"Dying For Zion
"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel."
Philip Zelikow, Director of the 9/11 Commission and Bush administration official
War for oil is still the dominant theory when it comes to the average person's view of what's really behind America's insatiable appetite for war in the middle east [1] [2]. According to those that buy the war for oil idea, the Whitehouse is acting on behalf of powerful oil interests that seek to secure Iraq's oil resources for strategic and financial reasons [3] [4].
There are other less predominant ideas about the American leadership's reasons for involving itself in such insanity. One is the ridiculous notion that the US' main prerogative is spreading around what it sees as its unique contribution to human culture - liberty, freedom and democracy [5] [6]. Those are the core, defining principles central to America's deluded impression of itself, and the mass psychological appeal of that idea - of America as the heroic and righteous saviour of the rest of the world - has long been understood and cleverly marketed by political ideologues and the mainstream media. The American people's sense of moral superiority is easily exploited by government, as evidenced by a small but significant minority of Americans still willing to accept Bush's "they hate our freedoms" bullshit [7] [8] as justification for war against harmless nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq. "Spreading freedom" is thereby a euphemism for all-out war against Islam and the Arab nations that are said to harbor the elusive, jealous, Arab "terrorists" that don't like how "free" we are. The "war on terror" is supposedly our struggle for freedom and democracy; the outward expression of good vs evil. The idea is romantic and palatable, and is conducive to a patriotic belief in America as the great purveyor of righteousness and justice (which is, I suppose, what makes it popular with the ignorant, far-right conservative Fox News types that make up the 30% that still support Bush), but it's the weakest and most transparent justification of them all, and nothing but a lame subterfuge [9] [10].
The pervasive influence of corporate interests [11] operating in and throughout the highest levels of US government could conceivably explain the US' insistence on warmongering and conquest too, and is commonly used to explain America's addiction to war. The corporatocracy [12] model is much the same as the war-for-oil idea, but includes the huge military industrial complex, building contractors, and other corporate interests that benefit financially from war [13]. As I understand it, people that subscribe to this viewpoint believe all this war is due to government succumbing to pressure from industry, and about US Imperialism through industrial take-over and economic exploitation of lesser developed countries, as the huge corporations that profit from war get filthy rich. It's all explained by the lust for money, profit and power of a greedy corporate elite that hold sway over government, or even hold positions in government and business simultaneously, creating dangerous conflicts of interest which result in warped policy and the kind of insanity we're seeing now [14] [15]. (For the sake of clarity and in the interests of keeping it simple, when I speak of corporate interests in this context, I'm not including those of the private central banking cartel [16] [17]).
Those are the main ones and the ones worth mentioning, but none of them are really behind what's going on in the middle east, at least not in any real, fundamentally causal way. They're all real factors, and evidence that all those things play major roles is easy to come by, and maybe even difficult to look past at times. But the real force behind the US government and its insane hunger for war is Israel - Israel itself and the zionist regime behind it; zionist agents inside the US political system who represent Israel's interests and work to further them via lobbying, funding and other means; and those who work to realise the objectives of Israel from within the highest levels of US government and beyond, even to the extreme detriment of the US itself, as American leaders and policy-makers, and as representatives of the American people. The so-called neo-conservatives are the most powerful and obvious example of the latter, and their rise to power was, in many ways, the final phase of the Israeli coup d'etat [18] [19].
