REAL STORIES
BY REAL PEOPLE Search
Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Life before the U.S Military Operations in Iraq

Credit:

Prior to "Desert Storm" (which is the code name for the first war fought by President Bush senior against the Iraqi') what was the relationship between America and Iraq's governments?

There were no sanctions against Iraq by the United States prior to the Desert Storm mission. In fact America and Iraq maintained a cooperative business like foreign policy as America gave and sold weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein during his country's crisis with neighboring countries.

During that time Saddam Hussein was a valid asset and stood among many of the cooperative allies of the American government and he was supportive of the business establishments, he also had many welcomed visits from Donald Rumsfelt and purchased many weapons from the government via Mr. Rumsfelt.

The conclusion one must acquaint with this unanimity between Donald and Saddam Hussein is that both at that time were satisfied with what Saddam Hussein had done with his newly purchased weapons, even killing thousands of his own people so long as it served American interest.

But what were those interests and how did such devastation serve America? Throughout American history it is noted that forces have always been mobilized to undermine other countries that opposed America's policies or strategic agenda in some way. Usually the government would seek to cause regime change in other countries, striking those who didn't comply with America's foreign policies or overall agenda.

Essentially what was internationally accomplished by the covert actions of American government was to "stealthily" overturn the controlling figures in any foreign government to gain control of that nation, by replacing the leaders of that country with leaders who worked for American interest.

After the first war in Iraq hundreds of inspections were performed by thousands of America's weapons inspectors to ensure that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and to further ascertain Iraq's ability to develop any means to manufacture such weapons. All forms of import was blocked by the American and US allies which worked together to subdue and invade Iraq in an effort to force Iraq to submit to the will of America and also to turn masses of Iraqi's against Saddam Hussein.

This was accomplished without the blessings or legal sanctions of the United Nations (an act of war committed without UN authorization) and it was a premeditated preemptive maneuver that will be very contagious in the future.

To the rest of the world preemptive war will become popular for generations to come, as a result we can expect more of the same actions which are repugnant to the Geneva Convention, the tenements of the United Nations and the statues of the Constitution of America.

This was one of the most devastating consequences of launching the war on Iraq, which was the dangerous precedent it established. This war has represented a complete abandonment of U.S. foreign policy and international law for the past 50 years in favor of a new doctrine of preemptive strikes against potential or uncertain enemies. The precedent is dangerous not only for future American generations, but for governments around the world who have no military intentions against any other country. If preemption becomes internationally acceptable, who could for example prevent India and Pakistan, two nuclear powers that also happens to be border rivals, from invading one another to preempt the other from striking somewhere down the road?

This new found power of preemption could lead to countries striking other innocent people in neighboring countries in an effort to steal resources, land or for the expansion of its own boarders. Tentatively this political cannabis (the notion of preemptive strikes and the recognition that the United Nation has no legal authority or ability to govern the international body of countries any longer now that American government has disobeyed the UN's charter) could become an international nightmare as it will most certainly lead to a war on global terrorism during a time of the eternal world wars.

In essence the business of war will be normalized in every "white house" on earth and in every soldier's heart, the preemption of the enemy will be like "trigger happy cowboys" that we use to read about in good novels and in the old days watch on television, with the exception that everybody in every country will assume their own righteousness as they propel bombs by the thousands to other lands; and preemptively so.

Prior to the Iraqi conflict peace prevailed along with mutual business ventures between the two governments (America and Iraq) -- even though Iraq was engaged in unconventional practices that was categorically against the Geneva Convention and against many international human rights issues. As asserted by the media Saddam Hussein involved himself and his country in the invasion of Kuwait killing many thousands of people because he believed that Kuwait was oil property that originally belonged to Iraq. During this war on Kuwait America still maintained their alliances with Iraq and never mentioned any discomfort or never issued any warnings against Iraq nor her policies concerning their initial decision to invade Kuwait as Iraq continued to use many unconventional weapons of mass destruction against a somewhat defenseless nation.

While Iraq went about the destruction of a nation, murdering thousands of Kuwaitis, Saddam Hussein also killed thousands of his own people with no objections from his business associates in America, so he had every reason to believe that the American government would not interfere with anything militarily that he did in that region of the world. However he (Saddam Hussein) forgot one important thing about the arrangement between his country and America which was the security of the oil in Iraq and in Kuwait, the vested interest America had in these two nations' resources and America's vested interest in Israel which lead the animosity which resulted in the two wars in Iraq.

Iraq has never posed a principal imminent threat to America if one was to calculate the possibilities of the "War on Terror" emanating from any foreign nation. There are clues which point to many other private occupations that suggest that there are more dangerous possibilities of sought after terrorist anti-American cults which were more of a threat to America than Iraq or Iran.

