global terrorism and scapegoats

Corinne, married with no kids, once made a mistake at work and since then she's been blamed for everything that goes wrong, whether it's in her department or not, so she knows what it's like to be made a scapegoat and she understands the ultererior motives of the globalists -- all of whom, according to her, are little better than terrorists.

"If that sort of thing can happen to a little thing like me," laughs Corinne, "then I can understand why someone like Saddam Hussein gets blamed for 9/11 and every terrorist activity anywhere in the world. Sure, he's an evil monster and deserves to be hanged, but invading Iraq was an evil, monstrous thing to do, too."

"As soon as Bush announced the axis of evil." says Corinne, "I knew that Iraq rather than Iran or North Korea was going to get targeted, and I knew that Saddam was going to bear the brunt for Bush's failure to capture Osama. Someone had to be made a scapegoat, and Saddam was it."

"Theoretically, any country has the potential to produce chemicals of mass destruction," adds Corinne, "so it is the potential and capacity to use such weapons that needs to be examined, along with the motive for doing so."

"Why would Iraq, Iran or North Korea want to use weapons of mass destruction against the USA, and do they have the geographic and military capacity to do so?"

"Iran's military presence was decimated following the US supported war on Iran conducted by Saddam many years ago," explains Corinne. "Iran is unfriendly towards the USA because of its support of Iraq in that war, but it has no known program of chemical weaponry or use and it definitely does not have the geographic or military capacity to launch any sort of attack on the USA."

"Similarly, Iraq's military presence was decimated following the UN supported Gulf War of 1991," says Corinne. "The Gulf War was legitimate as it was a consequence of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - a protectorate set up by Great Britain to safeguard oil supply -and Iraq is definitely unfriendly towards the USA because of its participation in that war. But despite its past program of chemical weaponry and the use of same on its own dissidents Iraq has willingly accepted UN inspectors to confirm it has no ongoing program."

"Iraq was a hardly a threat to the US in terms of weapons of mass destruction," explains Corinne, "and it also did not have the geographic or military capacity to launch any sort of attack on the USA."

"Also," adds Corinne, "it may have had the geographic capacity to attack British protected Kuwait and US protected Israel but it did not have the the military capacity to do so. It was no real threat."

"Unlike Iraq and Iran, North Korea has nuclear capacity," says Corinne. "It has a formidable military presence and has been locked in a stand-off with America over the US protected South Korea for nearly half a century - a situation that is getting worse rather than better over the years."

"If the potential to produce and use weapons of mass destruction against the USA were truly the main concern of Bush," explains Corinne, "then North Korea would have been the logical target, not Iraq, because its regime is secretive - nobody knows what is going on there."

"Geographically, North Korea does not have the capacity to launch any sort of attack on the USA, but it most definitely does have the geographic capacity as well as the military capacity to attack Japan and US protected South Korea."

"North Korea, not Iran and Iraq, is thus a far more potential enemy for the USA," says Corinne, "but to impose any sort of action on North Korea in terms of the War of Terror cannot be justified without a terrible price being paid."

"North Korea is isolationist and pays no attention to UN dictates. To achieve security from any sort of attack by North Korea, America would need to use massive military force."

"Support for a war on North Korea would not be gained at home," says Corinne," nor in the UN. There is nothing to tie North Korea with 9/11 or any terrorist activity."

"Furthermore, victory would be not assured against such a formidable military force as North Korea, and basically there would be nothing tangible to be gained by going to war with North Korea - expect, of course, for the reunification of the country."

"Similarly, although targeting Iran would be easier in terms of a fundamentalist Islam connection - possibly an al-Qaeda link," says Corinne, "there is nothing tangible to be gained by such action."

"So, we're left with Iraq," sighs Corinne. "There's everything to gain in terms of the world's richest oil fields, and nothing much to lose besides a bit of human collateral. It was expected to be a pushover and initially it was."

"After the quick and relative painless Afghanistan pushover, the military machine was fired and ready for more," explains Corinne. "Bush couldn't get Osama and the al-Qaeda, so he needed another target to wreak revenge on for the 9/11 tragedy."

"Iraq was the perfect target and Saddam was the perfect scapegoat."

"Iraq is a Islam nation so it was not be too hard to foment fear at home that it is harboring some terrorists," explains Corinne. "It was a pushover in the 1991 Gulf War and was weakened by 12 years of sanctions against it and would be another easy victory."

"Also, Iraq is unfinished business," explains Corinne. "Bush's father had wanted to get rid of Saddam but the UN didn't sanction a regime change. Despite the UN not supporting a war, Section 1433 gave the USA a loophole to go in and invade the country on its own if necessary."

"Bush maintains that the potential to produce and use weapons of mass destruction against the USA was a valid reason to focus attention on Iraq," says Corinne, "and in failing to allow the UN weapons inspectors the time they need to do their job and prove Iraq's claim that it had no such weapons, Bush showed that he wants war and revenge for 9/11 and that weapons of mass destruction had nothing to do with it."

"Because Bush knew that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction," says Corinne, "he needed a big excuse to go to war and win the support of allies."

"This excuse came in the final weeks before invading Iraq when rumors were spread that Osama and Saddam were in cahoots," says Corinne. "This was a lie because Osama hates Saddam and his liberal Islamic beliefs more than the Americans do, and vice versa!"

"And then finally Saddam's human rights record was trotted out."

"Very few people had cared about Saddam and his human rights abominations before this," explains Corinne. "All of a sudden, the world's attention became focused on shredding machines allegedly used for human extermination."

"All other despots and their human rights abominations were conveniently ignored."

"I watched in disbelief as the world was whipped by the US propaganda machine into wanting to get rid of the Saddam regime," sighs Corinne.

"A war ostensibly against weapons of mass destruction had become one against Saddam and his regime."

"Saddam had supplanted Osama."

"As nasty as Saddam is," says Corinne, "he had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 and to use him as a scapegoat for Osama's abominations is an abomination in itself."

"The whole nasty operation was so similar to the sort of office politics that go on where my husband and I work that I despair of any imperfect human goverment being capable of governing us honorably and rationally," says Corinne. "We'd be better off with computers doing the job."

This story first appeared as saddam the scapegoat