...The U.S. has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in a totally criminal enterprise - one of the greatest cons in history. ...

For the Bush White House, the good news from Iraq just never stops. But the joy that President Bush has expressed over the country's latest election, though more restrained than his infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech, will similarly come back to haunt him.
Soon after Bush spoke of the Iraqi election as "a landmark day in the history of liberty," early returns representing 90 percent of the ballots cast in the Iraq election established that the clear winners were Shiite and Sunni religious parties not the least bit interested in Western-style democracy or individual freedom -- including such extremists as Muqtada al-Sadr, whose fanatical followers have fought pitched battles with U.S. troops.

The great increase in U.S. bombing in Iraq does not help the U.S. win their illegal war.
It does make many more Iraqi casualties and many more opponents of the U.S. occupation and war making. The U.S. then calls them "terrorists", thereby attempting to justify even more bombing.
......It is not a war on terrorism in Iraq. The U.S. makes terrorists where there were none before. It is a war on civilians.

The American media continues to ignore the increasingly devastating air war being waged in Iraq against an ever more belligerent Iraqi resistance -- and, as usual, Iraqi civilians continue to bear the largely unreported brunt of the bombing.
When the air war shows up at all in our press, it is never as a campaign, but as scattered bare-bones reports of individual attacks on specific targets, almost invariably based on military announcements.

Drefuss's article (follows) is the best I have read yet which reveals how the U.S. foments wars and makes enemies under cover of "spreading Democracy In The Middle East".
The U.S. is practising Machiavellian tactics (a hallmark of Bush's neoconservative administration) at home and abroad and using Orwellian techniques to befuddle, terrorise and ultimately sell it to the American public.

During his embattled summer vacation in Crawford, Texas, George Bush managed to launch a new promotional ditty for his war in Iraq: "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." Since then there has been much commentary from the administration, from military officials, and from the media on the question of how successfully the Iraqi military is actually "standing up."

.....The next U.S. pre-emptive war could be against Iran, and/or Syria. Both have been mentioned as potential targets by Bush, as has North Korea if it dares to try and make nuclear weapons.
...... From the following record, and George Bush's actions and statements, we know what to expect.
Hopefully this should encourage people to work to keep New Zealand nuclear-free, and encourage other countries to adopt this step toward a nuclear weapons-free world.

U.S. military spending ($343 billion in the year 2000) is 69 percent greater than that of the next five highest nations combined. Russia, which has the second largest military budget, spends less than one-sixth what the United States does. Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, and Syria spend $14.4 billion combined; Iran accounts for 52 percent of this total.

to Continuing US-UK War Crimes in Iraq Now Tony Blair's military are putting Kendall-Smith on trial for refusing to serve again in Iraq because he believes the war is illegal. The evidence keeps piling up, far more than we had in 2003 and 2004 that the war is illegal and violates every law, every convention, every treaty on every aspect of waging war, that humanity has ever created. Really it is so absolutely stupefying, and I am amazed that there is so little opposition to Blair's colossal deceit. The British people seem to be as much a pushover for war propaganda and lies as the Germans were under Hitler. But it's worse, far worse.......

The question of legality deeply concerns the British military brass, who sought Tony Blair's assurance on the eve of the invasion, got it and, as they now know, were lied to. They are right to worry; Britain is a signatory to the treaty that set up the International Criminal Court, which draws its codes from the Geneva Conventions and the 1945 Nuremberg Charter. The latter is clear: "To initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Never in the 229 years of United States history has this government "of, by and for the people" been in greater peril. Not during the Civil War, not during the great depression, and not during the Second World War or the Cold War which followed. Until today, gross incompetence, abuse of power, corruption, corporatocracy, and federal insolvency could be checked and reversed by balanced and separated governmental powers, and at the ballot box by a citizenry informed and provoked by an alert and independent media. Now all branches of government and the mainstream media are dominated by the wealthy elites in control of a single political party. Can you believe this? .....         bushwatch

.... - American military commanders testified before Congress about their already overtaxed troops and equipment in March 2002 - the path was clear for a war in Iraq to serve as the political Viagra Mr. Rove needed for the election year.
.....For Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush to get what they wanted most, slam-dunk midterm election victories, and for Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney to get what they wanted most, a war in Iraq for reasons predating 9/11, their real whys for going to war had to be replaced by fictional, more salable ones.
.....Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney were in the boiler room of the disinformation factory. The vice president's repetitive hyping of Saddam's nuclear ambitions in the summer and fall of 2002 as well as his persistence in advertising bogus Saddam-Qaeda ties were fed by the rogue intelligence operation set up in his own office.        bushwatch

Over 350(US) billion dollars yearly finances the US Global War On Terror (GWOT).
As the following report by the Center For Defense Information shows, much of it is wasted. Some 12 billion cannot be accounted for. As pointed out in other papers on this site, the U.S. continues to create enemies in order to justify ever increasing defence budgets. These in turn help make arms corporations very, very wealthy. Naturally that assures continuing large campaign donations from the mainly republican arms trade corporations to ensure Bush and other Republican candidates and chosen Democrats get re-elected.

