The Tripartite that led to the Iraq War: Big Oil, Big Jew, and Big Joe

[animalishness]

some folks have tried to explain the iraq war as 'war for oil'. some
have placed the blame on neo-cons who are mostly made up of jews. and
some have said the american public was too stupid and didn't see the
warning signs.
in truth, the iraq war happened because of the convergence of all
three. this is how big events in history happen. by some accident or
strange turn of circumstances, forces which generally don't see eye-to-
eye join forces and the momentum that is unleashed is almost
unstoppable.
take WWII. hitler could not have done it alone. he was able to rearm
germany because western democracies wanted to use nazi germany as a
bulwark against communism. soon after, stalin signed a pact with
hitler, emboldening the fuhrer to get the first chapter of war
started--with germans taking western half of poland while the soviets
took the eastern half. stalin, in his way, was hoping to use hitler
as a bulwark against the capitalist west. hitler had used both fears--
capitalist fear of communism and communist fear of capitalism--to turn
germany into a military giant again.

in the case of the iraq war, no one single force among the main three--
big oil, big jew, and big joe--could have led america to war. though
jews--liberal as well as neocon--had been hoping to get rid of
hussein(seen as danger to israel) for a long time, there was no way
they could persuade americans to go to war for israel. and, though
oil companies had been hoping to get rid of hussein so as to gain
greater access to iraqi oil, the idea of spilling the blood of
american boys for oil didn't sound morally sound for most americans.
for iraq war to happen, a terrible event was necessary, and that was
9/11. that event made most americans--joe american--seethe with
anger. americans wanted revenge, and soon they got it in
afghanistan. but, the war was over almost as quickly as it got
started. it was like premature ejaculation. there was no sense of
grand closure, victory, or catharsis. when US defeated japan in WWII,
there had been two giant nuclear orgasms that fuc*ed the geisha bitch
up her ass. the afghan war had been billed as the greatest fight
since the first ali-frazier fight. it was more like mike tyson vs
michael spinks. it was no contest. the great evil enemy that took
down the twin towers and wrecked part of the pentagon turned out to be
paper tiger. many joe americans thought.... 'that is it?' so,
psychologically americans were revved up for a real war against the
raggers. and, most americans couldn't tell an afghani from an iraqi.
they were all terrorist raggers who needed to be taught a good lesson
and then converted to our way of life--like the krauts and japs in
WWII. so, Big Joe was happy to see Shock and Awe. it was war as a
rock concert. it was Live Raid. also, unlike rocky afghanistan with
little to blow up, there were lots of big buildings in bagdad to blow
up sky high. americans watched it on TV and whooped, 'shiite--no pun
intended--, it blew up REAL GOOD!'
at any rate, americans wouldn't have been in this state of mind had it
not been for 9/11 and the quick end of the afghan war. had the afghan
war dragged on and been an hard fought victory, americans would have
been both exhausted and satisfied with the result. but, it was over
too quickly. so, there has to be an 'hollywood sequel'.

