Yes it was never about controlling Iraq's oil, the oil industry never wanted this invasion and advised against it (they prefer stability where they can do business with malleable local puppets.......political stability is an essential prerequisite for their business, chaos is not, chaos benefits Jewish speculators in New York and London).
The invasion was never about WMD's, or Saddam allegedly teaming up with al-Qaeda, or punishing him for allegedly attempting to harm Bush senior on a visit to Kuwait, or to 'liberate Iraq' from the tyranny of Saddam, or to crush a rogue nation that attacks it's neighbors, or, or, or..............
Saddam was an American puppet brought to power by them, and backed by them, and armed by them, and supported by them. Then the wind changed, and the Israelis became concerned about an overarmed Iraq after the end of the Iran/Iraq war (1.1 million not demobilized, 6,000 tanks, 4,000 artillery, 700 jet fighters, 200 Scuds--1990) Super-gun projects, chemical weapons projects, missile projects, nuclear weapons projects....created abetted by the USA, with financial support, and lo the Israelis wanted him removed from power......though in reality all this was built up and meant to be against IRAN.
But the cult from North Africa and desert 'super race', were so insecure, well I mean Ezra how can you take chances?
The Israelis by 1989 approached their friends the British, and the Americans, and Saddam the puppet of America was lured into a trap called Kuwait, via the American Ambassadoress April Gillespie by the USA, and the British managed the Kuwaitis, with some highly inflammatory comments by Kuwaiti representatives intended to incite Saddam, at a meeting discussing slant drilling by the Kuwaitis into Iraqi territory (the incitement was about Saddam not knowing the identity of his father) coincidently these are the two countries that had the most forces massed against Saddam in 1991, also.
Actions that may have benefited Israel, but certainly no clear benefits for the USA, and UK, except for the illusionary concept of having 'control' of Iraq. When a dumb idiot is manipulated into doing something which does not serve his interests........in the American vocabulary this is known as being suckered...........because you should have guessed by now that the daily shifting of excuses for attacking, occupying, and destroying Iraq by the desert super race, could only have been for the Israelis.
___________________________________
Defeated in Iraq?
Look for it at the pawn shops, the homeless shelters, and the growing number of empty sub-divisions
By Mike Whitney
30/07/08 "ICH" -- - The United States did not invade Iraq to "stop the violence". That was never the goal. So, it's foolish to say that the surge achieved its objective. It hasn't. Nor has the surge "created the space for a political solution"; another meaningless slogan regurgitated endlessly by the Bush troupe. The political agenda in Iraq has failed utterly. We know that because the Shiite-led government has asked the US to leave "as soon as possible" and for the Bush administration to set a "timetable for withdrawal". Not a "time horizon" as the administration-spinmiesters like to say; a Timetable, which means a fixed time when the United States must leave. So, if the Iraqi government has asked the US to leave; where is the "political solution" the surge was supposed to create? There isn't one. The mission has failed; it's as plain as day. This is not an arguable point.
What the surge really proves is that ethnic cleansing works. Baghdad was a city of roughly 65% Sunnis. Now it is nearly 75% Shiites. Most of the million or so Iraqis who have been killed in the conflict, and most of the 4 million who are either internally displaced or have become refugees, are probably Sunnis. This is an important point and one that Americans should understand. The surge was created to disguise what was really taking place on the ground; ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. No one disputes this. The Sunnis have been effectively purged from the capital. That's not a "political solution". It is a war crime.
More important, the United States military has helped the Shiites win their war against the Sunnis. The Shiites control Baghdad now; the Sunnis will never get it back. That is why they are moving on to the next phase of their strategy, which is to demand that the foreign troops leave. So, at least in one respect the surge has worked; it has helped the Shiites and their allies in Tehran win the war. Bush has helped to strengthen Ahmadinejad. Was that the objective?
The Shiites have no experience running the government. That's always been the Sunnis role dating back hundreds of years. That does not mean they are incapable of leadership, it simply means that the Bush administration decided to break with traditional imperial policy to pursue their colonial ambitions. Normally, imperial powers choose to remove just a few hundred of the top political leaders and leave the existing system in place so the society keeps functioning with as little disruption as possible.
Not Bush. Bush chose to raze the country to the ground; rip-apart the social fabric, destroy the critical infrastructure, and spread chaos far and wide. Now, as author Nir Rosen says, "Iraq no longer exists". By conceding control of the government to the Shiites, Bush has not established democracy, but anarchy and sectarian hatred. The idea of creating a "Shiite Crescent" in the Middle East is part of a wacky theory cooked up in a Washington think-tank. Imagine if the Russians invaded the United States and decided that the quickest path to political stability was to wipe out the government, disband the bureaucracy, and appoint inexperienced people from the poorer sections of the inner-cities and barrios to run the country. This is the level of stupidity in the Bush administration. The strategy has cost the lives of over a million Iraqis. That's a high price for stupidity.
There was never the slightest chance that the US would succeed in establishing strategic outposts in the heart of the Arab world. It was doomed from the get-go. The Bush administration points to the temporary lull in the violence as a sign of progress, but they are mistaken. They're using the wrong yardstick. The Iraqi resistance has achieved what every guerrilla army hopes to achieve; they have undermined their enemy's ability to wage war. The US is facing growing resistance to its imperial policies around the world, but it can't address those problems because its army is tied down in Iraq. This is quickly becoming one of the main areas of disagreement in the 2008 political campaign. The world is drifting away from the United States and it isn't coming back whether Obama or McCain are elected. The superpower model of global government is on its way out.
The real way to measure success or failure in Iraq is to look at the US fiscal budget which has suddenly skyrocketed to nearly $500 billion. This is mainly due to the exorbitant costs of prosecuting an open-ended conflict in the Middle East. The American consumer is not confused by the surge rhetoric; he knows we are losing. He's not blind. He sees evidence of defeat every time he pulls up to a gas-pump. Tell me: Is $4 dollar per gallon gas a sign of victory or defeat? This isn't rocket science.
Once again, the individual battles and skirmishes in Iraq are meaningless; what matters is that America's ability to wage war has been greatly undermined. By the end of 2009, the troops will begin to withdraw or they will be left to fight with sling-shots and bows-and-arrows. The housing market is collapsing, the financial system is in meltdown phase, and the country is facing the greatest funding crisis in its 230 year history. Don't look for proof of America's defeat in Iraq. Look for it at home. Look for it at the pawn shops, the homeless shelters, and the growing number of empty sub-divisions which have turned into ghost towns. This is where one can see the true costs of the war; a war that was lost before the first bomb was dropped.