From Sept. 11, 2001, to last week, the federal government has spent $357 billion on the “Global War on Terror.” These expenses include military operations, reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan and security at U.S. bases and embassies overseas.

...Only by constantly inventing new enemies and justifying new wars, can Bush and his Republican allies satisfy the needs of a growing military/industrial complex. President Eisenhower warned Americans in 1960 about the growing power of "the military-industrial complex". Now this has become the military-industrial-political-scientific-academic complex, as so many Politicians, Scientists and Academics depend on this complex of interests.

"Never in the history of the world has so much been spent,
so quickly and recklessly on so much wanton destruction and evil by so few."

General Smedley Butler's 1933 speech is a classic that applies to Bush and his wars today. General Butler's worst fears have come true - this time with much larger annihilation devices at the command of Bush and his neocons. He gives many examples of the greatly inflated profits enjoyed by the wide range of manufacturers who make materials used in war - from munitions to warships to uniforms. Bush promised an endless "war on terror" to defend Democracy". He is delivering on this promise while creating a record-breaking national debt and enormous profits for the myriad of people and company's engaged in the runaway US war machine.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In October 2004, Bunnatine Greenhouse, a top military official responsible for making sure the Army Corps of Engineers complies with contracting rules, came forward and revealed that top Pentagon officials showed improper favoritism to Halliburton when awarding military contracts.
The allegations made by this official were first reported by Time magazine.
Greenhouse said that when the Pentagon awarded Halliburton a five-year, $7 billion contract, it pressured her to withdraw her objections, actions which she claimed were unprecedented in her experience.

Here is a good example of how Bush supporters accuse those with serious concerns about protecting and preserving the environment, of being potential criminals endangering the environment. To get rid of or intimidate their opponents, right wing Bush supporters accuse them of planning criminal, destructive acts. Using this kind of climate as their cover, Bush supporters are more able to exploit the environment, while denying there is any problem - such as in the case of rapid global warming.

Equating eco-activists with terrorism is now commonplace among conservative mouthpieces and the FBI alike. Currently, about 20 million people tune in to Rush Limbaugh every week. His lingo is now conservative lingua franca. Limbaugh figured out that if you repeat your best lines -- e.g., "environmentalist wackos" -- often enough, they become more than just funny catchphrases; they become a reconfiguration of reality and a call to arms. In his world (and it's a world in which a lot of people live), you can't be an environmentalist and escape wacko-ism.

"War crimes: Violations of the law and customs of war."
- Principles of the Nuremberg Charter and Judgment, Principle VI b (1950)
It couldn't be clearer that the American people don't realize - or don't care - that their own nation is committing numerous war crimes and is on an unsustainable collision-course with the rest of humankind. If they did, they'd be idiomatically stating the obvious: "Something's gotta give, or this planet's toast!"

Can you imagine that in a time of peace at the end of the cold war, with the US recognised as the only superpower, the US military takes 68 cents of every tax dollar for defence, as against only 32 cents on everything else. And it's not enough, they want more.

Many Americans believe that 19 cents on defense for every 81 cents on non-defense is a reasonable way to spend a tax dollar. But by another calculation, the tax dollar splits 68 cents for defense and 32 cents on everything else. It is a common misconception that U.S. defense expenditure is equivalent to the Department of Defense outlays. Instead of $436.4 billion of defense expenditure, as Congressional budgeteers count, government statisticians in the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) counted $548.0 billion for calendar year 2004—a whopping $112 billion difference. And by our own calculations, U.S. defense expenditure is much higher than even the BEA's numbers suggest, namely $765.6 billion in calendar year 2004—about $330 billion or than the Department of Defense outlays.

"I think the greatest threat to our future is our fiscal irresponsibility," warns David Walker, the comptroller general of the United States. I asked Mr. Walker about Paul Volcker's warning that within five years we face a 75 percent chance of a serious financial crisis. "If we don't get serious soon," Mr. Walker replied, "it's not a question of whether it'll come, but when and how serious."

When the public liars sat down together -- in Crawford, in the Pentagon, in the Oval Office, at 10 Downing Street -- and very deliberately, very guilefully and very knowingly devised their act of mass murder in Iraq, it is unlikely they gave any thought to the most vulnerable targets of their war crime: the children. So in considering this aspect of the bloodbath, we should give the liars the benefit of the doubt. Let's not make them more monstrous than they are. Let's stick to the facts.

