I think the basis of the problem (the problem being: this endless stupid debate as seen in this thread, other threads, other forums, discussions on TV, in the street, in bars and cafeterias) is the recent illusion the existence of organizations like the UN and certain conventions have pulled off.
What ever happened to good ole "we're bigger, stronger and we don't really need an excuse, so you're going down"?
Who, apart from people with lots of time in their hands and not enough balls to scratch, cares if they have a valid "reason" or whatever the crap? As if suddenly in 60 or so years the way humanity conducts its self-destructive games for thousands of years has changed...
Oppose it - sure - just don't try to find a "snag" or a "hole" in the reasoning as if it's some high-level philosophical matter: it's just ****ing apes with projectile firing apparatuses instead of sharp sticks for ****'s sake - that's what it boils down to.
Here is the sentence in The Age of Turbulence, the 531-page memoir of former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan, that caused so much turbulence in Washington last week: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." http://www.globalpolicy.org/se ... /oil/2007/0925oilgrab.htm
So even the ex head of the Fed recognises that the whole illegal war is about making some of Bush's oil pal's even richer, cus that's whats important isn't it !
And it's great to see people like you supporting the US party line that 'we only did it for the iraqi people'
Despite the fact that the US put him into and kept him in power.
Do grow up and read some REAL history rather than believing all you hear from your 'Big Brother'
We lost the Soviet system only to see it replaced by the US system, guess some things never change ..........
I am unable to find, in your link, any support for your assertion. Furthermore, the "Introduction" page of that website, gives reason for regarding it as at least uncertain that there will even be any permanent bases. If there were any permanent bases, however, it would not surprise me if they were located in the general proximity of oilfields (or even distribution centers) rather than in the middle of cities, since locating a military base within a concentrated population center would likely be inconvenient for everyone concerned, while locating one near oil facilities would be useful for defense/deterrence of any attacks on what your other linked website states to be, even in Saddam Hussein's regard, "Iraq's most precious natural resource."
I note that your entire statement, above (except for the last, separate sentence), is directly quoted from that website (for which reason, it would be stylistically proper to give credit to the actual writer of it, btw - at least, by enclosing it all within quotation marks; and this is not the first time that you have behaved in such a way).
Anyway, as chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan was neither a member of the US Presidential Cabinet, nor a member of Congress, so I don't have any reason for supposing that he has any specialized knowledge on the subject of US intelligence or military affairs. He is, of course, entitled to have his own opinions, as other American citizens do, although I haven't read his book, so I don't know - nor does your linked website present - any basis for supposing what might have informed the opinion that he has expressed, here (which, btw, does not include any assertions about the war's being "illegal," nor about "making some of Bush's oil pal's [sic] even richer"). Furthermore, "about oil" is a pretty nebulous statement, anyway; it is well known to pretty much everybody, that its being a source for oil, is the predominant reason that the Middle East, generally, is notably significant to the USA. One should be careful about conjecturing from this, specific accusations about what were the purposes of the Iraq War.
I did, however, have a look at that website, generally, and found it to be troubling. Yet I also found it to be, apparently, representative of the views of Iraqi insurgent groups, rather than those of Iraq's elected government, or otherwise seeking to provide an inclusive examination of its subject, and without citations to show factual bases for its assertions.
I also noted, particularly, that it continues to represent "Haditha" as an atrocity committed by US soldiers, although 7 of the 8 accused soldiers have been exonerated, with the 8th case still in process, on a charge that is not significant to the basic assertion that there was any atrocity, committed. Of course, some may wish to argue that this represents a "cover-up," by the USA, of "war crimes" that it committed. Others have argued that these soldiers were put through personal hell, insofar as being so charged, in order to satisfy public-relations concerns, by demonstrating that the USA was not ignoring/condoning any alleged atrocities by its soldiers.
This is neither any "US party line," nor is it consistent with what I have written.
I have already addressed this.
History is perhaps more complicated than your own understanding of it. George Orwell was a novelist, and one should be careful to avoid extending his ideas beyond what they were.
The Soviet Union conquered territories and enslaved their peoples, under totalitarian, communist rule. This does not recognizably characterize the "US system."