The Ziocons
The neocons (most of them Jewish, many of them Jewish 'dual nationals', and all of them ardent zionists) [20] [21] are openly loyal to Israel and their hawkish foreign policy reflects it. Neocon foreign policy is barely distinguishable from Israeli foreign policy, because that's basically what it is [22] [23]. Israel has long sought to weaken and destabilise it's Arab neighbours as a means to improve and ensure its own security [24] while simultaneously disrupting the support given to the Palestinians by groups and nations sympathetic to their cause. Stephen J. Sniegoski states in 'The Israeli Origins of Bush II's War':
Because Israel's neighbors opposed the Zionist project of creating an exclusivist Jewish state, the idea of weakening and dissolving those neighbors was not an idea just of the Israeli Right but a central Zionist goal from a much earlier period, promoted by David Ben-Gurion himself. As Saleh Abdel-Jawwad, a professor at Birzeit University in Ramallah, Palestine, writes:
"Israel has supported secessionist movements in Sudan, Iraq, Egypt, and Lebanon and any secessionist movements in the Arab world which Israel considers an enemy. Yet the concern for Iraq and [Israel's] attempts to weaken or prevent it from developing its strengths has always been a central Zionist objective. At times, Israel succeeded in gaining a foothold in Iraq by forging secret yet strong relationships with leaders from the Kurdish movement." [25]
It's by no coincidence that we're seeing the US use the same modus operandi right now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. It's via the zionist neocons and their policy institutes and "thinktanks" that the Israeli agenda and the new preemptive war doctrine of post-9/11 USA has become official American foreign policy.
The ziocons made their policy views clear well before 9/11 in the document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" [26], prepared way back in 1996 for Israel's psycho right-wing Likud party, led by then prime minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu. It was authored by a group of rabidly zionist neocons including Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser on behalf of The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), and proposed a hawkish plan consisting of military preemption, an aggressive new approach to the Palestinian "problem", the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, and the eventual elimination of the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, amongst other things. A Clean Break stated, in part:
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.
Richard Perle (Israeli dual national), Douglas Feith (also an Israeli dual national) and David Wurmser (just an all-out zionist) would all go on to hold powerful positions in the Bush administration where they've worked tirelessly to realise the vision they outlined for Israel in the Clean Break document [27] - Feith as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Wurmser as Middle East Adviser to Dick Cheney, and Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board.
Richard "The Prince of Darkness" Perle is a particularly nasty zionist. Aside from his treasonous role in the US government, he's a member of such pro-Israel stinkwanks thinktanks as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Center for Security Policy (CSP), the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP, which is basically an offshoot organisation of AIPAC), and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) [28]. He's also a director of the Jerusalem Post, a personal friend of former Israeli prime minister and arch-zionist Ariel "The Butcher" Sharon, an ex-employee of Soltam, an Israeli weapons manufacturer [29], and a spy for Israel [30].
When prominent ziocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan founded the Project For A New American Century (PNAC) [31] in 1997, Perle and Feith were right in there, along with a whole host of other ardent zionist neocons such as Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, Elliot Cohen, Norman Podhoretz et al [32], and the following year in 1998, the PNAC group sent Bill Clinton a letter [33] urging him to attack Iraq and oust Saddam from power, in keeping with the policy advice given to Israel by the same group years earlier in the Clean Break document. From the letter:
"It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat." [34]
By "world", of course, they meant "Israel", since Saddam was never a threat to America, and PNAC knew it. In December of 1998, Clinton went ahead with PNAC's advice and heavily bombed Iraq, citing the security of its neighbours as part of his reason for doing so:
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." [35]
Clinton's attack on Iraq left Saddam in power though, which wasn't good enough for the PNAC ziocons. That was made Kristol clear with the September 2000 publication (just before Bush's non-election) of their infamous 90 page long 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' (RAD) policy document [36.pdf], in which they advocated more of the same aggressive, warmongering strategy proposed earlier in the Clean Break paper. RAD was just a massively beefed up version of Israel's Clean Break dressed up to look as though it had American interests at heart (which of course it didn't - just look at where the US is today). Peter Shaenk put it this way in an article called 'Once a Company Man, Always a Company Man':
When PNAC was founded, a group of neo-cons wrote a spin-off paper elaborating on "Clean Break". It was entitled "Rebuilding America’s Defenses" or RAD. The title implies that agents of Israel, (Perle and co.) got together and wrote a policy paper that was concerned only with America’s future security and establishment as the preeminent world power. A PAX Americana if you will. They even got Dick Cheney to participate to give it a more "American" look and less of an "Israeli" front group image. [37]
When Bush was not-elected in January 2001 [38], the ziocons' time had come. No less than twelve of PNAC's members scored prominent positions in his administration - Dick Cheney, Vice President; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Rabbi Dov Zakheim, Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon [39]; Richard Armitage, Deputy Sec. of State; Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff to Cheney; Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; Richard Perle, Member, Defense Policy Advisory Board; John Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Conrol and International Security, Elliot Abrams, Special Asst. to the President; Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Zalmay Kahlilzad, Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Iraq; and James Woolsey, Member, Pentagon Defense Policy Board [40]. It was nothing short of an Israeli political takeover of the US government. The pieces had been put in place to implement the ziocon vision outlined in A Clean Break and RAD, and now all that was needed was the false flag attacks of 9/11 [41] [42] [43] to kickstart and justify the neocon wet dream of endless Israeli proxy wars in the middle east in the name of the (oxy)moronic "war on terror".