Lawmakers in the United States were scheduled to vote on Monday to approve $45 billion US in additional funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, making the recent Middle East foray more expensive than the entire Korean War.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress has approved $350 billion, mostly for combat and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The amount, which includes $82 billion approved last month, is equal to the total amount in today's dollars spent on the Korean conflict from 1950-53.

The Downing Street memos have created such a stir that even Congress is rubbing its eyes and awakening from its long slumber to ask questions about the Iraq war: a hearing convened by antiwar Democrats, chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), has created quite a lot of buzz, generating headlines – and howls of outrage from all the usual suspects, as well as from the Washington Post's Dana Milbank and – surprise, surprise! – Howard "The Scream" Dean. Milbank snarks:
"In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe. They pretended a small conference room was the Judiciary Committee hearing room, draping white linens over folding tables to make them look like witness tables and bringing in cardboard name tags and extra flags to make the whole thing look official."

It is inescapable historical reality that leaders of nations will lie to their people to trick them into wars they otherwise would have refused. It is not "conspiracy theory" to suggest that leaders of nations lie to trick their people into wars. It is undeniable fact.    This brings us to the present case.
Did the government of the United States lie to the American people, more to the point, did President Bush and his Neocon associates lie to Congress, to initiate a war of conquest in Iraq?
This question has been given currency by a memo leaked from inside the British Government which clearly indicates a decision to go to war followed by the "fixing" of information around that policy. This is, as they say, a smoking gun.

Although this article was first published on Jan 1, 2004, it applies today.
It shows how a more moderate approach by the Bush Administration "to pull the plug on Iraq" was over-ruled
by the neoconservatives and Pentagon, who installed a diabolically evil 3 billion dollar fund to establish "a radical new counterinsurgency program."

Tucked away in the Iraqi appropriation was $3 billion for a new paramilitary unit. Vietnam similarities?
With the 2004 electoral clock ticking amid growing public concern about U.S. casualties and chaos in Iraq, the Bush administration’s hawks are upping the ante militarily. To those familiar with the CIA’s Phoenix assassination program in Vietnam, Latin America’s death squads or Israel’s official policy of targeted murders of Palestinian activists, the results are likely to look chillingly familiar.

Where is the Iraqi oil money?
.....Iraqi officials cannot explain what happened to $69 million worth of fuel oil produced in the second half of 2004,

It is an inspiration to read how Chavez is ploughing oil profits into benefits for the poor majority in Venezuela.
The Bush administration has supported the rich power elite in Venezuela and supported attempts to overthrow him.
For the benefit on Venezuela, Chavez will need support in the face of US efforts to replace him with their usual US-sponsored dictatorship or quisling regime. The US will claim that they are spreading democracy and freedom and liberation to Venezuela, as they invade, slaughter, torture and imprison - just as they continue to do in Iraq.
However, the people of Venezuela, having been given a taste of real democracy, power and wealth will have strong motivation to rally behind their leader and resist further US attempts at subversion.

In using oil wealth to help the poor, Venezuela's leader is an example to Latin America

To justify staying in Iraq, it is appears that the US is committing acts of terrorism and blaming those they describe as "terrorists" for committing these acts. If the US starts a civil war between religious factions, it provides further reasons to stay on as "peacemakers".

and Accuses US Troops of Detonating Car Bombs and Falsely Accusing Militants
Al-Qaeda in Iraq issued a refutation on Saturday May 14th, 2005 of western claims “about the weakening of the mujahideen [in Iraq]”. The organization claims that, despite Western statements that the mujahideen are “weakened and stagnant” the militants are “continuing until the day of final judgment”. The message states that “the mujahideen did not weaken and did not become stagnant, but they are transforming with the prosperity of the almighty and the grace of their creature. They are enjoying the composure and the jihad and seeking martyrdom.”

First Consider The Evidence, Then Draw Your Own Conclusions
Let us consider the possibility that the USA has become addicted, in an economic sense, to war. While the evidence offered below is by no means exhaustive, it is directly relevant and highly probative. Therefore, the reader should consider ALL of the evidence in Exhibits A through D before judging whether or not a prima facie case has been made that America is economically addicted to war.

Professor Michael Klare, for many years, an internationally recognised specialist in Oil politics and anti-war issues has written the following first-rate paper on US reasons for planning a war against Iran. It's oil again. He, UN WMD inspector Scott Ritter, and others have predicted the US will begin the war in June 2005 unless people stop them.
                  PAN meeting on Monday May 2 at 7.30pm at the Greens office on Bedford Row, Christchurch, NZ

As the United States gears up for an attack on Iran, one thing is certain: the Bush administration will never mention oil as a reason for going to war. As in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) will be cited as the principal justification for an American assault. "We will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon [by Iran]," is the way President Bush put it in a much-quoted 2003 statement.

