As predicted, the United States is using Iraq as a launching pad to attack other (non-Jewish) countries

US hidden agenda in Iraq security agreement
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?idY060&sectionid510303

...One of the sticking points in the agreement is that the US has
demanded absolute powers in the so-called anti-terror fight which
would undermine Iraq's sovereignty. In fact, the agreement gives the
US the blank check to render its own definition of terrorism in the
world. In plain language, Iraq will remain a killing field so the US
military may implement their policy of terror and coercion in the
region.

The agreement artfully drafted by US officials will not only
jeopardize the Iraqi sovereignty but will also give the US military
the right to use Iraq as a launching pad for attacks against other
countries, including Syria and Iran.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who Watches While the US Invades - Again
http://www.truthout.org/110108A
Saturday 01 November 2008
by: Marcia Mitchell, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Has anyone in Washington noticed? The new US raids into Pakistan
and Syria are, as was the invasion of Iraq, in blatant violation of
international law. But who's keeping track of this sort of thing?
Certainly not senior US officials, who apparently have weighed the
negative consequences of illegal military operations against their
perceived benefits and opted in favor of the latter.

Washington officials apparently reason that relations with Syria,
already damaged over the attacks, may well be mended with the arrival
of a new occupant in the Oval Office, given that country's desire for
an improved relationship with the United States. Possibly, but not
certain. And what may work with Syria may not work with Pakistan;
further, what may work with leaders of these countries may not work
with their enraged citizens. There is no question that US raids
launched from Iraqi soil only add to this latest downward spiral into
Middle Eastern mud.

It is fair to ask if anyone in Washington has noticed of late that
Chapter VII of the UN Charter clearly establishes the rules for one
country attacking another, rules to which this country is a signatory.
International law provides three reasons for use of arms against an
enemy - defense against imminent military attack, an overwhelming
humanitarian catastrophe, or a UN Security Council resolution.

(Regime change, now used as justification for having invaded Iraq,
is specifically precluded as a reason for war. But again, no one seems
to be noticing that toppling Saddam became a flawed justification once
Weapons of Mass Destruction proved to be among the missing.)

Perhaps concern over these new forays across foreign borders is
unwarranted. Certainly, selective raids against Syria and Pakistan
hardly amount to war. But they are acts of aggression, plain and
simple. The fact that this sort of cross-border incident is
commonplace around the world is no reason for the United States to
continue this sort of operation.

The announced objective for doing so is killing or capturing
al-Qaida terrorists; the downside is the possibility of killing
innocent civilians - children in schools, families celebrating a
wedding, farmers working their fields. Add to the political calculus
the certainty, not the possibility, of further infuriating and
alienating other countries, both those considered friendly and those
not so friendly. At this moment in history, it's hard to imagine a
worsening of America's image abroad, but Washington seems determined
to do so before the present administration leaves office.

Our recent book, "The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War," the story of
British secret service officer Katharine Gun's efforts to at least
derail the Iraq war, offers two relevant quotes worth thinking about,
given these new attacks on Middle Eastern countries.

Richard Perle, sharing bellicose thoughts before the Iraq war, a
war he saw as being insufficient to get the job done, said:

"No stages. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of
enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first
we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq ... this is
entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of
the world go forth, and we don't try to piece together clever
diplomacy, but just wage a total war ... our children will sing great
songs about us years from now."

Most Americans must doubt that Perle's children's choir will
perform as he predicted. Instead, they will consider his expectation
consistent with a failed political culture, one that finds illegal
"total war" preferable to "clever diplomacy."

Another especially relevant quote coming from the Katharine Gun
story is attributed to CIA Director Michael Hayden, who was at the NSA
helm in 2003 when Gun revealed that agency's illegal spy operation
against members of the UN Security Council. It also has to do with a
political culture:

"I'm not too uncomfortable with a society that makes its bogeymen
secrecy and power ... making secrecy and power the bogeymen of
political culture, that's not a bad society."

But it is. At the moment, Hayden-esque bogeymen seem to be making
decisions that are turning much of the world against the United States
- decisions paid for in the currency of thousands upon thousands of
lives lost and maimed, of millions displaced, of America's shattered
image abroad, and of new raids of doubtful legality.

There is no question that Perle's position on the Middle East was
shared by a significant number of his pro-war colleagues, many still
in high places in Washington. After more than five years of war, his
words cast an ominous shadow over strategic planning sessions in
Washington. And they bring to mind dangerous bogeypersons bent on
total war, perhaps not just raids on Syria and Pakistan.

Is anyone noticing?
»
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]