Creating our own apocalypse

[Previous Page] [Next Page] [Up] [Home Page] [Search] [Contents]

Potential consequences of Bush's planned invasion of Iraq (Oct 02)

"...we should not underestimate the capacity of well-run propaganda systems to drive people to irrational, murderous, and suicidal behavior."

--Noam Chomsky, page 69 of "9-11"

It's Halloween eve, and this article is scary. But it is neither trick or treat. In concerns what is likely to happen to our nation in the near future.

In October 2002, a substantial majority of our elected representatives in both Houses of Congress tarnished their political careers (and the way they will be viewed by all future generations of mankind) by voting to authorize President George W. Bush's plan to unilaterally launch a "regime changing" military invasion of Iraq. Many of these politicians attempted to justify their actions in this regard with a rationale like "If we speak to the Iraqis with 'one voice', it will increase the chances that Saddam Hussein's regime will capitulate without actually requiring a military invasion."

In his book "9-11", Noam Chomsky points out our own government's official documents define terrorism as, "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done though intimidation, coercion, and instilling fear." So! According to our own government's definition of terrorism, all of those Congressmen and Senators who voted in favor of President Bush's plan to invade Iraq have in effect CERTIFIED THEMSELVES as terrorists! Most people would probably add to that definition something like "the cold blooded killing of innocent men, women, and children to attain such goals." The way things are going, those same Congressmen and Senators are likely to end up certifying themselves as terrorists according to that definition as well.

President Bush likes to claim that "We are a nation of peace", but such a claim is in fact a BIG LIE! Within our borders, our nation is at least trying to be a nation of peace, but the history of our government's conduct beyond our borders is an entirely different story. As Joel Andreas points out in his publication "Addicted to War", between 1898 and 1934, the US Marines invaded Cuba 4 times, Nicaragua 5 times, Honduras 7 times, the Dominican Republic 4 times, Haiti twice, Guatemala once, Panama twice, Mexico 3 times, and Columbia 4 times. During the Cold War, the US military intervened militarily in foreign countries more than 200 times. And, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out in numerous publications, in Latin America, the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Southeast Asia, our government has often engaged in terrorism, trained and encouraged others to engage in terrorism, and sponsored terrorist organizations. For decades now, the US "School of the Americas" (now called "The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation") has trained hundreds of terrorists who have murdered far more men, women, and children than the Al-Qaeda is alleged to have killed. Indeed, those responsible for the bombing of New York's World Trade Center in 1993 and the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001 were initially trained as terrorists by OUR government! Overseas, our own government has been one of the most war-like institutions in the world! It's no wonder why "anti-Americanism" is so rampant in many parts of the world. To make matters worse, rather then attempting to correct this problem, President George W. Bush is now planning to do more of the same! Millions of people overseas view our government's tirades against terrorism as being "like the pot calling the kettle black."

Although our government normally attempts to justify it's brutal actions as "fighting communism" or "supporting freedom fighters", many recognize that such "foreign policies" are often designed to support the interests of US-based corporations (especially in Latin America). That "shoe" fits President Bush's plans to invade Iraq as well. But in this case, Bush's planned military invasion could easily create the opposite of the intended effect for American corporate interests, because his plans are based on some highly dubious assumptions or hopes:

1. They assume or hope that Saddam Hussein's own henchmen will depose him in order to stave off the attack. Some of them might, but that still wouldn't create the "regime change" that President Bush is looking for, and Saddam has proven to be brutally effectively as defending himself against such plots.

2. They assume or hope that the Iraqi people (forgetting the loss of their loved ones in the 1991 Gulf War and the loss of the million or so Iraqi women and children who have died because of the US-led economic sanctions since then) will "welcome their American liberators with open arms" rather than sniping them out of existence.

3. They assume or hope that they can quickly "take" all of the major cities in Iraq in a relatively short time and with minimal American casualties. US troops were able to "take" Kuwait City in a relatively short amount of time, because most of the Iraqi defenders had fled north by the time the attack began. Northern Alliance troops were able to "take" numerous cities in Afghanistan in a relatively short amount of time, because in most cases the Taliban defenders had fled into the mountains before the attacks began. But where are the Iraqi's going to flee this time? Into the desert where they would be "sitting ducks"? Door-to-door fighting through narrow city streets can be VERY costly for an invading force. And if the Iraqis actually do have weapons of mass destruction, as the Bush Administration claims, they will almost certainly attempt to lure large numbers of American troops into traps where such weapons can be effectively used. We could end up losing more troops in a month or so than we lost during the entire Vietnam War!

4. The assume or hope that friends, relatives, or sympathizers of the victims of such an attack won't seek revenge against the US Government by imitating the dirt-cheap terror tactics demonstrated by the recent Virginia/Maryland/Washington DC area sniper episode. It appears that at least one of the two culprits may have had enough of a guilty conscience to go out of his way to provide police with clues to their identity. In the future, we might not be that lucky. Our government has traditionally assumed that it can commit acts of terrorism without fear to retaliation. Reagan's attempt to use fighter-bombers to assassinate Kadafi and Clinton's use of cruise missiles to destroy training camps in Afghanistan and a life-saving pharmaceutical plant in Sudan are three of the better-known examples. But the retaliatory destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie and the destruction of New York's World Trade Center Towers clearly show that such assumptions no longer hold true in today's world. As has happened in Israel, the Bush Administration's reliance on "might makes right" policies are likely to turn the United States into a "combat zone run by a police state."

5. Finally, they are assuming or hoping that the 600 to 900 billion dollars that Arabs have invested in American businesses won't be "cashed in" if the US ends up killing another million or so Iraqis. Such a rapid outflow of cash would not only cause our stock markets to crash, it would instantly force MANY American corporations into bankruptcy!


Now, from a religious point of view:

Gal 6:7 (The Living Bible)
Don't be misled; remember that you can't ignore God and get away with it: a man will always reap just the kind of crop he sows!

Rev 13:10 (New King James)
He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword...

The position taken by the politicians who voted to support Bush' planned invasion is essentially, "To Hell with the rule of law. We can protect the American people from the anarchy of the national sovereignty system by adhering to the principle that 'might makes right.' A foreign policy based on violence and extortive threats of violence is quite acceptable to us, because such policies cause death and suffering among others rather than us." As anyone can see, these politicians are following the teachings of Satan rather than God.

Problems like terrorism, wars, famines, arms races, and world-wide environmental pollution are all symptoms of mankind's need for a true world government (i.e. the often censored alternative to such problems). As pointed out in earlier articles on this web site, the present Bush Administration has been doing everything it can to prevent such a peaceful alternative from evolving into a reality. Such efforts really ARE satanic. From God's point of view, those who are engaging in such efforts are the ones who are ultimately CAUSING problems like terrorism, wars, famines, arms races, and world-wide environmental pollution. Their lack of concern for the truth and flagrant violations of God's commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves are KILLING people-literally! The time has come for those who DO take God's commandments seriously to SPEAK OUT about these things.

(one grain of salt)

[Previous] Another War in Iraq?
[Next] Email, Links, etc.
[Up] Home Page
[Home] Home Page
[Search] Search www.onesalt.com
[Contents] www.onesalt.com Contents

Last modified on Thursday, October 31, 2002