Reply With Quote
Incompetent? Perhaps.
War criminals? Give me a ing break.
Maybe people already know this, but Paul Bremer (architect of the original Iraq war strategy) started a business called Crisis Consulting Practice in November 2001, after his previous business was destroyed in 9/11.
"In November 2001, shortly after he launched his new counterterrorism company, Crisis Consulting Practice, Bremer wrote a policy paper for his clients explaining why multinational corporations faced increased risk of terrorist attacks at home and abroad. In the paper, en led "New Risks in International BUsiness", he told his elite clients that they faced increased dangers because of the economic model that had made them so wealthy. Free trade, he wrote, has lead to "the creation of unprecedented wealth," but it has "immediate negative consequences for many." It "requires laying off workers. And opening markets to foreign trade puts enormous pressure on traditional retailers and trade monopolies." All these changes lead to growing income gaps and social tensions", which in turn can lead to a range of attacks on U.S. firms, including terrorist attacks."
(originally published in Viewpoint, Nov 2, 2001, accessed at www.mmc.com, republished in Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, p. 456-457)
I've been letting the Bush administration off the hook by saying they were incompetent for not knowing their war strategy and imperialist, disaster capitalism would lead to an increase in terrorism and unrest. But I've been too generous. They knew from the start. The very person they put in charge knew the risks - leading one to conclude that he just didn't care.
What level of Dante's would that put him in? Or, in secular terms, surely this is enough to bring Bremer, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield up on war crimes.
Incompetent? Perhaps.
War criminals? Give me a ing break.
I think intentionally going in and destroying a country's infrastructure for the sole purpose of making money for multinational corporations counts as a war crime.
I think you need to talk to Nbadan and Galileo. You probably have a lot in common with them.
Following that logic, we could have the whole Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch for at least the last 25 years, with all the big bussines's upper managment who have factories in the developing word brought under the same charges as well. Silly to say the least.
incompetence is an excuse when the guy at McD's runs out of nuggets
I'm failing to see the logical progression from publishing a policy paper on terrorism motivated by the negative consequences of free trade to intentionally starting a war in Iraq to destroy its infrastructure. Did destroying Iraq's infrastructure stimulate free trade?
I still can't believe Bush changed horses in the middle of the stream by ousting Jay Garner, Garner was admittedly overwhelmed but by several degrees less than the stunningly unqualified Bremer, and Garner had a plan to restore a modi of self-government in Iraq within 90 days. Bremer and his staff wore those ridiculous hiking boots with suits, which should have been enough of a sign what we were getting into with that choice -- a viceroy who simply didn't know what he was doing.
YES. The Iraq war was designed and manufactured to demolish a dictatorship (one we used to support, before he grew bored and refused to play by our rules) in order to establish a completely "free market" - the exact same play done in Chile under Pinochet, in Argentina, in Bolivia, in Poland, in Russia, etc, etc. Look at who has profited from the Iraq war - the only people who have profited, while the rest of the country lives in poverty and resorts to terrorism because they feel they have no other choice - Halliburton, Bechtel, and other multinational corporations.
Why would publishing a paper equate to ( or directly lead to) starting a war? One has little relation to the other, so it would appear. Your really way off base here.
Great Book!
"The Iraq war was designed and manufactured to demolish a dictatorship"
are you still believing this ? WMD was the bogus primary, before-the-UN justification, not taking out Saddam. The true reason was to grab Iraqi oil.
Don't forget to make a load of money for private companies on the taxpayers dime.
Really? You need me to connect the dots for you? OK, fine.
No one is saying that writing the paper=starting a war. What I SAID was that Bremer clearly knew before we went in to Iraq what the impact of his strategy was - meaning, it wasn't just a bumbling mistake. It was a calculated plan to make money for multinational corporations.
WMD was the excuse given, along with bogus links to Osama bin Laden, but taking out Saddam was always part of the plan, because he had grown less cooperative with American interests over the years. They needed him out of the way, not because Bremer, Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld cared what happened to Iraqis, but because they wanted control of Iraq's oil reserves.
just another reason why the looting aspect was allowed. Iraqi's now with some assets that would get thrown right back at the corporations in near time.
I thought everyone knew that the Republican party was backed by the oil companies. This isn't exactly news guys, we knew this back in 2001. Yes, Bush is a war criminal
It goes alot deeper than that. They wanted to set up an American "presence" in the Middle East in order to dictate oil prices for the whole region.
Bush wanted to dictate oil prices to record highs so that his party could lose two elections in a row. Got it.
How do conspiracy nuts sleep at night? Need to chill out and relax, come back to reality.
I'd be neat if 1/3rd of the posts in this forum weren't either attacking or defending conspiracy theories. I guess when people run out of news they let their imagination take over.
Sabar as guardian and holder of the True Reality is part of conspiracy to deny conspiracies.
War is huge $$$$$business, and huge business pay politicians to make war.
Great Book!
From her website:
Around the world in Britain, the United States, Asia and the Middle East, there are people with power who are cashing in on chaos; exploiting bloodshed and catastrophe to brutally remake our world in their image.
So, is Obama one of these people? or does this theory only apply to conservatives?
What chaos, bloodshed, or catastrophe is Obama using to 'brutally' remake our world?
Well he is in on it partially. He is ( or will be in the near future) using the financial and economic crisis as a platform from which certain reforms (which in the time of prosperity would/ could never be passed through congress and senate) will be passed. In that respect he is following the Chicago boys manual.
The difference however is, that contrary to the people of whom Klein speaks in her book, Obama or his party didn't ( and could't) intentionally create or help create ( nor did republicans or anyone else for that matter) this situation to benefit from it economically. So outta the 3 step shock doctrine policy, Obama gets one step right.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
