 'civilization' - their cultures sadly obliterated..
And for the life of me, I cannot see how arguments about pre-capitalist societies can be used to deny the reality of capitalism's endless wars being related to the competitive nature of world capitalism.
Look for instance at the early days of the oil industry, when the Five Sisters - the major oil companies, were competing against each other to gain control of the major oilfields of the Mddle East and other regions. The British and US governments in the 1920s were thought by at least one American oil expert to be likely to go to war over that rivalry.
Consider too why it is that the Russian are regularly using their military planes and drones to overfly over the Arctic where they have already started drilling for oil. And why it is that NATO jets are regularly patrolling ovver Lithuania whose government has just brought in conscription.
i wonder why so many people hate the idea that capitalist competition can and does lead to war?
We know that capitalism is fundamentally competitive: you only have to take a walk down the Hgh Street (Main Street in the US) to see this competition between different stores, or take a look at the media advertising to see firms competing for business, or consider the operations of Wall Street and other stock exchanges. At every level there is competition, and that goes for inter-governmental relations too.
When oil-men like the two Bushes held office as President, they were clearly able to represent the interests of the American Big Oil companies, just as Putin is clearly closely involved in Russia's Gazprom business.
Is line of this argument too simplistic for you guys?