Make your own free website on Tripod.com
republic in pieces
the iraqi conundrum

HOME

constitution vs. patriot act
the fed, imf, and worldbank
9-11: myth and reality
swat
oh, israel...
the iraqi conundrum
department of miseducation
links
contact

"Let me now warn you in the most solemn manner. Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."

President George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

drug test the president

Bush selects man with close ties to Israel Likud Party to head Iraq after we're done killing all the innocent people we can. Yea, that'll go over real well with the Arabs. "No, we're not trying to reshape the Middle East in the interests of Israel, that's why we chose someone from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs to head post-war Iraq."

Saddam asks for televised debate with Bush. Bush declined, apparently too busy trying to decide whether to bomb Iraq's hospitols or daycares first. It's a sad state of affairs when foreign butchers appear more reasonable than their American counterparts.

Use of nuclear weapons is not out of the question for use in Iraq. It is, however, hypocracy at its finest.

On Tuesday, Bush said that if the Iraqi president and his generals "take innocent life, if they destroy infrastructure, they will be held accountable as war criminals." -Quoted by Barry Schweid, AP Diplomatic Writer

By that line of reasoning I am assuming Bush is currently getting the paper work ready to indict his father, who killed thousands of innocent people, and completely destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. Bush Sr. IS a war criminal, even as defined by his own soon to be war criminal son.

 

 
Pre-war, An Exercise in Doublespeak:
 
For those of you who have never heard of doublespeak, it is the stating two opposing views, as if they were both correct.  Doublethink is the accepting of two opposing views in the mind, holding both to be equally true. 
 
One example: going to war to prevent war.   If you go to war, you are obviously not preventing war.   Yet the American people are having it driven into their minds that it's ok to go to war, since by doing so, we are preventing war.  Now couple the concept of a 'pre-emptive'  strike against Iraq,  with the the incessant barage of 'Islam is a peaceful  religion/Muslims are trying to destroy your country,' that the press  has fostered on the American people since 9-11. Now couple that with the concept that one of the reasons  we're told we need to go to war,  Saddam is guilty of killing and oppressing  the militant  Muslims in his country,  yet Saddam supports the militant Muslims of al-Qaeda.  How about the fact that we must overthrow Saddam for going against the UN, even if we have to go against the UN to do it.
 
Now throw in the mantra of, 'If we change our way of life, the terrorists win, by the way, you must surrender your rights so the government can protect your freedom.'  There are several examples of doublespeak in that last statement.  The two most important: if we surrender our rights, we have changed our way of life. No two ways about it.  Also, if you give up your rights, you are definately not free in any sense of the word.  Study of the American press reveals many more instances of doublespeak in regards to the wars on Iraq and terrorism.
 
Doublethink, hampers one's ability to think rationally about the situation one holds opposing views on.  If a person holds to too many instances of doublethink, their ability to think rationally about anything becomes severely hampered.  Proof: find someone who espouses the governments position on both Iraq and the war on terrorism.  Use logical reasoning to explain why they might perhaps be mistaken, and then see if they respond with a rational, well thought out arguement explaining their point of view.  They won't be able to.  Their minds instantly switch to auto-pilot when pressed, and simply will regurgitate what it has been programmed to say.  Change subjects and ask about other minor issues, and you'll be able to find out just how deep their programming runs.
 
Also, doublethink makes one more susceptible to other faulty arguements.  All the press has to do is to appeal to the fears or self-righteous indignation of these people, and they'll fall for whatever they are told, regardless of if it has any grounds in reality.
 

011.jpg
This is what happened to the Iraqi soldiers in retreat at the end of the first gulf war.

Good Cop, Bad Cop
 
Are Germany and France really against war in Iraq?  Not likely.  Few countries have worked harder for, or will gain more from, a planetary government  They're are not against Bush at all, in fact, they are playing a roll that greatly compliments Bush.
 
The Franco-German axis:
"Aww shucks, Saddam.  Georgey boy here didn't mean to hit you, he just gets a little carried away some times.  Why don't you just tell us where your weapons are, and then you can go home, relax and forget all about this little mess."
 
It is all a sham, ladies and gentlemen.  Think about it, thanks to the insepctors we now have definite knowledge about exactly where a lot of Iraq's weapons are.  Now do you think Bush is really so impatient to go to war?  Of course not, the longer we wait, the more they find out about Iraq's capabilites and position of its actual arsenal.  The longer we wait the more pre-war brainwashing they can subject the American people to.  Also, the more Saddam disarms, the easier it will be to get him out of the way.
 
It is necessary to the establishment of the world order to either overthrow every 'rogue' state, or at least disarm them completely to remove their threat.  But the Franco-German axis, Russia, and the United States all stand to gain too much in Iraq.  It is too important a strategic position, it will be far easier to overthrow the Islamic governments in the mid-east if one controls Iraq.  Plus there's the often over looked amount of fresh water in Iraq.  If your trying to control the desert, it really helps to control the water.  And of course all the oil. 
 
Although Saddam was originally set up by America, and aided by America, he apparently is not trustworthy enough to control such a valueable piece of land.  So we have to take him down in order to further the goals of the Franco-German axis, which is the same as the American governments.  Even if Saddam isn't overthrown during this little fiasco, he will be impotent in preventing the world from using Iraq as it sees fit.  Saddam will be leader only in name. 
 
Something else to think about, look at all the public support France and Germany have gained from their 'anti-war' stance.  Support they'll need as they reshape Europe into the Union of European Police States.  By appearing anti-war, they win by America's threat of force, and they win by being a government the people believe they can stand behind.

Enter content here

Enter content here