I came across a very interesting perspective on the motivations behind the war on Iraq, and thought some of you would find it interesting. It comes
from an ultra-Conservative magazine, which generally, I have little in common with. It brought to light a few possible ulterior motives, however,
that hadn't even crossed my mind.
Why did we go to war against Iraq?
"The official reason was not to defend the United States against an attack like the September 11th atrocities. It was to enforce UN Security Council
Resolutions to disarm Iraq. — Editor"
"America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution  or not?... If Iraq fails to fully
comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."
— President George W. Bush
November 8, 2002, the day the UN Security Council
passed Resolution 1441
"The world needs him [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution
1441, or has it not?"
— President George W. Bush
press conference, March 6, 2003
"Coalition forces have commenced military operations in Iraq. These operations are necessary in view of Iraq’s continued material breaches of its
disarmament obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions, including 1441 (2002). The operations are substantial and will secure compliance
with those obligations."
— U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte letter to the president of the Security Council, March 20, 2003
"President Bush’s reversal from unilateralism to multilateral ism was entirely predictable. He is merely following the internationalist principles
that guide his administration.
The president had indeed sounded a welcome note of sovereign defiance. His biggest applause line on March 6 was his declaration that "when it comes
to our security, if we need to act, we will act. And we really don’t need United Nations approval to do so." Bravo! Well said! This was followed a
few seconds later with a bold reiteration proclaiming that "when it comes to our security, we really don’t need anybody’s permission." More
Despite President Bush’s go-it-alone bluster...the president had shown repeatedly, by deed as well as word, that he is a solid UN multilateralist, an
inveterate internationalist. That he is actually leading the effort to strengthen the UN.
...sandwiched in between the president’s March 6 remarks about not needing UN approval or permission was this statement by Bush: "I want the United
Nations to be effective. It’s important for it to be a robust, capable body." This was a repeat of similar statements he’d made dozens of times in
Over and over again, he has called for the UN to exercise authority that conservatives in the past always have argued the UN should never have... He
has time after time criticized the UN for being too weak and has called — implicitly and explicitly — for making it stronger. But by making it appear
that this is serving America’s national interest, he has disarmed those who normally would oppose such a radical shift in U.S. policy
The Bush administration’s pressure on the UN to enforce its resolutions is making it easier for the UN to claim the authority to do so, and to call on
the U.S. to provide it with the military muscle to do just that. By leading the charge on this issue, Bush is making it more difficult for fellow
Republicans to oppose UN empowerment
"... in the October 18 issue of the London Spectator. "The United Nations, far from being humiliated by recent events, could well emerge
invigorated, The more America has to backtrack and summon help from the UN, the more it will be the latter which will be seen as the winner in the
power struggle between the two
.... In sum, the results of the war in Iraq will probably be the very opposite of those for which it was launched.
The fires of terrorism will be fueled, not quenched; Iraq will not be a beacon of Western liberalism transforming the Middle East but a bankrupt
maelstrom of discontent; efforts to create a new power bloc to counter America will not fade away but redouble; the legitimacy of the United
Nations will not be weakened but strengthened; and the constraints on American power will be tightened, not removed."
"The president and his subordinates have made their intent transparently clear: The impending war on, or occupation of, Iraq is intended to carry out
the UN Security Council’s mandates, not to protect our nation or to punish those responsible for the September 11th attack. The war would uphold the
UN’s supposed authority and vindicate its role as a de facto world government."
"American servicemen and their families, weary of the burden of empire, would eagerly embrace transferring that burden to the UN" — a radically
empowered UN boasting its own standing military." www.thenewamerican.com...
"They knew for certain that the new Bush administration would end up taking a pro-UN, multilateralist course — even if it had to march under a
false, America First, unilateralist banner, in order to get patriots...onto the one-world bandwagon.
It strikes me as being highly possible that the U.N. needed the cooperation of the anti- U.N. Americans, in order to fulfill their goals. Since that
would have been virtually impossible, they set up a mock rebellion between Bush and themselves. All of the U.N. haters then think Bush has the U.N.
on the run and get behind him in support of the war (since he has now proven that he is good and won't lie to us). He set us up for a fall, so that
he could bring in the U.N. to save our @ss when it got too far out of hand.
What do you think? (Intelligent comments only please. I didn't post this in the mud-pit for a reason.