War on Terror looks like a fraud

[babylonsister]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GLE20070414&articleId=5386

War on Terror looks like a fraud
by John Gleeson

Global Research, April 14, 2007
Winnipeg Sun

Editor's Note

The following report, which acknowledges that the war on terrorism is a fraud, was published in one of Canada's mainstream daily newspapers, The Winnipeg Sun. Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan largely rests on the shaky premise that Canadian troops are fighting a "war on terrorism".


Contrary to the "patriots" who try to use the deaths of our soldiers in Afghanistan to stifle debate on Canada's involvement in the War on Terror, I would say that as new evidence presents itself, we would indeed be cowards to ignore it simply because we've lost troops in the field and are therefore blindly committed to the mission.

And new evidence is piling up around us, arguably strong enough to declare the whole War on Terror an undeniable fraud.

Virtually ignored by mainstream media, the Americans showed their hand this year with the new Iraqi oil law, now making its way through Iraq's parliament.

The law -- which tens of thousands of Iraqis marched peacefully against on Monday when they called for the immediate expulsion of U.S. forces -- would transfer control of one of the largest oil reserves on the planet from Baghdad to Big Oil, delivering "the prize" at last that Vice-President Dick Cheney famously talked about in 1999 when he was CEO of Halliburton.

"The key point of the law," wrote Mother Jones' Washington correspondent James Ridgeway on March 1, "is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy 'Federal Oil and Gas Council' boasting 'a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq.' That is, nothing less than predominantly U.S. Big Oil executives.

"The law represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth. It represents the death knell of nationalized Iraqi resources, now replaced by production sharing agreements, which translate into savage privatization and monster profit rates of up to 75% for (basically U.S.) Big Oil. Sixty-five of Iraq's roughly 80 oilfields already known will be offered for Big Oil to exploit."

While the U.S. argues that the oil deal will give Iraqis their shot at "freedom and stability," the International Committee of the Red Cross reported this week that millions of Iraqis are in a "disastrous" situation that continues to deteriorate, with "mothers appealing for someone to pick up the bodies littering the street so their children will be spared the horror of looking at them on their way to school."

more...

[DCKit]

1. "Looks like?" Ewww, that smell, can't you smell that smell....... n/t

[Demeter]

2. Can't Smell the Smell Over There 'Cause It Stinks Too Much At Home!

Maybe we throw garbage out of office and clear the air a bit....

[formercia]

3. Big Oil are a bunch of Pirates

that want to divvy up the spoils.

You can bet we won't see any benefit.

[durtee librul]

4. And again, WHERE is OUR media on this?

Three guesses and the first 2 don't count - head up *'s ass is a good start.

THIS SHOULD BE IN OUR NEWS!!!!! But won't see the light of day as our 'boys and girls' will be preoccupied with lil al and his gang.

Ok, so now the 'prize' is delivered - - can we bring our kids home now?

[marmar]

5. That much is clear....

It's been a six-year banquet of bullshit.

[whistle]

6. Yep!

[yurbud]

7. Brit MP Michael Meacher nailed it in 2003

I'm still waiting for this kind of honesty from a Democrat.

Every word of this is electrifying coming from an elected official and former cabinet member.

This war on terrorism is bogus


The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination

Michael Meacher
Saturday September 6, 2003
The Guardian

Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.


We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

***

The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html