Somebody needed to point out the obvious and a former Reagan appointee summoned the courage to write it. In today's CounterPunch, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration Paul Craig Roberts writes that Bush & Blair hold a great deal of the responsibility for the London terrorist attack and those that will surely follow.
Here's an excerpt:
Here's an excerpt:
Why do Americans think it is heroic and honorable for our troops to massacre Iraqis with bombs, missiles, gunships, tanks, and heavy machine guns, but cowardly and barbaric when our victims fight back in the only way they can?To read the whole column, go here.
The US and Britain started this fight, not Iraq. We should be ashamed that Bush and Blair deceived us, tricked us into a pointless and unjust war, and that innocent people on both sides are paying with their lives and limbs for Bush's and Blair's lies. Our real anger should be directed at Bush and Blair who are responsible for the deaths and destruction.
Bush and Blair started it? Waitaminute. Who was it that invaded Kuwait in 1990? Who was it that was playing all kinds of stupid and pointless (unless they were hiding something) games with the UN weapons inspectors in the late 1990s? Also, there's this:
ReplyDeleteMay 22 2003
The UN security council votes 14-0 to lift sanctions on Iraq and hand temporary control of the country to the US and Britain. Syria boycotts the vote.
Shouldn't they be mad at the UN?
Check this out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html and then tell me if you still think that guy is right.
Okay, I checked out the link you provided. It provided a sterile chronology that neglected to include pertinent facts re each event.
ReplyDeleteI STILL think Paul Craig Roberts is dead on target.
My posting of that timeline was only meant to point out this whole mess wasn't started by Bush/Blair. I guarantee you if Hussein hadn't invaded Kuwait, we wouldn't even be talking about this. Same goes if he'd complied fully with the UN weapons inspection teams, or hadn't gassed his own people. Maybe we don't have to play police force of the world, but letting it happen seems more barbaric than ousting the guy responsible for such evil.
ReplyDelete"Dead on target"? Are you kidding? He's so far off-target it's sad. The guy doesn't substantiate his claim that Bush and Blair are "war criminals", and then he goes on to imply the US/UK forces are deliberately "slaughtering" Muslims indiscriminately, when this is simply not so. Innocent civilians get killed in wars ("collateral damage" - it sucks, and just because it happens doesn't make it okay, but still...), especially ones that have to be waged in populated areas, because the enemy combatants are hiding among the civilian populace. Most likely, they do so not only for the tactical advantage (they're harder to find), but to gain sympathy and sway public opinion against their enemy.
And his argument that the US is trying to "impose its will on the Muslim world" is also ludicrous. We're not trying to intimidate the Muslim world, or eradicate Muslims from the planet. We're just trying to stop the terrorists.
"Pointless and unjust war"? I bet the Iraqi Olympic Team got the point, and would disagree that it was unjust. No more fear of torture or death from the Hussein boys. What's the point now? We're still over in Iraq fighting because a small segment of the population over there doesn't want a democracy, so they kill Iraqi civilians as well as their own police force.
"Even-handed diplomacy"? With whom? The terrorists we can't find? If we did find them, they'd probably just as soon kill our envoys since they are "infidels"? You tell me exactly how you negotiate with the kind of people who engage in acts like suicide bombing. And why are we the ones who have to extend the olive branch, anyway? Couldn't you argue that the terrorist insurgents in Iraq should try opening diplomatic channels instead of planting IEDs all over the place?
He's spot-on regarding one thing, though: the war needs to be wound up quickly.