Why did we go to war with Iraq? All Original Content and Design© HiddenMysteries - TGS (1997-2007) Please send bug reports to the Information . The articles being presented and published are not necessarily the views or the research of TGS HiddenMysteries. TGS may or may not agree with the assumptions, the articles, or the conclusions of the authors. Each article is presented to give everyone every possible source to TRUTH available. Discerning TRUTH is the responsibility of each reader.
This author is still not clear on that fact. Weapons of Mass Destruction were the first reason given. Not simply WMDs - Americans were in imminent danger of being killed by Saddam Hussein's arsenal! That was proven to be imminently false, and certainly falsified. The fallback for the neo-conservative sheeple braying the Republican's Fascist/Socialist cattle call was that Saddam had been involved with terrorists. Again, not even terrorists - Hussein was a string-puller behind the September 11th attacks. And, again, this was proven false. Republicans are holding their ground at 'Hussein had a paper trail that led to key al-Qaeda leaders.'
What do they cite as evidence? The C.I.A. told them so. This is the same C.I.A. that we all now know flubbed their intelligence duties so badly that thousands of Americans died. Tenet has resigned in disgrace. Mentionable is that Tenet was voted in as the department's Director unanimously.
Another reason for war with Iraq that is being bandied about is actually plausible. It is this. We attacked the Hussein regime because they broke U.N. Treaties. Of course, Republicans who are bold enough to say this do so at their own risk. It is supposed to be the Repubs that are against the United Nations. The Democrats, conversely, love the U.N., but don't think breaking the world body's resolutions is reason enough for war. Oh, wait, it was good enough. The Democrats joined Republicans in voting for Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is only now that the Dems are against it. Ditto for the Patriot Act. Even with all the problems with the broken U.N. resolutions theory, it is the only theory that is provable. Saddam did break treaties.
All that is a prologue for my analysis of Sudan, and why we are not attacking that country. Because, another oft-heard argument in favor of Operation Iraqi Freedom is this: Saddam Hussein was a human rights abuser. Forget that U.S.-sponsored U.N. sanctions killed half a million people, many more than Hussein ever thought to kill; forget that the U.S. promised the Kurds protection during Gulf War I if they rose up against Saddam, and then we left them to the slaughter; forget that Communist China has been afforded a special seat in the world council despite its abhorrent practices; and forget the fact that the U.S. is guilty of human rights abuses against its own citizens, sponsors executions, and endorses infanticide.
If we forget this, then Saddam was clearly a tyrant. However, on this basis, America now must go into at least half the countries on the planet to stop exploitations. Who chooses which violation to confront first? What group decides which tyrant is the worst, and the second-worst, and on down the line as America marches into every country that commits atrocities? If the U.S. is to go against the Founders' views against entangling treaties, then someone should decide who is the worst, and we should attack them. There seems no better use of moral authority than in the Sudan.
Unfortunately, it is the globalists that are the decision makers. These same globalists destroyed Hitler, and then let Stalin thrive. Fox News pushed for war, and continues to be a defense mechanism for the Neo-con administration. Yet, they reported that the U.N. and the E.U. both admit intense problems in the Darfur region of Sudan. From Fox News, July 26, 2004: "EU ministers said they were 'alarmed at reports of massive human rights violations' perpetrated by Arab militants, 'including systematic rape of women.'"
What are we waiting for, Republicans. You suddenly oozed concern for your fellow man, Iraqis, yet turn your back on the rape and torture of a whole population of Sudanese. The U.N. reports that there have been over 50,000 deaths (same amount of Americans killed in Vietnam) and more than a million refugees. The Muslim militia, Janjaweed, has been doing this for 15 months! Where has our Christian moral authority got to?
So, for any and all who claim that my generation - volunteer soldiers, admittedly - is being killed to help people, I vehemently refute. Almost 1,000 Americans have died in Iraq as of July 2004. What is worse, our boys our being turned into torturers themselves. If we are in Iraq to stop a paradigm of terror and persecution, how is it that we now condone detentions without trials?
How do we absolve ourselves from our own persecutions? Abu Ghraib is only the tip of the American-torture iceberg. Americans have raped, tortured, beaten, humiliated, sexually molested, and subjugated Iraqis without a trial. This abuse was condoned by the top brass inside the Pentagon. This is OK, because the abused might be terrorists. Contrarily, many researchers claim that the men of Abu Ghraib were only regular criminals, with no information to give us.