Interpretations of public information suggest that money from the Saudi Royal Family has gone to support terrorists in nearly every stage of their operations. It seems strangely odd that President Bush had this royal family escorted out of the country on 9/11 the most important date of the war on terror.

North Korea has admitted to violating explicit agreements with the United States in pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Yet the President has instructed his diplomats in Asia that he does not want a conflict with North Korea. If Bush is willing to be restrained and practice diplomacy with the North Koreans, who we all know have nuclear weapons, then why was the President so desperate to get himself into a conflict with Iraq, whose nuclear capabilities were defunct during "Desert Storm" the first American Iraqi war?

Aside from the inferences and vague clues we have been allowed to examine over the issues of the 9/11 and the war on terror campaign we as Americans still find it impossible to conclude any real explanations or truth which has lead us to this vague war on a terrorist organization that has never been substantiated or authenticated as actual or real in the first place.

Osama Bin Laden's name came up quite a bit during the establishment of the initial campaign against a presumed terrorist organization, yet his name has become taboo as it has not been mentioned prior to or since the desert storm war. Neither Osama or his so called organization of terrorists have been identified by the FBI or CIA intelligences agencies as being the primary suspect behind the World Trade Center attacks, in fact it has been submitted by the FBI that this information is contrary to the intelligence that they had cited, stating Osama as having no connection to the World trade Center incident or to any terrorist organization.

Since this has publicly come out Bush has not mentioned Osama's name again (The man who was the primary reason for the war on terror) instead he has guided the nation into a war against Iraq to satisfy personal objectives.

How quickly people seem to forget that not so long ago, President Bush did not even want to seek the approval of the U.S. Congress, let alone the U.N (legal approval for the invasion of Iraq). Only after he had clearly and decisively lost the public debate on the issue did the president recant and seek approval from both bodies. And if this were not enough, the weekend after the U.N. Resolution on Iraq was passed; White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was on television saying that the United States could and would act alone against Iraq without approval from the U.N.

This accusation by Staff member Andrew Card certainly defined the war against Iraq as an illegal international campaign and it further stresses the criminality of the Bush Administration by invading and murdering Iraqi innocent people both combatants and civilians. Because the invasion goes against the policies of international law the act of aggression against Iraq would then place America in direct opposition to the Geneva Convention and to international laws, legal directives which have been established to protect the gradual issues concerning human rights and human progressiveness throughout the world.

The point here is not whether or not Saddam Hussein is a terrible dictator, or an oppressive ruler (he is); the point is that the Bush administration was shifting the nation's focus away from the War on Terror and toward the War on Iraq at a time when terrorist cells constitute a much more urgent threat against the nation than Iraq ever has, this is lawfully irresponsible and unconscionable. The fact that we had fought a war because of the terrible incident during the World Trade Center crisis was greatly understood but it was a war that was tremendously misguided in that we were fighting innocent people and we had invaded a non combatant government who had nothing to do with the initial WTC plot.

The Bush administration has tried their damnedest to find a link between Iraq and al Qaeda, but they just couldn't do it. The war on Iraq and the "War on Terror" are completely unrelated, no matter what any conservatives tell you there is no substantive relevant correlation between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or Saddam Hussein and Osama.

Perhaps the most offensive aspect of the Bush administration's sudden verbal attack on Iraq prior to the war was the timing of the policy shift. There were far more pressing issues with which the United States should have dealt with, both foreign and domestic. A war in Iraq has had financial costs in the trillions of dollars; the money has to come from somewhere, (the American people) but big corporations sustained large contracts and huge profits from the aftermath of these war campaigns.

Case against immediate war with Iraq
Mike Spangenberg
http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2002/12/05/Commentary/Case-Against.Immediate.War.With.Irag-337688.shtml

"For the first 10 months or so after the attacks on the United States, I couldn't count the number of times I heard the president say, 'We're going to smoke them out and hunt them down' or 'Wanted: dead or alive,' during the course of a week. All he talked about was Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and the War on Terror. Then, suddenly this summer, the Bush team stopped talking about Bin Laden altogether.

In fact, I don't believe he's uttered the man's name on television since June. Instead, the administration came out of nowhere with threats against Iraq and its ruler, Saddam Hussein. Now, I can't imagine what could have possibly happened recently (Nov. 5) that would cause the administration to abruptly shift its focus from the War on Terror, which was producing no visible figurehead captives for Americans to latch onto, to a war against a man who has already been demonized during the first Gulf War."

Before The War And Before 9/11 What Where You Doing?

Before the U.S military operations in Iraq occurred, although there was the problem of a dictatorial regime in Iraq there were also beautiful buildings, monuments, schools, hospitals, municipal transportation, happy children playing in the streets and living people going to worship in the mosques (A mosque or its Arabic name, masjid is a place of worship for followers of the Islamic faith) five times a day.