this is what Big Jew and Big Oil took advantage of. for different
reasons, Big Jew and Big Oil became allies. for Big Jew, it was
security of israel. for Big Oil, it was access to oil. but, as it
wasn't palatable to sell a war to the american public on those bases,
they had prepared both an existential and ideological reason for the
war. the existential reason was WMD which hussein may supply to
terrorists in order to kill americans--a rather far-fetched idea even
if there had been WMD. the ideological reason was 'spreading
democracy' all over the world. but, neither Big Jew nor Big Oil was
really interested in the ideological aspect of the war. the fact is
many jews in this country know that it sounds selfish, petty, and
unpatriotic to ask americans to shape their foreign policy in the
interests of israel. so, they had to dress up what are essentially
pro-israeli interests in fancy ideological garb of democratism. but,
if these jews are so sincere in their democratist principle, why not
call for war on burma, belarus, sudan, zimbabwe, etc? notice that
the axis of evil nations all had an anti-israeli record directly or
indirectly. there was the obvious candidates of iran and iraq. but,
why north korea? because north korea sold missiles and other weapons
to middle east nations hostile to israel. indeed, even much of
jewish--both liberal and neocon--anger at china is due to chinese
business ties with the middle east. the silkworm missiles that rained
down on israel during the the Gulf War came from china. but, china
was too big and important to include in the axis of evil--though it is
the main sponsor of north korea(without chinese economic and political
support, the north korean regime may have imploded years ago).
so, democratism was merely rhetoric to dress up what was essentially
meant to be pro-israeli policies. and though neocons were the most
brazen proponets of this, there was great support of the iraq war from
the liberal and even some leftist spectrum of Big Jew power. both NY
Times and the New Republic initially supported the war, largely
because they saw it as a great boon to the security of israel. this
isn't to discount the genuine concern about WMD or hopes of
democratizing the middle east, but the fact is that Big Jew support of
the war was essentially about israel. had hussein been friendly to
israel, neocons and liberal jews would not have supported having him
deposed even if he had killed 100,000s of kurds and shiites. though
hussein's ghastly human rights record came in hand as a moral cover
for the war, the main concern for Big Jew was what might hussein do
against israel. eventually, many liberal jews withdrew their support
of the war when it began to go badly, but they cannot wash their hands
and walk away so cleanly. NY Times can bitch and whine about how it
had been misled, misguided, and mistaken, but the crucial fact is it
was essentially a case of Big Jew supporting a war mainly for jewish
interests.
if Big Jew wanted the war to protect israel, Big Oil just wanted
access to iraqi oil. because of Gulf War, US oil companies knew they
were shut out of iraq due to sanctions. but, even with sanctions
removed, hussein's iraq would have contracted non-american companies
to drill for more oil due to lingering bitterness over the Gulf War.
so, the ONLY way US companies could gain access to iraqi oil was to
remove hussein. but, they couldn't come out and say this openly
because it sounds like 'blood for oil'. so, they formed an alliance
with neocon intellectuals who could come up with sound-sounding
ideological, moral, and intellectual reasons for the war. again, this
isn't to say that neocons were totally cynical in their democratizing
principles; it is merely to indicate that the main animating factor
for neocons--and even pro-war liberal jews--was the interests of
israel. had hussein posed NO threat to israel despite his loathsome
domestic record on human rights, neocons would not have argued for the
iraq war. many liberal jews bought the neocon argument and came
onboard with hope and optimism. also, many american politicians--
liberal as well as conservative--jumped on the bandwagon because they
though the victory would be decisive and development would go as
planned. when things began to unravel, the liberals disingenuously
played the victim of disinformation and misinformation.
anyway, folks like bush and cheney were closely associated with US oil
companies, especially them boys in texas. and, they wanted that oil in
iraq. but, they didn't have the intellectual brilliance of jews. so,
they allied with neocon--and even with liberal--jews to conceive of an
ideological justification for the war. this was easy for neocons since
they had hatched an idea long ago. the reason why neocons were not
totally cynical nor only pro-israel is that their ideas go back to the
Cold War when many of them shifted their ideological allegiances in
their sincere effort to defeat the soviet union. as former leftists,
they understood the darkness of leftist mentality, wanted to atone for
their past sins, and find the fusion of the best of rightwing and
leftwing ideas. but, after the Cold War, the only main obsession among
neocons was israel. the Evil Empire was gone, but clash of
civilizations between west and mideast was getting under way--with
tiny israel caught right in the middle both geographically and
politically.
so, Big Oil and Big Jew forged an alliance. and, it's crucial that we
call it Big Jew instead of Big Neocon because at the start of the iraq
war, many liberal jews were for the war. had only neocons been for
the war while the much more powerful liberal jews--who own most of the
media--been adamantly opposed, there would have been less support for
the war among Big Joe as most americans learn about the world thru the
liberal jew dominated media. much--though not all--of what Big Joe
sees and hears is what the Big (liberal) Jew chooses to show him.
though jews make up only 2% of the american population, they are by
far the most powerful group in the US. jews are in the academia,
media, arts, and popular culture what negroes--though only 13% of the
overall population--are in the NBA. they totally dominate. also, by
clever manipulation of the holocaust card, criticism of jewish power
is not permitted as any such is deemed 'anti-semitic'. so, we have
diehard conservative christians defending jews and condemning all
criticism of jewish power EVEN THOUGH jews--most of them liberal or
leftist--go out of their ways to attack, belittle, mock, and insult
conservative christians. though most jews in the US label americans
who oppose illegal immigration as 'racists', most conservative
christian americans totally support israel's discriminatory policies
against palestinians. this goes to show that the Big Dumb Goy is no
match for the little smart jew.

it could still be argued that bush/cheney or Big Oil wasn't as venal
as Big Jew because the former was still acting in american interests--
even if big oil interests--whereas Big Jew was acting essentially in
the interest of a foreign country, israel. but, it could be argued
that Big Jew was less venal than Big Oil because the former at least
had some moral/ideological principle at stake whereas it was only
about dollars and cents to Big Oil.

in the aftermath of the iraq war, the tripartite has fallen apart,
more or less. up to the buildup of the iraq war, there had been a
unity among neocons and many powerful/influential liberal jews which
formed the Big Jew coalition. due to the failures of the war, the
divide between neocon jews and liberal jews are wider than ever.
liberal jews are doing their best--not always convincingly--that they
were hoodwinked into supporting the war for purely lofty and
idealistic reasons. in fact, they supported the war for the same
reason as their neocon brethren--for the interests of israel. when the
problem resulting from the war seemed to threaten israel even more,
liberal jews exercised a bit of mea culpa and a lot of neo-culpa.
Big Joe also fell from the coalition, especially after the 2004
election. even thru that election cycle, Big Joe was willing to give
bush the benefit of a doubt and hoped that things would get better,
but things kept getting worse and worse. american boys were dying in
great numbers; also, all that spending on war was draining the
american economy. so, Big Joe broke away from the coalition, and it
led to the 2006 congressional victory for democrats. also, with
rising gas prices, Big Joe began to see Big Oil as the Snake Oil. Big
Oil forces had sold the war as a guarantee for cheaper gas prices in
the future, but gas prices only climbed higher and higher--and so did
Big Oil profits. also, the long simmering divide between paleo-cons
and neo-cons finally burst out into the open. mainstream cons,
somewhere between paleo- and neo-conservatisms, were confused more
than ever. this confusion was most telling in the case of william f.
buckley who supported the war and then regretted having done so.

as there is more than one side to this story, different people will
blame different things. so, jewish alan greenspan will blame the war
on oil interests while pat buchanan will hint that it was jewish
interests. in fact, it was due to the accidental historical
convergence of Big Oil, Big Jew, and Big Joe. this is why we need not
fear democratist empire building in the future, because for such to
happen there needs to be alignment of political, economic,
intellectual, and demographic forces that usually don't see eye to
eye. it was only hitler that, for a time, brought US and USSR
together. it was 9/11 which led to the temporary alliance of forces
which generally eye one another with suspicion. so, if democatism is a
big danger, the failure of iraq may well have saved US from further
such ventures. but, i would argue that even had iraq been a great
success, further such ventures would only have been limited to nations
of interest to Big Jew and/or Big Oil. if iran had been taken out
after iraq, that would have been the end of the democratist venture.
would north korea have been next? i doubt it as there would be no
evil iraq and iran to which north korea could sell weapons to. and, i
highly doubt if neocons would have called for interventionist wars in
zimbabwe, burma, cuba, and the like. nor, would have Big Oil called
for wars in such nations with no oil. also, the US public would not
have supported such ventures even if wars in iraq--and even iran--had
succeeded.