more comments as we approach the tenth anniversary of nine eleven and with us on the line is bill van auken he's member of the international tauriel board for his website bill thanks ever so much taking the time to be without international after nine eleven ten years on the u.s. winning the war with afghanistan and then iraq in order to protect its people in the world from new terrorist threats but it seems doesn't it have only achieved the opposite what's your take well i mean i would first start by saying i mean here in new york i think all of us see the need to commemorate this anniversary with a terrible crime a terrible tragedy could close ten years ago but i would dispute the sort of foundation of your question which is america going to war first in afghanistan and then in iraq in order to protect the american people i don't think there's any evidence that so why did you go to war why did you go to war with iraq but let's not start for that start from what was the event itself on nine eleven you had hijacked planes hit buildings fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were saudi arabians th

the attacks especially the invasion of iraq and afghanistan received massive global criticism bill van auken a member of the international it's world board of the world socialist web site says the wars just happened to suit us foreign policy you know we're always told nine eleven changed everything and certainly it is a changing point in american and world history but i think if you look at what took place in the aftermath of nine eleven they don't flow from the agreements they flow from policies that had been in the works for at least the previous decade the perception among a whole layer and really became the predominant layer of american foreign policy makers that are unocal the moment have a. a reason the united states could carry out its will by military force anywhere in the world and it could use military force to reverse what has become more and more evidently an economic decline decline in its position on the world stage take iraq i mean saddam hussein was an opponent of al qaida i be invented reasonable but i think what he had relations with regard to which you know everyone admits

alliance admits that only a few innocent people have been killed and there are american politician bill van auken says the west has a long history of denial. this is going to war from the outset that has been waged for definite material interest largely oil geo strategic placement in north africa a means of countering the revolutionary upheavals that taken place on libya's borders both in tunisia and egypt now what will nato to in its day i mean it says it's protecting civilians yet has been leading an air war against civilians its trained so-called rebels who have now been implicated in massacres of civilians including sub-saharan african migrant workers so i think this is a bodes very poorly for the future of libya and i think quite broadly that this is a threat to people throughout north africa and indeed across the world so the united states britain france and italy to some extent i mean these powers have essentially portrayed this intervention as a humanitarian venture to protect civilian life. this is been a fraud from the outset it's hardly a new excuse for the united states i think you co