The architecture of most of these buildings was Islamic by nature, beautifully crafted with many of the municipal edifice housing great wealth and genuine artifacts. Prior to these two wars there existed a mild sort of unity between the different sects of Iraqi Muslims, a peace that may have been governed by Saddam Hussein's presence.

Now that we have removed Saddam Hussein from power we may have instigated new rivalry, a civil war between two peaceful neighbors. In effect this is very significant because the commitment that America has promised the Iraqi's to complete in its efforts to secure the new government has essentially bound America and the American people to a civil war which has nothing to do with the "war on terror", the World Trade Center destruction and this commitment continues to overextend the military financially and as it relates to needed manpower so that the actual fight against terror can't possibly be reached in any area or any other region on earth should we find terror lurking under the skirt of another country. I

t is believed and publicly published that the Iraqi people are delightfully satisfied with the intervention of the American government and that they want them to remain in Baghdad to assist in securing the new government. This belief is one born of carefully crafted propaganda, and international media control. It is highly improbable that anybody who has undergone an invasion, two wars, and who have witnessed the destruction of public and private property, plus the murder of their innocent children, and their families would be satisfied with the invaders.

The chant in Iraq was not unlike those in many other parts of the world today, they (the people of Iraq) vigorously reiterate "Yankee Go Home."

If Iraq is no threat to the USA. You (SOLDIERS ) are not defending your country. There were no WMDs. Even Bush admits Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th attacks."
~ George W. Bush, 2003-09-17

Iraq suffers many new problems as a result of these wars and fewer solutions to the old tribulations. In a few key areas - electricity, the judicial system and overall national security - the Iraq that America handed back to its residents is worse off than before the war began, according to calculations in a new General Accounting Office.

Published on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 by Knight-Ridder
Iraq is Worse Off Than Before the War Began, GAO Reports
by Seth Borenstein

"The 105-page report by Congress' investigative arm offers a bleak assessment of Iraq after 14 months of U.S. military occupation. Among its findings:

-In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces.

-Only $13.7 billion of the $58 billion pledged and allocated worldwide to rebuild Iraq has been spent, with another $10 billion about to be spent. The biggest chunk of that money has been used to run Iraq's ministry operations.

-The country's court system is more clogged than before the war, and judges are frequent targets of assassination attempts.

-The new Iraqi civil defense, police and overall security units are suffering from mass desertions, are poorly trained and ill-equipped.

-The number of what the now-disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority called significant insurgent attacks skyrocketed from 411 in February to 1,169 in May."

Desperate for work of any kind, Iraqis do what they must, even though an affiliation with Americans makes them targets.
Thus the American intervention is costing the Americans more money to sustain the peace efforts and more lives on all sides.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0629-10.htm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/81306/Iraq-Before-After-War-



About the Writer

Credo is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

8 comments on Life before the U.S Military Operations in Iraq

Log In To Vote   Score: 8
By Rose Mountain on October 18, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Great article Credo. Have you seen BBC News 3-Part Documentary "Power Of Nightmares", Part 3 on US neoconservatives created the myth of a global network of terrorism which doesn't exist & Bush/Blair use to create fear in society. See my articles for links. Rose Mountain
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 8
By Credo on October 19, 2007 at 01:09 am
I appreciate the props Rose Mountain I need all the kudos I can get, thanks. No I haven't seen the documentary on BBC news but I am fully aware of those facts, I will be checking into these issues further. Also I welcome any research guidance that you could afford so your article will be my next stop. Thank you again Credo
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 7
By Creedon on December 01, 2007 at 05:37 pm
Well written article on a topic that needs more of the spotlight shun upon it.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 2
By Lucy Ong on September 15, 2010 at 06:42 pm

Republicans believe a president lying about his private life, an extramarital affair, is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for an invasion in which millions have died, and bankrupted America, is solid defense policy.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Credo on May 07, 2011 at 12:19 am

Interesting comments, thanks again guys

Credo

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Credo on October 22, 2013 at 08:20 pm

REPOST

By Lucy Ong on September 15, 2010 at 06:42 pm

Republicans believe a president lying about his private life, an extramarital affair, is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for an invasion in which millions have died, and bankrupted America, is solid defense policy.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By riginal on October 23, 2013 at 12:20 pm

Yeah Credo well done. I wrote a piece while back on the subject as i happened pon a debate on Australian tele whereupon a former Prime Minister Malcom Frazer, in hindsight, said the same as youself and also the fact that Australia was very relunctant against any incursion into Irak.Funny though how people in power who could have done more and had the power to sway so...always seem so self righteous in hindsight and when their memoirs are published. But then what else would you expect?

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By Credo on October 23, 2013 at 07:15 pm

The cost of these escapades alone makes the war financially prohibited, not to mention the wasted lives spent needlessly.

Thank you riginal, I cretainly appreciate your comment...

:)Credo

 Report abuse



Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.


Rate This Article


Your vote matters to us



x


x