What I have learned in my life is that whatever a politician in a modern democracy says, when it comes to formulate foreign policy, is guaranteed not to be the truth.
The true goals are always hidden, because stating them publically, opens them up to critical analyses and more likely than not cause the public to not support them or worse to prevent their execution.
So, what politicans then do is to put up other fictive goals that when executed achieve the same result as the true goal, but it has the advantage that it can be criticized to death, and then be replaced by another fictitious goal, that achieves the same result.
In the case of the US, the true goal after 9/11 was to use the opportunity to exploit other countries, ie. to steal their ressources, companies and assets and to allow american companies to make a hell lot of profits.
But stating that goal publically would have caused a public outcry and revolt, causing the US leadership to be toppled and the execution to be prevented.
So what did the american politicians do? They camouflaged their true goals with goals that are way more sellable and agreeable.
9/11 was committed by Al-qaeeda a group that had its headquarter in Afghanistan and was protected by the Taliban.
The goal to punish them and to either kill or arrest the planners is understandable, and can be defended before and sold to the public. But in Afghanistan there is, except for making possible the establishment of an oil-pipeline, nearly nothing to be gained materially, there is no oil and there are no companies and assets to be privatised, ie. to be stolen.
But there's is Iraq, with the third biggest oil-ressources in the world, with a lot of state-companies and assets.
The official reasons and goals stated, to disarm Iraq of it's WMD's, to topple a hostile dictatorship and liberate the iraqi-people... are as fictitious as interchangeable, do they happen to be debunked.
The real goals can be seen by Bremer's economic policies. Bremer was only a bit over a year in Iraq, but in that time he acted basically as a dictator, not one serving the interests of the iraqis, one serving american interests. Right against international law regarding occupation, he changed the laws of Iraq, privatised 200 iraqi companies, issued laws, that allow international companies to buy and own 100% of the iraqi companies, and a law allowing foreign owners of iraqi companies to bring out 100% of the profits made with these companies, without having to pay taxes in Iraq...
Some of these laws were taken back after foreign investors pointed out that they could be overthrown by a souvereign iraqi government with the reason that they were internationally illegal.
So what did the US do in order to get them through legally? They opted to create a souvereign government with a constitution, that would then voluntarily approve of the privatisation of the numerous companies and assets, including the most interesting one, the oil.
For the case that the souvereign government of Iraq could be against the privatisation of iraqi assets, the US saw it through that the IMF and the worldbank gets in control of Iraq's economy, through the instrument of debt-relief.
Debt-relief sounds good but it is conditioned on the allowance to let the IMF and the worldbank to organize Iraq's economy, and both of these follow the principles and methods tried by Bremer, namely to sell all iraqi assets to foreign investors, except for the oil-segment, where there should only be a partial foreign ownership allowed.
Even if the military occupation will be ended sometime in the future, the economic one will last much longer.
One of the worst changes is in the agricultural sector, where the new imposed laws will disallow iraqi farmers to secure their seeds and replant to their wishes and instead force them to buy seed from american companies every year.
Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
= SARCASM.
[/CENTER]
\