Within 24 hours of staging their "catastrophic and catalyzing event" which was not unlike a "new Pearl Harbor", both Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, barely able to contain themselves, called for another attack on Iraq [44], nevermind the fact that Saddam had nothing at all to do with it and no meaningful ties at all to 9/11 scapegoat Osama Bin Laden [45]. That didn't stop the ziocons from working feverishly through the media to link Iraq to 9/11 though (the tired old "links-to-Al-Qaeda" soundbite), mainly through Cheney who was the most vociferous of the bunch. But (dis)credit should also go to Rumsfeld, because one of the biggest whoppers came from him in September 2002 when he lied through his teeth about the intelligence community's evidence of Iraqi links to terrorism being "bulletproof" [46]. (Speaking of Cheney, fondnesses for violence, and solid evidence, it's a pity Harry Whittington wasn't "bulletproof" when Dick shot him in the face. [47]) The ziocon media blitz was quite successful, as evidenced by the roughly 50% of Americans that still believe Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Bin Laden vis a vis 9/11 [48]. With a public that ignorant and misinformed [49], it's disheartening to ponder how long it's likely to take before a critical mass majority awakens to the fact that Bin Laden wasn't behind the attacks in the first place.
War For Israel
The relentless propaganda campaign against Iraq continued through the zionist-controlled mainstream media [50] even as the cluster-bombs dropped on the innocent population of Afghanistan [51] [52], in a war justified by the attacks of 9/11 but planned months before it even began in October of 2001. [53]. The ostensible reasons for the invasion were to capture Osama Bin Laden, who denied being involved with 9/11 [54], and to overthrow the Taliban regime, but neither of those objectives have been achieved [55]. All the US has managed to do is install an ineffectual puppet regime led by prime minister Hamid Kharzai, assist in a 657% increase in opium cultivation [56] which became the West's primary source of heroin [57] [58], and kill thousands of innocent people. Last year alone, an estimated 700 civilians were killed (government data, so the figures are likely to be much higher), and over 100,000 people displaced in the southern provinces alone, who have fled their homes to escape the conflict [59].
Another thing that's been achieved is what's looking like a permanent US military presence in Afghanistan [60], one of whose neighbouring countries is Iran. Rabid zionist John McCain [61] is one neocon who has called publicly for permanent bases in Afghanistan [62]. Ramtanu Maitra wrote for Asia Times Online:
On February 23 [2005], the day after McCain called for "permanent bases" in Afghanistan, a senior political analyst and chief editor of the Kabul Journal, Mohammad Hassan Wulasmal, said, "The US wants to dominate Iran, Uzbekistan and China by using Afghanistan as a military base."
[...] US-run logistical centers in Afghanistan include Kandahar Air Field, or "KAF", in southern Afghanistan and Shindand Air Field in the western province of Herat. Shindand is about 100 kilometers from the border with Iran, a location that makes it controversial. Moreover, according to the US-based think-tank Global Security, Shindand is the largest air base in Afghanistan.
The US is spending US$83 million to upgrade its bases at Bagram and Kandahar. [...]
The proximity of Shindand to Iran could give Tehran cause for concern, says Paul Beaver, an independent defense analyst based in London. Beaver points out that with US ships in the Persian Gulf and Shindand sitting next to Iran, Tehran has a reason to claim that Washington is in the process of encircling Iran. But the US plays down the potential of Shindand, saying it will not remain with the US for long. Still, it has not been lost on Iranian strategists that the base in the province of Herat is a link in a formidable chain of new facilities the US is in the process of drawing around their country [63].
The ziocons are working hard to establish hegemony in the middle east for the security of Israel, and permanent bases in Afghanistan are just one way they seek to gain a foothold for the eventual implementation of their plan to eliminate Iran and whoever else they believe poses a threat to their beloved ziostan.
When the neocons got their way in March 2003 with the US-led invasion of Iraq, it was on the back of a whole heap of lies and disinformation. Paul Wolfowitz, Israeli dual national and "architect" of the Iraq war, had created in 2001 along with fellow ziocons Douglas Feith and Donald Rumsfeld the "Office of Special Plans" (OSP), an ultra-secretive group whose purpose, at least officially, was to "review" data gathered by various intelligence agencies vis a vis Saddam's 'links-to-Al-Qaeda', and later, when it became clear there were none, his being in possession of WMDs (which there were none of either). The OSP was answerable only to itself as an independent entity, subject to no Congressional oversight and not on the official government payroll [64], which afforded the ziocons the opportunity to tamper with the data and decide for themselves what did and did not constitute evidence against Saddam. Cheney was of course right in there too, conspiring with the rest of them to magically produce the kind of damning assessment required to suit their propaganda purposes; the kind they knew the CIA and the other intel agencies wouldn't provide them with. From a Washington Post article:
[Colin] Powell felt Cheney and his allies -- his chief aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz; and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and what Powell called Feith's "Gestapo" office -- had established what amounted to a separate government. [65]
Working parallel and in conjunction with that operation in the Pentagon was the "Policy Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group" (PCTEG) [66], also headed by Douglas Feith, along with David Wurmser and one of Richard Perle's former aides, F. Michael Maloof. The whole thing was a gigantic scam, pulled off by the Clean Break/RAD crew, who liased regularly with an intelligence unit from inside the office of Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon. It was Sharon's team that was later fingered by unnamed US senior officials as being the source of reports that said the reason no WMDs were found in Iraq was because they were smuggled into Syria. Under the authority of Douglas Feith, the Israelis from Sharon's office were allowed to come and go as they please [67]. This is an excerpt from an article by Jim Lobe:
[Retired Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski] recounts one incident in which she helped escort a group of half a dozen Israelis, including several generals, from the first floor reception area to Feith's office. "We just followed them, because they knew exactly where they were going and moving fast".
When the group arrived, she noted the book which all visitors are required to sign under special regulations that took effect after the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks. "I asked his secretary, 'Do you want these guys to sign in'? She said, 'No, these guys don't have to sign in' ". It occurred to her, she said, that the office may have deliberately not wanted to maintain a record of the meeting. [68]
At this point, let's be very clear about one thing: the people plotting the Iraq war from inside the OSP were not colluding with oil executives or any other corporate interests at that time - they were in collusion with Sharon's Likud government. In fact, everyone who worked to create the case for war against Iraq shared one common interest: an undying loyalty to the state of Israel.
Wolfowitz is equally committed to Israel. The Forward once described him as "the most hawkishly pro?Israel voice in the Administration," and selected him in 2002 as the first among fifty notables who "have consciously pursued Jewish activism." At about the same time, JINSA gave Wolfowitz its Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award for promoting a strong partnership between Israel and the United States, and the Jerusalem Post, describing him as "devoutly pro?Israel," named him "Man of the Year" in 2003. [76]
Not surprising, considering Richard Perle is director of it;
An UPI report said another under-investigation official Mr Rhode "practically lived out of (Ahmad) Chalabi's office". Intelligence sources said that CIA operatives observed Mr Rhode as being constantly on his cell phone to Israel, discussing US plans, military deployments, political projects and a discussion of Iraq assets. [85]
Thus, the casus belli for the Iraq war was put together by Israeli spies and zionist agents, and derived from what's come to be known as "Feith-based intelligence" [87], or in other words, complete bullshit from the bowels of the ziocon Lie Factory [88], served on the silver platter of mainstream media to the American public and the people of the world who swallowed it whole for Eretz Israel [89]. Even so, most of the treachery that led to the Iraq war will go unpunished. It's usually a pretty sure thing that if you're a senior official in the US government and you're caught spying for Israel, your treason will be dealt with leniently, or not at all. From an article by Laura Rozen and Jason Vest:
Since the Pollard case [90], U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement sources have revealed to the Prospect that at least six sealed indictments have been issued against individuals for espionage on Israel's behalf. It's a testament to the unique relationship between the United States and Israel that those cases were never prosecuted; according to the same sources, both governments ultimately addressed them through diplomatic and intelligence channels rather than air the dirty laundry. A number of career Justice Department and intelligence officials who have worked on Israeli counterespionage told the Prospect of long-standing frustration among investigators and prosecutors who feel that cases that could have been made successfully against Israeli spies were never brought to trial, or that the investigations were shut down prematurely. [91]
More War For Israel
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which lobbies the US government on behalf of Israel, was instrumental in pushing for the Iraq war. It's policy was to keep a low profile with regard to it's public position on Iraq, but behind the scenes it was a very different story. Democratic congressman Jim Moran agrees:
"AIPAC is the most powerful lobby and has pushed this war from the beginning. Because they are so well organized, and their members are extraordinarily powerful -- most of them are quite wealthy -- they have been able to exert power." [92]
Documents leaked to Israel by the aforementioned criminal zionist cabal member Larry Franklin went through two employees of AIPAC, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, who are now awaiting trial over charges relating to violating provisions of the Espionage Act. [93]. Franklin is a former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analyst who moved into the Pentagon to work for Bull Luti and Douglas Feith as their Iran expert, and while he's apparently not Jewish, he's long been associated with the ziocons and a good friend of Paul Wolfowitz. The documents he passed on to Rosen and Weissman, the AIPAC staffers, included a national security presidential directive (NSPD), to do with US policy toward Iran. [94] [95] James Petras says in his article, "AIPAC on Trial":
The Franklin-AIPAC-Israeli investigation was more than a spy case. It involved the future of US-Middle East relations and more specifically whether the "neo-cons" would be able to push the US into a military confrontation with Iran. Franklin was a top Pentagon analyst on Iran, with access to all the executive branch deliberations on Iran. AIPAC lobbying and information gathering was aggressively directed toward pushing the Israeli agenda on a US-Iranian confrontation against strong opposition in the State Department, CIA, military intelligence and field commanders. [96]
The notion of attacking Iran and ideas about how to go about it were being bandied about in the Office of Special Plans since it's very inception, but the ziocons had put too much on the US public's plate with Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, all indications are that they're finally ready to try to push us into a war with Iran [97] [98] [99], in keeping with the plan they've had in mind all along; the plan to reorder the middle east as outlined in A Clean Break with what Juan Cole [100] called a "one-two" punch:
It is an echo of the one-two punch secretly planned by the pro-Likud faction in the Department of Defense. First, the United States would take out Iraq, and then Iran. David Wurmser, a key member of the group, also wanted Syria included. These pro-Likud intellectuals concluded that 9/11 would give them carte blanche to use the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv (not wars that really needed to be fought, but wars that the Likud coalition thought it would be nice to see fought so as to increase Israel's ability to annex land and act aggressively, especially if someone else's boys did the dying). [101]
What's being called the "Iran Group" or the Iranian Directorate was set up last year in the Pentagon to manage the Iranian "problem". It's looking very much like the old OSP, which was dismantled once it's job of putting together the massive 'links-to-Al-Qaeda'/WMD disinfo campaign was complete and the Iraq War underway. Some of the same people who worked with the OSP and/or had a hand in lying us into the Iraq war are now working at the Iranian Directorate. Here are just a few:
"Strauss's view certainly alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception." [103]
So it's all happening again - a feverish campaign for war being staged by the same PNAC/Clean Break/Iraq war/9-11 zionists that got us into the mess we're in now. All of those people helped sell us the Iraq war, but of course there are many more shady characters involved than the ones listed above - Dick Cheney's still there, for instance. A media blitz is currently underway to sensationalise Iran's perfectly legitimate [107] nuclear development program, proliferate dubious claims [108] about Iranian weapons being smuggled into Iran, and demonise president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [109], all sourced from information coming out of the Iran Group set up to make a new case for war by manipulating, cherry-picking, and fabricating intelligence [110], set up in the policy shop area of the Pentagon which housed its predecessor, the OSP [111].
No More War For Israel
When asked by reporters about civilian deaths during the Afghanistan campaign, General Tommy Franks said "we don't do body counts". Thankfully, others do. The official death toll total for US soldiers and civilians (government stats as of October 16, 2007 [112.pdf] ) stands at 3,824 in Iraq and 446 in Afghanistan. The figure for those wounded and not returned to duty (WIA not RTD) within 72 hours stands at 12,672 for Iraq and 1,023 for Afghanistan. Military contractors are not included in those figures. There have been less British deaths, mainly due to the fact that there are less of them, and the Australian death toll is almost negligible, if there is such a thing as a negligible death toll - only two soldiers [113] and six contractors so far. [114]
At any rate, coalition casualties seem to be incredibly low compared to that of the other side. The respected British polling firm ORB released the results of their poll in September of 2007, showing that 22% of Iraqi households had lost a family member, which equates to more than 1.2 million dead Iraqis.
Given that from the 2005 census there are a total of 4,050,597 households this data suggests a total of 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003. Calculating the affect from the margin of error we believe that the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063. [115]
In February of 2007 a BBC poll came up with the figure of 17% for the same thing, so the findings roughly corroborate eachother. According to Professor Gilbert Burnham and Professor Les Roberts,
"There are now two polls and three scientific surveys all suggesting the official figures and media-based estimates in Iraq have missed 70-95% of all deaths. The evidence suggests that the extent of under-reporting by the media is only increasing with time." [116]
Dr Gideon Polya points out that even those figures are inaccurate, because they are the stats for violent deaths only and don't include the nonviolent deaths that have occurred as an indirect result of the invasions, such as the infant mortality rate amongst other things. She includes in her analysis UN agency data of excess non-violent post-invasion deaths, to reach a more accurate figure of the total human cost of military intervention in the middle east.
The following analysis reveals that the total violent and non-violent post-invasion Iraqi excess deaths now total 1.5-2.0 million and that the total excess deaths in the Bush I and Bush II Asian Wars now total 8 million. Mainstream media ignoring of this horrendous, ongoing mass murdering of ethnically or culturally Semitic indigenous peoples amounts to near-comprehensive anti-Semitic Holocaust Denial. [117]
Eight million is a staggering figure if you think about it. That's about 850,000 more people than the current total population of Israel [118], which is, in my humble opinion, the prime mover behind all this bloodshed in the first place - we're out there killing and dying for zion.
The US oil industry strongly opposed the embargo on Iraq, because it kept them away from Iraqi oil and prevented them from doing business in that country, and when Bush took the presidency in 2001 they worked hard to lobby against the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act of 1996, signed by Bill Clinton [119] [120]. But of course, the ziocons, intent on war, would have none of it.
Furthermore, it simply doesn't make sense for a country to spend $300 million per day at a total cost of $1.2 trillion and rising (and possibly as much as two trillion [121]) on wars that won't pay for themselves in oil. It does, however, make sense for treasonous pro-Israel zionists to hijack America and use it's military might and the lives of it's sons and daughters to secure a future for Israel. Of course, the fact that we're killing for Israel and dying for zion doesn't necessarily mean that it's not about oil - it just means it's not about America's oil.
Before 1948 when the state of Israel was created [122], there was an oil pipeline running from Iraq to Palestine, which is now Haifa in Israel, but when the zionists stole Palestine, Iraq re-routed the pipeline to Syria [123]. Israel is a tiny little country with practically no oil resources of its own, and without oil, Israel ceases to exist. Israel's oil problem is another one of its "existential threats". Israel being Israel, the waspish, nasty, racist [124] little country that it is, its not on good terms with its oil rich Arab neighbours, so it has to import oil from countries like Angola, Columbia and Mexico. It's for this reason, among others, that removing Saddam was a key strategic goal for Israel, because Israel would very much like to see the old pipeline from Iraq to Haifa reopened [125] [126]. It would solve the ziostani oil crisis and make Israel more secure. So, as notable blogger and American patriot qrswave points out: yes, the war is for oil, and the oil is for Israel [127]. Therefore, the war is for Israel - you just won't hear anything about it in the zionist-controlled mainstream media, that's all.
General Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander admitted that Iraq was all about Israel in an interview with the Guardian in August of 2002:
"Those who favor this attack now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." [128]
Distinguished academics Stephen Walt [129] and John Mearsheimer [130] pointed it out in their paper, the aforementioned The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, which has now been expanded upon and turned into a book: [131]
Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the U.S. decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was a critical element. Some Americans believe that this was a "war for oil," but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow [132], a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (2001?2003), executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now Counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the "real threat" from Iraq was not a threat to the United States.139 The "unstated threat" was the "threat against Israel," Zelikow told a University of Virginia audience in September 2002, noting further that "the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell." [133]
Mark Weber writes in his article "Iraq: A War For Israel":
Whatever the secondary reasons for the war, the crucial factor in President Bush’s decision to attack was to help Israel. With support from Israel and America’s Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish "neo-conservatives" holding high-level positions in his administration, President Bush – who was already fervently committed to Israel – resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel’s chief regional enemies.
This is so widely understood in Washington that US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq "to secure Israel," and "everybody" knows it. He also identified three of the influential pro-Israel Jews in Washington who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles Krauthammer, columnist and author.
And further down:
In Britain, a veteran member of Britain’s House of Commons bluntly declared in May 2003 that Jews had taken control of America’s foreign policy, and had succeeded in pushing the US into war. "A Jewish cabal have taken over the government in the United States and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians," said Tam Dalyell, a Labour party deputy and the longest-serving House member. "There is far too much Jewish influence in the United States," he added. [134]
What's unfortunate is that the idea of Jewish power and zionist control of our media, governments etc is both a) seen to be an antisemitic cliche and therefore one of the most repugnant ideas imaginable, because nobody likes racism, and b) the absolute truth of the matter [135]. It's an awkward situation, but that's our predicament. The societal taboo of talking about these things, embedded into our cultural reality over the decades by zionist organisations like the ADL and other lobby groups has resulted in a human collective that largely self-regulates with regard to discussion about it, and some even regulate their own thinking of it. We have a situation whereby there are people who charge themselves with enlightening the rest of us with the truth, but feel as though it's necessary to compromise and edit themselves in order to make that task viable, and fit for mainstream consumption. When the truth is ugly, those honest and conscientious enough to make it their message are seen to be peddling hate, being insensitive and holding extremist views. But when the truth is ugly and the problem extreme, taking anything less than an honest position is useless.
I don't hate Jews, or anybody else, but I do have a strong aversion to zionism, because it's a racist ideology. The natural, instinctual urge to act in defense of your planet, your country, your family and your fellow humans is invariably love-based, not the other way around. No truly noble effort has ever been anything less than an act of love. There might be fury and rage and passion and frustration in the periphery, but the driving force is always love. So it is then that given our predicament, those of us most willing to act out of love, calling for a mass awareness of uncomfortable truths, will necesarily be the ugliest in the eyes of conventional cultural perception, and the most misunderstood. The louder our voices, the more intense will be the reaction of those that stand to lose by the truth coming out. Personal attacks and smearing by a complicit media and zionist factions with endless resources is often the end for those that are really successful at getting the truth out [136] [137], but it's essential that we speak out, in order to put an end to the insanity of endless war for Israel.
![[2]](http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2004/04/10/no_war_for_oil.jpg){kind=link}