The most damning indictment of the following article is that "Wolfowitz authorised a sole source contract to Halliburton for Operation Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO) before the war began."
Now that he is rewarded by Bush with the World Bank position for a job well done on Iraq, he can continue his favouring of US corporate interests but on a much grander scale.

What did Wolfowitz know with regard to Halliburton's inside advantage in gaining Iraq contracts, and when did he know it? If the World Bank's board had applied the same kind of "due diligence" to Paul Wolfowitz that they purport to apply to major development projects, they might have uncovered a significant conflict of interest that could have led them to rethink their embrace of the architect of the Iraq war.

To justify the war on Iraq and everything since, Bush's neocons wrote in their pre-9/11 Iraq war plans that "we need another Pearl Harbour". 9/11 gave it to them, and they were keen to start the pre-planned Iraq war from the day 9/11 happened. They did not have a shred of real evidence to support this war, so they created a litany of justifying lies. Other articles on this site under "US Elections" and "9/11 Questions" show US election fraud and doubt the 'official' story on the origins of 9/11.

This article below is particularly important because it reveals that the US itself creates many of the terrorism incidents and then blames other for these actions. Thus they are creating the excuse they need for increasing their military action.

The Pentagon Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks
This column stands foursquare with the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, when he warns that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. We know, as does the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, that this statement is an incontrovertible fact, a matter of scientific certainty. And how can we and the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, be so sure that there will be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large?
Because these attacks will be instigated at the order of the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense.

The media, even in NZ, do not mention Bush's illegal invasion based on lies and the killing of over 100,000 people in his pursuit of oil and control of Iraq. The corporate media do not draw attention to the fact that Bush and his administration have committed multiple war crimes and should be standing trial at the World Court at The Hague. The more Bush commits war crimes, the more enthusiastic the media becomes about relaying pro-Bush war propaganda.

Iraq's liberation comes with a ballooning price tag

In February 2003 - a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq - President George W. Bush declared that "[r]ebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before - in the peace that followed a world war."
However, Bush never addressed the question of cost. From the start, the administration has been, and continues to be, evasive about the costs of war in Iraq. But these costs cannot be ignored and must be weighed by the American public, particularly taxpayers, to determine whether they are willing to pay the price and make the necessary sacrifices to create a stable and peaceful democracy in Iraq - if that goal can be achieved at all.

How the US creates a new dependant market and destroys a local industry that has proven successful methods, - almost like a new form of economic enslavement, is well described in the following article by Jeremy Smith.
The US created a very rich bonanza for US construction corporations by massive bombing of Iraq before they illegally invaded it. Chosen US corporations, who support Bush, were then given contracts to rebuild it. Similarly US military corporations who supply materials and food to US troops, make weapons, supply military 'contracted' personnel to act as US mercenaries etc, are given a vested interest in the Iraq war and colonial occupation.

US EXPANDS THREAT TO OTHER STATES

StratCom Will Oversee WMD Efforts

Of Militarism, Fascism, War And National Consciousness:

"IRAN WILL BE A "PLAYER"   Another Iranian official said the Europeans were simply trying to clear the way for themselves and Russia to have a monopoly on fuel supply in the region.

Bush's Inauguration Speech Promises

Death and Destruction for 'Freedom and Democracy'
In his inauguration speech, Bush equates American ideals of freedom, liberty and democracy to the Founding Fathers and to what Bush claims are his ideals and objectives....
He did not mention that the US, since World War II, has a long history of selecting oppressive dictators including Saddam, to install and support in different countries. Rather than liberate, Bush has authorised the killing of over 100,000 Iraqis, maiming, imprisoning, torturing and murdering many more and laying waste to the country. He continues to do this, including stepping up his mass destruction of cities like Fallujah. All this wanton killing and destruction, he continues to claim "is liberating the oppressed and giving them freedom, liberty and an elected government".

President Sworn-In to Second Term

Pentagon transformation is well underway. The U.S. military is increasingly being converted into a global oil protection service. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld has a "strategy guy" whose job is to teach this new way of warfare to high-level military officers from all branches of services and to top level CIA operatives. Thomas Barnett is a professor at the Navy War College in Rhode Island. He is author of the controversial book The Pentagon’s New Map that identifies a "non-integrating gap" in the world that is resisting corporate globalization. Barnett defines the gap as parts of Latin America, Africa, Middle East and Central Asia all of which are key oil-producing regions of the world.