Originally Posted by Frank777
You guys continually give the Bush admin way too much credit. I guess you figure that if Bush and Rove beat the Democratic brain trust they must be secret geniuses or something. They are not.
The types of plans you reference are continually drawn up by thinktanks and elitist groups. Yes, these guys have a pipeline into the White House (doesn't matter whoever is President) but that's a long way from claiming that the Bush administration planned the 9-11 attacks, or at the very least let them happen.
I have no great love for most neo-conservative positions, but I still think it is silly to imagine that a renegade neo-con group in the administration wanted to go to war with Iraq, so they let 19 Saudi Arabians bomb a US landmark and kill 3000 people. That position makes no sense.
I don't think that the Bush-administration planned 9/11, but I suspect very strongly that they awaited and knew that such an attack was on the way. You think this is unthinkable because of the thousands of deaths among americans, but we are talking here about politicians that are willing to accept victims and risks for major strategic gains.
The plan for the New world order was already tried by Bush Senior shortly after the Soviet-Union collapsed. Unfortunately for him, Clinton won the next two terms, and so the plan had to take a pause, but it didn't matter much, because the US managed to build and man military bases in Saudi Arabia.
I likewise don't think that either of the Bushes or Cheney or whoever is a genius, it's just simple might-policy and simple strategy: The US (-empire) won the coldwar, the Soviet-empire collapsed leaving a powervaccuum in parts of the world, like Asia and the middle-east, which the US decided to fill before regional powers would do so.
Iraq was on the verge of developing nukes, and since nukes guarantee souvereignity and independence, Iraq had to be bombed back to stone-age.
Of course the US could not simply bomb Iraq without a due and visible justification, at least not in 1990/91, ie. before 9/11.
Therefore the US convinced Kuwait to conduct an economical war against Iraq, and made a security-contract saying that in the case of an invasion by Iraq, the US would protect Kuwait. What Kuwait should do and did was to manipulate the price of oil by drastically overproducing oil, therefore driving the price of oil down, and then to drill, ie. steal oil from Iraq's oil-field at the border to Kuwait.
The analysis was made that Iraq would react with an invasion, and therefore allowing the US to cry foul and to intervene. Iraq's leadership on the other hand knew of the possibility of such an intervention, but was deliberately misled by the US, that made efforts to get cozy with Iraq. Not only that, the US assured Iraq, that it would not intervene in any border-conflict between arabs and arabs, and more: The US told Iraq, that it could take and keep the northern part of Kuwait.
Lies are a very strong instrument in the US' foreign policy. The goal of such lies was not only to provoke Iraq into an invasion of a neighbour that led an economic war against it and stole oil, but also to pressure Saudi Arabia into allowing US-troops to be stationed there. In fact, the US began stationing its soldiers in Saudi Arabia days before Saudi-Arabia officially "invited" the US to do so. The reasoning for such an act was the lie (Dick Cheney was over there), that Iraq's armies were on the way through Kuwait to conquer Saudi-Arabia.
Forged satellite-images were used to present the case to the Saudis...
After the war, russian satellite-images debunked the claims.
In fact, had Iraq's regime wanted to conquer east-Saudi-Arabia, it would/should have done it before the US built up their forces there was completed. Up until October 1990, the US-forces brought there would have not been enough to repel Iraq's forces and the conquering of that part of Saudi-Arabia would have severely disturbed the coalition-forces' setup. It was a big strategical error of Iraq not to have done it.
Regardless the war threw Iraq back into stone-age, because the coalition forces chose to destroy alot of infrastructure, from bridges to electricity-facilities, from dams to sewages.
Iraq's army on the other hand deliberately set fire to Kuwait's oil-fields before withdrawing.
A regional power that was on the brink of developing the nuke was neutralised, and the US could build military bases in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia lost the respect of the islamists throughout the world because it sided with the US and Israel, and subsequently tried to regain favour by drastically increasing financial support for radical islamists in the ex-Soviet-states in Central Asia, donating Qurans and building mosques, recognizing the Taliban-regime and helping it against the North-Alliance...
Point is the US, like any other state would do with the same power and influence, uses its power in unethical ways in order to get through its interests. In this case the interests were: a)helping its ally Israel, b)gaining more direct access to its crucially needed ressource oil and c)throwing Iraq back into stone age, preventing a nuclear Iraq, toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime...
The latest point, the US wanted to be done by shias and kurds inside Iraq. The US' CIA called them to rebel against the Baath-regime with the promise that the US would help them. Dick Cheney and George Bush senior chose against a direct regimechange, because it would have broken up the alliance formed, and also because of the casualties US-soldiers would have to endure in urban warfare, and because the US didn't want to have the headaches of taking Iraq and trying to control and govern it.
Instead they figured the weakened regime would be easily toppled by kurdish and shia rebellions, but it didn't work out, the kurdish and shia uprising got brutally crushed.