Re: Scott Ritter: Iraq has no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq

["viveka" <kaliyuga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> The most important thing about this discussion with Scott Ritter, the
> former UN/US arms inspector in Iraq,  which comes from ZNet,  is not his
> estimate that the Bush administration is planning war on Iraq solely to
win
> congressional elections.  Ritter didn't operate at a level to know such
> things, and his speculation is worth no more than anyone else's.

I agree.  Further it would be overly simplistic to imagine the elections
would be the sole motive behind this endeavor, anymore than the war in
Afghanistan is exclusively about oil.

> Ritter's important information, which he knows quite a lot about
firsthand,
> is that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. .... the
> U.S. targets for the last 20 years have been countries that the U.S.
> imperialists believed did not have or had lost the capacity to resist
attack
> The White House and Pentagon have not been prone to deliberately take huge
> risks.

When I first circulated this article last week among some friends, I
suggested the very same thing.  How clever to have, with U.N. support,
eradicated their weapons system, and now insist war is necessary.....I
wonder that no one else has suggested this scenario?

> In my opinion,  since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait made his regime a
> relatively easy political target, the top ruling circles in the United
> States  have seen the overthrow of Saddam  as the road to turning Iraq
into
> a major protectorate and military base in the region, extending U.S.
> domination of oil routes and supplies, stabilizing the deteriorating
regime
> in Saudi Arabia, providing a base for attacking Iran, and dealing a big
blow
> to the Palestinian people..

Seems simple enough to me!
>
> The former Bush administration missed its chance at a second term partly
> because it failed in the 1991 war to achieve this goal.

But to follow your logic, and timing is everything here, they may have
recognized that the resistance and potential casualties were too high.
>
> Capitalist parties will do just about anything to win elections.  But the
> main way they win is by gaining and retaining the political and financial
> support of the capitalist ruling class by determinedly advancing their
> interests.  That's what Bush is trying to do in Iraq.

Seems clear to me.  If they can take over the largest (or one of the
largest) oil fields on the planet, with an investment of 60 billion and a
return of 100s of billions, not to mention the strategic control,
well......why not?  Isn't that what it's all about?

Tamara Bunke




~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.