[Home] [Home B] [Evolve] [Viva!] [Site Map] [Site Map A] [Site Map B] [Bulletin Board] [SPA] [Child of Fortune] [Search] [ABOL]

ADDICTED TO WAR -- WHY THE U.S. CAN'T KICK MILITARISM (UPDATED TO INCLUDE THE WAR IN IRAQ)

But Bush and his friends overlooked one detail -- that the people of Iraq might not go along with their plans!

Bush declared that he had "liberated" the people of Iraq and that he would bring them democracy. The Iraqis, quite naturally, were suspicious.

We know what happened after the British "liberated" our grandparents.

And we know what happened the last time the U.S. brought us "regime change" -- we ended up with Saddam Hussein!

If the past is any indication, the prospects for democracy in Iraq under U.S. tutelage are not good. The U.S. has overthrown many governments around the world, but the result has rarely been any kind of democracy.

Instead, the result has almost always been a brutal dictatorship.

It soon became clear that American "liberation" of Iraq came with strings attached.

"We didn't take on this huge burden not to have significant, dominating control." -- U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, April 2003 [87]

Bush appointed Paul Bremer III, a "counterterrorism" expert trained by Henry Kissinger, to head up the U.S. occupation of Iraq. U.S. oil company executives and bankers were assigned to look after the Iraqi oil industry and central bank. U.S. military officers were placed in charge of Iraqi cities.

We call it the corporate-military model of government. [88]

Bush promised to give "sovereignty" back to Iraqis, but he also made it clear that only a pro-American government would be acceptable.

George W. Bush: Of course! If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists!

Go to Next Page