There is another facet to the Sudanese puzzle that is not being reported by mainstream news. Again, I remind you that a reason for war with Iraq was purportedly because Saddam had ties to terrorists. Even mouthpieces like Sean Hannity admit that there is no direct tie to bin Laden. That is not the case in the Sudan. The Sudan was the second home of none other than the man behind 9-11, Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden became a detriment to Saudi Arabia. Sudan welcomed him in 1991. When he turned into the same kind of detriment to Sudan in 1996, they offered him up to the Saudis, who declined. He was then offered to Clinton. We declined. He was exiled to Afghanistan, yet his militant brand of Islamicism had taken root with many Sudanese. It is the teachings of bin Laden that has led to the riotous attacks against blacks in Darfur. And, did they actually expel bin Laden, or was he relocated to perform an agenda? The Washington Post, on May 1, 2001, stated, "Sudan continued to be used as a safe haven by members of various groups, including associates of bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization."
So, there is an erroneous paper trail from Hussein to one member of al-Qaeda. Yet, as recently as May, 2001 al-Qaeda had a base of operations in Sudan. President George W. Bush promised to rout out the terrorists, wherever they hid. Yet, here we are expending precious military resources in Iraq, after Hussein has been ousted. The terrorists in Sudan aren't even hiding; they are acting with brazen zealousness.
To top off the entire affair, the U.S. and U.N. went to the country to inspect it, much like we did in Iraq. Yet, the Sudanese government staged fake refugee camps, and the blacks were threatened if they talked to humanitarian workers. So, just as Hussein was accused of trying to dupe us, so too is Sudan attempting sleight-of-hand conning. Only, in this grift the prize is human life.
Finally, we end back at the beginning. If we are honest, we must all admit that we went into Iraq because we were told that they had weapons of mass destruction. Again, this has not been proven. The Center for Nonproliferation Studies has a far different picture to paint of the Sudan. CNS says that there is no confirmed evidence that the country has biological or ballistics missile capabilities. Yet, the truth is mounting that Sudan is a "transshipment point for nuclear smuggling," and "have acquired and used chemical weapons."
The Sudanese government has repeatedly refused to acknowledge U.N. or U.S. authority to stop human rights violations. Fair enough. But, what of the African population? The New York Sun reports. While the Sudanese rebels fighting Osama's militants and Janjaweed look like a typical third-world militia, they are anything but. "The leadership is a group of thoughtful members of western Sudan's intellectual community - professors, engineers, and other professionals who have become full-time soldiers to protect their people from genocide." They begged for the Sun interview. This allowed them to personally beseech, specifically, America to help them. They are being ignored.
Whether or not any of the reasons for Gulf War II are right or wrong, it is obvious that our politicians and fellow citizens are not willing to apply their theories universally. Saddam had no weapons at the time of war; Sudan does. Saddam may have had business ties to al-Qaeda, but these leaders LIVE in Sudan. Saddam broke U.N. resolutions, as has Sudan. Finally, Saddam persecuted political dissidents. In Sudan, you are raped and killed for being black, woman, child.
This is the moral authority on which the United States of America rests its head.
Erik Fortman is a writer and musician from Texas. Comments welcomed at email@example.com
This is a publication of TGS Services - Hiddenmysteries.org
Please direct all correspondence to
TGS HiddenMysteries, c/o TGS Services,
22241 Pinedale Lane, Frankston, Texas, 75763
HiddenMysteries.com Internet Store ~ HiddenMysteries Information Central
LifeTravellers ~ Reptilian Agenda ~ Texas National Press ~ TGS Publishers Dealers Site
All Rights Reserved
We welcome challenging viewpoints from all sources...even opposing viewpoints. In diversity of views we can still find the research and documentation valuable, whether we agree with the views of the author or not.
All Original Content and Design© HiddenMysteries - TGS (1997-2007)
Please send bug reports to the Information .
The articles being presented and published are not necessarily the views or the research of TGS HiddenMysteries. TGS may or may not agree with the assumptions, the articles, or the conclusions of the authors. Each article is presented to give everyone every possible source to TRUTH available. Discerning TRUTH is the responsibility of each reader.