Is It Really a “War On Terror”? Parts 1 & 2 of 11

I spent an entire day over the past weekend reading a couple of authors on News With Views. I then saved all the pieces to my computer. There was one in particular with quite a few articles to her name. Many of them have several parts. The next few postings will be introducing them here. The particular topic I’m starting with has eleven parts. I’ll put 2 to 3 parts in each posting.

I never voted for Bush, didn’t vote for his father either if you want the truth. I’ve never trusted him. When I saw him for the first time when he was running, I looked at his face on TV, saw his eyes and thought to myself, that man is evil personified.

Unfortunately, he hasn’t proven me wrong.


Deanna Spingola
August 20, 2005
To better understand our current “war on terror” it is incredibly important to briefly examine the more recent history of the United States relationships with the oil producing countries of the Middle East. We cannot presume to accurately evaluate today’s events in a vacuum. Nor can we evaluate the legislation of merely one administration. The insider agenda transcends administrations and decades. Our greatest omission appears to be our complacency in connecting the proverbial dots. This is aided and abetted by a complicit media promoting the party line while distracting us with the unimportant. As you read some of the following, relate it to plausible circumstances in our own country.

On Wednesday, 19 March 2003, by order of George W. Bush, General Franks invaded Iraq. They used a “Shock and Awe” aerial campaign against the ancient city of Baghdad. This was a “decapitation attack” [1] directed at Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and other top leaders. This war was the administration’s “target of opportunity”. [2] The attack included 1,663 United States aircraft (B-52, B-1, and B-2 bombers). They flew 20,753 combat missions dropping 18,467 smart bombs and 9,251 dumb bombs. The navy fired 802 cruise missiles. The professed objective of the invasion was the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. The invasion officially ended three weeks later on 9 April 2003 though we are still in Iraq under the auspices of establishing democracy. Ironically, this campaign was code named “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. A minimum of 22,850 civilians have died as a result of our current altruistic “save the citizens from Saddam” liberation efforts.

The planning and plotting that went into this “Shock and Awe” invasion is not without significance. One country is not supposed to arbitrarily attack another country without justification. There are three anticipated reasons for starting a war:

  • Accuse the current leader (dictator) of crimes against humanity.
  • Provoke them to attack us which requires a response – protect the homeland.
  • Convince the masses that the target is going to attack – cause for a preemptive war. Get them before they get us. This is not the foreign policy of our founding fathers. [3]

It wasn’t that we had not been in Iraq before. We were actually, at one time, on working terms with Iraq’s leader, an early CIA asset Saddam Hussein. To grasp current issues, we must place them into the context of Iraq’s relatively recent history.

Read the complete PART 1 here.


Deanna Spingola
August 20, 2005
Our interest in the Middle East has always been driven by our oil dependence. Could we have developed our own oil resources? Was it orchestrated obsolescence designed to create weakness and vulnerability? Our own resource development would have fostered a huge industry providing jobs and continued economic growth. What prevented that – socialistic government supported policies? Was it the activist environmental groups supported by tax free foundations set up by big money and covert power?
President Carter’s 23 January 1980 State of the Union Address defined our concerns. On 24 December 1979 the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, a relatively small defenseless but strategically positioned oil rich nation.[1] Carter responded to this invasion as follows: “The Muslim world is especially and justifiably outraged by this aggression against an Islamic people.” We were also outraged and denounced the Soviet aggression by imposing economic sanctions against them. We also refused to participate in the Olympic Games scheduled in Moscow.

Read the Complete PART 2 here.


~ by swfreedomlover on January 24, 2008.

One Response to “Is It Really a “War On Terror”? Parts 1 & 2 of 11”

  1. I find it interesting to note that one of the biggest reasons that we used WMD as an excuse to go into Iraq was that WE GAVE THEM TO HIM. Our GOVERNMENT, bless their evil souls, gave him both bio AND other WMDs. For what purpose one can only surmise. I guess they thought, (our government that is), that it would make Saddam a better ally for us against our enemies. We set him up in power and then took it back. Can you say “arrogant”?

    I didn’t vote for either Bush either. At least the elder bush could speak. This one seems to have gotten his education from a cracker-jack box. He is a total embarrassment to the country and I can’t imagine claiming him as MY son! God save us from the ignorant!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: