The war on Iraq: Conceived in Israel
coaste...@yahoo.com
The war on Iraq:
Conceived in Israel
By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
© 2003 WTM Enterprises
All rights reserved.
In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the
rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran
diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what
is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the
policy — security for Israel." If Israel's security were indeed the
real American motive for war, Schroeder wrote,
It would represent something to my knowledge unique in history. It is
common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller
powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance
I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the
fighting as the proxy of a small client state. [1]
Is there any evidence that Israel and her supporters have managed to
get the United States to fight for their interests?
To unearth the real motives for the projected war on Iraq, one must
ask the critical question: How did the 9/11 terrorist attack lead to
the planned war on Iraq, even though there is no real evidence that
Iraq was involved in 9/11? From the time of the 9/11 attack,
neoconservatives, of primarily (though not exclusively) Jewish
ethnicity and right-wing Zionist persuasion, have tried to make use of
9/11 to foment a broad war against Islamic terrorism, the targets of
which would coincide with the enemies of Israel.
Although the term neoconservative is in common usage, a brief
description of the group might be helpful. Many of the first-
generation neocons originally were liberal Democrats, or even
socialists and Marxists, often Trotskyites. They drifted to the right
in the 1960s and 1970s as the Democratic Party moved to the antiwar
McGovernite left. And concern for Israel loomed large in that
rightward drift. As political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg puts it:
One major factor that drew them inexorably to the right was their
attachment to Israel and their growing frustration during the 1960s
with a Democratic party that was becoming increasingly opposed to
American military preparedness and increasingly enamored of Third
World causes [e.g., Palestinian rights]. In the Reaganite right's hard-
line anti-communism, commitment to American military strength, and
willingness to intervene politically and militarily in the affairs of
other nations to promote democratic values (and American interests),
neocons found a political movement that would guarantee Israel's
security. [2]
For some time prior to September 11, 2001, neoconservatives had
publicly advocated an American war on Iraq. The 9/11 atrocities
provided the pretext. The idea that neocons are the motivating force
behind the U.S. movement for war has been broached by a number of
commentators. For instance, Joshua Micah Marshall authored an article
in The Washington Monthly titled: "Bomb Saddam?: How the obsession of
a few neocon hawks became the central goal of U.S. foreign policy."
And in the leftist e-journal CounterPunch, Kathleen and Bill
Christison wrote:
The suggestion that the war with Iraq is being planned at Israel's
behest, or at the instigation of policymakers whose main motivation is
trying to create a secure environment for Israel, is strong. Many
Israeli analysts believe this. The Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar
recently observed frankly in a Ha'aretz column that [Richard] Perle,
[Douglas] Feith, and their fellow strategists "are walking a fine line
between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests."
The suggestion of dual loyalties is not a verboten subject in the
Israeli press, as it is in the United States. Peace activist Uri
Avnery, who knows Israeli Prime Minister Sharon well, has written that
Sharon has long planned grandiose schemes for restructuring the Middle
East and that "the winds blowing now in Washington remind me of
Sharon. I have absolutely no proof that the Bushies got their ideas
from him. But the style is the same." [3]
In the following essay I attempt to flesh out that thesis and show the
link between the war position of the neoconservatives and the long-
time strategy of the Israeli Right, if not of the Israeli mainstream
itself. In brief, the idea of a Middle East war has been bandied about
in Israel for many years as a means of enhancing Israeli security,
which revolves around an ultimate solution to the Palestinian problem.
War and expulsion
To understand why Israeli leaders would want a Middle East war, it is
first necessary to take a brief look at the history of the Zionist
movement and its goals. Despite public rhetoric to the contrary, the
idea of expelling (or, in the accepted euphemism, "transferring") the
indigenous Palestinian population was an integral part of the Zionist
effort to found a Jewish national state in Palestine. Historian Tom
Segev writes:
The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its
very beginnings, first appearing in Theodore Herzl's diary. In
practice, the Zionists began executing a mini-transfer from the time
they began purchasing the land and evacuating the Arab tenants....
"Disappearing" the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and
was also a necessary condition of its existence.... With few
exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced
transfer — or its morality.
However, Segev continues, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly
proclaim their plan of mass expulsion because "this would cause the
Zionists to lose the world's sympathy." [4]
The key was to find an opportune time to initiate the expulsion so it
would not incur the world's condemnation. In the late 1930s, David Ben-
Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in
revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and
what is possible in such great hours is not carried out — a whole
world is lost." [5] The "revolutionary times" would come with the
first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, when the Zionists were able to expel
750,000 Palestinians (more than 80 percent of the indigenous
population), and thus achieve an overwhelmingly Jewish state, though
its area did not include the entirety of Palestine, or the "Land of
Israel," which Zionist leaders thought necessary for a viable state.
The opportunity to grab additional land occurred as a result of the
1967 war; however, that occupation brought with it the problem of a
large Palestinian population. By that time world opinion was totally
opposed to forced population transfers, equating such a policy with
the unspeakable horror of Nazism. The landmark Fourth Geneva
Convention, ratified in 1949, had "unequivocally prohibited
deportation" of civilians under occupation. [6] Since the 1967 war,
the major question in Israeli politics has been: What to do with that
territory and its Palestinian population?
It was during the 1980s, with the coming to power of the right-wing
Likud government, that the idea of expulsion resurfaced publicly. And
this time it was directly tied to a larger war, with destabilization
of the Middle East seen as a precondition for Palestinian expulsion.
Such a proposal, including removal of the Palestinian population, was
outlined in an article by Oded Yinon, titled "A Strategy for Israel in
the 1980s," appearing in the World Zionist Organization's periodical
Kivunim in February 1982. Yinon had been attached to the Israeli
Foreign Ministry and his article undoubtedly reflected high-level
thinking in the Israeli military and intelligence establishment. The
article called for Israel to bring about the dissolution and
fragmentation of the Arab states into a mosaic of ethnic groupings.
Thinking along those lines, Ariel Sharon stated on March 24, 1988,
that if the Palestinian uprising continued, Israel would have to make
war on her Arab neighbors. The war, he stated, would provide "the
circumstances" for the removal of the entire Palestinian population
from the West Bank and Gaza and even from inside Israel proper. [7]
Israeli foreign policy expert Yehoshafat Harkabi critiqued the war/
expulsion scenario — referring to "Israeli intentions to impose a Pax
Israelica on the Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and treat
them harshly" — in his very significant work, Israel's Fateful Hour,
published in 1988. Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi
concluded that Israel did not have the power to achieve that goal,
given the strength of the Arab states, the large Palestinian
population involved, and the vehement opposition of world opinion. He
hoped that "the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the
weakest Arab state — Lebanon — will disabuse people of similar
ambitions in other territories." [8] Left unconsidered by Harkabi was
the possibility that the United States would act as Israel's proxy to
achieve the overall goal.
U.S. Realpolitik
In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. Middle Eastern policy, although
sympathetic to Israel, was not identical to that of Israel. The
fundamental goal of U.S. policy was to promote stable governments in
the Middle East that would allow oil to flow reliably to the Western
industrial nations. It was not necessary for the Muslim countries to
befriend Israel — in fact they could openly oppose the Jewish state.
The United States worked for peace between Israel and the Muslim
states in the region, but it was to be a peace that would accommodate
the demands of the Muslim nations — most crucially their demands
involving the Palestinians.
Pursuing its policy of ensuring the security of Middle East oil
supplies, by the mid 1980s Washington was heavily supporting Iraq in
her war against Iran, although for a while the United States had also
provided some aid to Iran (viz. the Iran-contra scandal). Ironically,
Donald Rumsfeld was the U.S. envoy who in 1983 paved the way for the
restoration of relations with Iraq, relations which had been severed
in 1967. The United States along with other Western nations looked
upon Iraq as a bulwark against the radical Islamism of the Ayatollah's
Iran, which threatened Western oil interests. U.S. support for Iraq
included intelligence information, military equipment, and
agricultural credits. And the United States deployed the largest naval
force since the Vietnam War in the Persian Gulf. Ostensibly sent for
the purpose of protecting oil tankers, it ended up engaging in serious
attacks on Iran's navy.
It was during this period of U.S. support that Iraq used poison gas
against the Iranians and the Kurds, a tactic that the U.S. government
and its media supporters now describe as so horrendous. In fact, U.S.
intelligence facilitated the Iraqi use of gas against the Iranians. In
addition, Washington eased up on its own technology export
restrictions to Iraq, which allowed the Iraqis to import
supercomputers, machine tools, poisonous chemicals, and even strains
of anthrax and bubonic plague. In short, the United States helped arm
Iraq with the very weaponry of horror that administration officials
are now trumpeting as justification for forcibly removing Saddam from
power. [9]
When the Iran/Iraq war ended in 1988, the United States continued its
support for Iraq, showering her with military hardware, advanced
technology, and agricultural credits. The United States apparently
looked to Saddam to maintain stability in the Gulf. But American
policy swiftly changed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
Neoconservatives were hawkish in generating support for a U.S. war
against Iraq. The Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, headed
by Richard Perle, was set up to promote the war. [10] And
neoconservative war hawks such as Perle, Frank Gaffney, Jr., A.M.
Rosenthal, William Safire, and The Wall Street Journal held that
America's war objective should be not simply to drive Iraq out of
Kuwait but also to destroy Iraq's military potential, especially her
capacity to develop nuclear weapons. The first Bush administration
embraced that position. [11]
But beyond that, the neocons hoped that the war would lead to the
removal of Saddam Hussein and the American occupation of Iraq.
However, despite the urgings of then-Defense Secretary Richard Cheney
and Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the full conquest of
Iraq was never accomplished because of the opposition of General Colin
Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and General Norman Schwarzkopf,
the field commander. [12] Moreover, the United States had a UN mandate
only to liberate Kuwait, not to remove Saddam. To attempt the latter
would have caused the U.S.-led coalition to fall apart. America's
coalition partners in the region, especially Turkey and Saudi Arabia,
feared that the elimination of Saddam's government would cause Iraq to
fragment into warring ethnic and religious groups. That could have
involved a Kurdish rebellion in Iraq that would have spread to
Turkey's own restive Kurdish population. Furthermore, Iraq's Shiites
might have fallen under the influence of Iran, increasing the threat
of Islamic radicalism in the region.
Not only did the Bush administration dash neoconservative hopes by
leaving Saddam in place, but its proposed "New World Order," as
implemented by Secretary of State James Baker, conflicted with
neoconservative/Israeli goals, being oriented toward placating the
Arab coalition that supported the war. That entailed an effort to curb
Israeli control of her occupied territories. The Bush administration
demanded that Israel halt the construction of new settlements in the
occupied territories as a condition for receiving $10 billion in U.S.
loan guarantees for Israel's resettlement of hundreds of thousands of
immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Although Bush would cave in
to American pro-Zionist pressure just prior to the November 1992
election, his resistance disaffected many neocons, causing some, such
as Safire, to back Bill Clinton in the 1992 election. [13]
coaste...@yahoo.com
wrote:
\
The war on Iraq:
Conceived in Israel
by Stephen J. Sniegoski, continued.
Table of contents
Reprint rights
Part two
© 2003 WTM Enterprises
All rights reserved.
The network
During the Clinton administration, neoconservatives promoted their
views from a strong interlocking network of think tanks — the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI), Middle East Media Research Institute
(Memri), Hudson Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy,
Middle East Forum, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
(JINSA), Center for Security Policy (CSP) — which have had great
influence in the media and which have helped to staff Republican
administrations. Some of the organizations were originally set up by
mainline conservatives and only later taken over by neoconservatives;
[14] others were established by neocons, with some of the groups
having a direct Israeli connection. For example, Colonel Yigal Carmon,
formerly of Israeli military intelligence, was a co-founder of the
Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri). And the various
organizations have been closely interconnected. For example, the other
co-founder of Memri, Meyrav Wurmser, was a member of the Hudson
Institute, while her husband, David Wurmser, headed the Middle East
studies department of AEI. And Perle was both a "resident fellow" at
the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and a trustee of the Hudson
Institute. [15]
In a recent article in the The Nation, Jason Vest discusses the
immense influence in the current Bush administration of people from
two major neocon research organizations, JINSA and CSP. Vest details
the close links among the two organizations, right-wing politicians,
arms merchants, military men, Jewish billionaires, and Republican
administrations. [16]
Regarding JINSA, Vest writes:
Founded in 1976 by neoconservatives concerned that the United States
might not be able to provide Israel with adequate military supplies in
the event of another Arab-Israeli war, over the past twenty-five years
JINSA has gone from a loose-knit proto-group to a $1.4-million-a-year
operation with a formidable array of Washington power players on its
rolls. Until the beginning of the current Bush administration, JINSA's
board of advisors included such heavy hitters as Cheney, John Bolton
(now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control) and Douglas J. Feith,
the third-highest-ranking executive in the Pentagon. Both Perle and
former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey, two of the
loudest voices in the attack-Iraq chorus, are still on the board, as
are such Reagan-era relics as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Eugene Rostow, and
[Michael] Ledeen — Oliver North's Iran/contra liaison with the
Israelis. [17]
Vest notes that "dozens" of JINSA and CSP "members have ascended to
powerful government posts, where their advocacy in support of the same
agenda continues, abetted by the out-of-government adjuncts from which
they came. Industrious and persistent, they've managed to weave a
number of issues — support for national missile defense, opposition to
arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms
aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general — into a hard
line, with support for the Israeli right at its core." And Vest
continues: "On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than
in its relentless campaign for war — not just with Iraq, but 'total
war,' as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in
Washington, put it last year. For this crew, 'regime change' by any
means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian
Authority is an urgent imperative." [18]
Let's recapitulate Vest's major points. The JINSA/CSP network has
"support for the Israeli right at its core." In line with the views of
the Israeli right, it has advocated a Middle Eastern war to eliminate
the enemies of Israel. And members of the JINSA/CSP network have
gained influential foreign policy positions in Republican
administrations, most especially in the current administration of
George W. Bush.
"Securing the realm"
A clear illustration of the neoconservative thinking on war on Iraq is
a 1996 paper developed by Perle, Feith, David Wurmser, and others
published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced
Strategic and Political Studies, titled "A clean break: a new strategy
for securing the realm." It was intended as a political blueprint for
the incoming government of Benjamin Netanyahu. The paper stated that
Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo peace process and
reassert Israel's claim to the West Bank and Gaza. It presented a plan
whereby Israel would "shape its strategic environment," beginning with
the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite
monarchy in Baghdad, to serve as a first step toward eliminating the
anti-Israeli governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
[19]
Note that these Americans — Perle, Feith, and Wurmser — were advising
a foreign government and that they currently are connected to the
George W. Bush administration: Perle is head of the Defense Policy
Board; Feith is Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy; and Wurmser
is special assistant to State Department chief arms control negotiator
John Bolton. It is also remarkable that while in 1996 Israel was to
"shape its strategic environment" by removing her enemies, the same
individuals are now proposing that the United States shape the Middle
East environment by removing Israel's enemies. That is to say, the
United States is to serve as Israel's proxy to advance Israeli
interests.
On February 19, 1998, in an "Open Letter to the President," the
neoconservative Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf proposed
"a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down
Saddam and his regime." The letter continued: "It will not be easy —
and the course of action we favor is not without its problems and
perils. But we believe the vital national interests of our country
require the United States to [adopt such a strategy]." Among the
letter's signers were the following current Bush administration
officials: Elliott Abrams (National Security Council), Richard
Armitage (State Department), Bolton (State Department), Feith (Defense
Department), Fred Ikle (Defense Policy Board), Zalmay Khalilzad (White
House), Peter Rodman (Defense Department), Wolfowitz (Defense
Department), David Wurmser (State Department), Dov Zakheim (Defense
Department), Perle (Defense Policy Board), and Rumsfeld (Secretary of
Defense). [20] In 1998 Donald Rumsfeld was part of the neocon network
and already demanding war with Iraq. [21]
Signers of the letter also included such pro-Zionist and
neoconservative luminaries as Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Gaffney
(Director, Center for Security Policy), Joshua Muravchik (American
Enterprise Institute), Martin Peretz (editor-in-chief, The New
Republic), Leon Wieseltier (The New Republic), and former Rep. Stephen
Solarz (D-N.Y.). [22] President Clinton would only go so far as to
support the Iraq Liberation Act, which allocated $97 million dollars
for training and military equipment for the Iraqi opposition. [23]
In September 2000, the neocon think tank Project for the New American
Century (PNAC) [24] issued a report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses:
Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century," that envisioned an
expanded global posture for the United States. In regard to the Middle
East, the report called for an increased American military presence in
the Gulf, whether Saddam was in power or not., maintaining that "the
United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in
Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq
provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime
of Saddam Hussein." [25] The project's participants included
individuals who would play leading roles in the second Bush
administration: Cheney (Vice President), Rumsfeld (secretary of
defense), Wolfowitz (deputy secretary of defense), and Lewis Libby
(Cheney's chief of staff). Weekly Standard editor William Kristol was
also a co-author.
In order to directly influence White House policy, Wolfowitz and Perle
managed to obtain leading roles on the Bush foreign policy/national
security advisory team for the 2000 campaign. Headed by Soviet
specialist Condoleezza Rice, the team was referred to as "the
Vulcans." Having no direct experience in foreign policy and little
knowledge of the world, as illustrated by his notorious gaffes —
confusing Slovakia with Slovenia, referring to Greeks as "Grecians,"
and failing a pop quiz on the names of four foreign leaders — George
W. Bush would have to rely heavily on his advisors.
"His foreign policy team," Kagan observed, "will be critically
important to determining what his policies are." And columnist Robert
Novak noted: "Since Rice lacks a clear track record on Middle East
matters, Wolfowitz and Perle will probably weigh in most on Middle
East policy." [26] In short, Wolfowitz and Perle would provide the
know-nothing Bush with a ready-made foreign policy for the Middle
East. And certainly such right-wing Zionist views would be reinforced
by Cheney and Rumsfeld and the multitude of other neocons who would
inundate Bush's administration.
Neocons would fill the key positions involving defense and foreign
policy. On Rumsfeld's staff are Wolfowitz and Feith. On Cheney's
staff, the principal neoconservatives include Libby, Eric Edelman, and
John Hannah. And Cheney himself, with his long-time neocon connections
and views, has played a significant role in shaping "Bush" foreign
policy. [27]
A Perle among men
Perle is often described as the most influential foreign-policy
neoconservative, their eminence grise.[28] He gained notice in the
1970s as a top aide to Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-Wash.), who
was one of the Senate's most anti-Communist and pro-Israeli members.
During the 1980s, Perle served as deputy secretary of defense under
Ronald Reagan, where his hard-line anti-Soviet positions, especially
his opposition to any form of arms control, earned him the moniker
"Prince of Darkness" from his enemies. However, his friends considered
him, as one put it, "one of the most wonderful people in Washington."
That Perle is known as a man of great intellect, a gracious and
generous host, a witty companion, and a loyal ally helps to explain
his prestige in neoconservative circles. [29]
Perle isn't just an exponent of pro-Zionist views; he has also had
close connections with Israel, being a personal friend of Sharon's, a
board member of the Jerusalem Post, and an ex-employee of the Israeli
weapons manufacturer Soltam. According to author Seymour M. Hersh,
while Perle was a congressional aide for Jackson, FBI wiretaps picked
up Perle providing classified information from the National Security
Council to the Israeli embassy. [30]
Although not technically part of the Bush administration, Perle holds
the unpaid chairmanship of the Defense Policy Board. In that position,
Perle has access to classified documents and close contacts with the
administration leadership. As an article in Salon puts it: "Formerly
an obscure civilian board designed to provide the secretary of defense
with non-binding advice on a whole range of military issues, the
Defense Policy Board, now stacked with unabashed Iraq hawks, has
become a quasi-lobbying organization whose primary objective appears
to be waging war with Iraq." [31]
"Actions inconceivable at present"
As Bush and his people came into office in January 2001, press reports
in Israel quoted government officials and politicians speaking openly
of mass expulsion of the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon was elected prime
minister of Israel in February 2001; noted for his ruthlessness, he
had said in the past that Jordan should become the Palestinian state
where Palestinians removed from Israeli territory would be relocated.
[32] Public concern was mounting in Israel over demographic changes
that threatened the Jewish nature of the Israeli state. Haifa
University professor Arnon Sofer released the study, "Demography of
Eretz Israel," which predicted that by 2020 non-Jews would be a
majority of 58 percent in Israel and the occupied territories. [33]
Moreover, it was recognized that the overall increase in population
would exceed what the land, with its limited supply of water, could
support. [34]
It appeared to some that Sharon intended to achieve expulsion through
militant means. As one left-wing analyst put it at the time: "One big
war with transfer at its end — this is the plan of the hawks who
indeed almost reached the moment of its implementation." [35] In the
summer of 2001, the authoritative Jane's Information Group reported
that Israel had completed the planning for a massive and bloody
invasion of the Occupied Territories, involving "air strikes by F-15
and F-16 fighter bombers, a heavy artillery bombardment, and then an
attack by a combined force of 30,000 men ... tank brigades and
infantry." Such bold strikes would aim at far more than simply
removing Arafat and the PLO leadership. But the United States vetoed
the plan, and Europe made its opposition to Sharon's plans equally
plain. [36]
As one close observer of the Israeli-Palestinian scene presciently
wrote in August 2001, "It is only in the current political climate
that such expulsion plans cannot be put into operation. As hot as the
political climate is at the moment, clearly the time is not yet ripe
for drastic action. However, if the temperature were raised even
higher, actions inconceivable at present might be possible." [37] Once
again, "revolutionary times" were necessary for Israel to achieve its
policy goals. And then came the September 11 attacks.
Revolutionary September
The September 11 atrocities provided the "revolutionary times" in
which Israel could undertake radical measures unacceptable during
normal conditions. When asked what the attack would do for U.S.-
Israeli relations, former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded:
"It's very good." Then he edited himself: "Well, not very good, but
it will generate immediate sympathy." Netanyahu correctly predicted
that the attack would "strengthen the bond between our two peoples,
because we've experienced terror over so many decades, but the United
States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror." Sharon
placed Israel in the same position as the United States, referring to
the attack as an assault on "our common values" and declaring, "I
believe together we can defeat these forces of evil." [38]
In the eyes of Israel's leaders, the September 11 attacks had joined
the United States and Israeli together against a common enemy. And
that enemy was not in far-off Afghanistan but was geographically close
to Israel. Israel's traditional enemies would now become America's as
well. And Israel would have a better chance of dealing with the
Palestinians under the cover of a "war on terrorism."
Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the neoconservatives began to
publicly push for a wider war on terrorism that would immediately deal
with Israel's enemies. For example, Safire held that the real
terrorists that America should focus on were not groups of religious
fanatics "but Iraqi scientists today working feverishly in hidden
biological laboratories and underground nuclear facilities [who]
would, if undisturbed, enable the hate-driven, power-crazed Saddam to
kill millions. That capability would transform him from a boxed-in
bully into a rampant world power." [39]
Within the administration, Wolfowitz clearly implied a broader war
against existing governments when he said: "I think one has to say
it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding them
accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support
systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism. And that's why it has to
be a broad and sustained campaign. It's not going to stop if a few
criminals are taken care of." [40]
On September 20, 2001, neocons of the Project for the New American
Century sent a letter to President Bush endorsing the war on terrorism
and stressing that the removal of Saddam was an essential part of that
war. They maintained that "even if evidence does not link Iraq
directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of
terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove
Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort
will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on
international terrorism." Furthermore, the letter-writers opined, if
Syria and Iran failed to stop all support for Hezbollah, the United
States should "consider appropriate measures against these known
sponsors of terrorism." Among the letter's signatories were such
neoconservative luminaries as William Kristol, Midge Decter, Eliot
Cohen, Francis Fukuyama, Gaffney, Kagan, Kirkpatrick, Charles
Krauthammer, Perle, Peretz, Norman Podhoretz, Solarz, and Wieseltier.
[41]
coaste...@yahoo.com
Part three
© 2003 WTM Enterprises
All rights reserved.
World War IV
In the October 29, 2002, issue of The Weekly Standard, Kagan and
Kristol predict a wider Middle Eastern war:
When all is said and done, the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the
war on terrorism what the North Africa campaign was to World War II:
an essential beginning on the path to victory. But compared with what
looms over the horizon — a wide-ranging war in locales from Central
Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United
States — Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle.... But this war
will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number
of countries in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well require
the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously.
It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has
hoped to avoid. [42]
Kagan and Kristol seem to be looking forward to this gigantic
conflagration.
In a November 20, 2002, article in The Wall Street Journal, Eliot
Cohen dubs the conflict "World War IV," a term picked up by other
neocons. Cohen proclaims that "The enemy in this war is not
'terrorism' ... but militant Islam.... Afghanistan constitutes just
one front in World War IV, and the battles there just one campaign."
Cohen calls not only for a U.S. attack on Iraq but also for the
elimination of the Islamic regime in Iran, which "would be no less
important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin
Laden." [43]
Critics of a wider war in the Middle East quickly recognized the
neoconservative war-propaganda effort. Analyzing the situation in
September 2002, paleoconservative [44] Scott McConnell wrote: "For the
neoconservatives ... bin Laden is but a sideshow.... They hope to use
September 11 as pretext for opening a wider war in the Middle East.
Their prime, but not only, target is Saddam Hussein's Iraq, even if
Iraq has nothing to do with the World Trade Center assault." [45]
However, McConnell mistakenly considered the neocon stance to be only
a minority view within the Bush administration:
The neocon wish list is a recipe for igniting a huge conflagration
between the United States and countries throughout the Arab world,
with consequences no one could reasonably pretend to calculate.
Support for such a war — which could turn quite easily into a global
war — is a minority position within the Bush administration (assistant
secretary of state Paul Wolfowitz is its main advocate) and the
country. But it presently dominates the main organs of conservative
journalistic opinion, the Wall Street Journal, National Review, the
Weekly Standard, and the Washington Times, as well as Marty Peretz's
neoliberal New Republic. In a volatile situation, such organs of
opinion could matter. [46]
Expressing a similar view, veteran columnist Georgie Anne Geyer
observed:
The "Get Iraq" campaign ... started within days of the September
bombings.... It emerged first and particularly from pro-Israeli hard-
liners in the Pentagon such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz
and advisor Richard Perle, but also from hard-line neoconservatives,
and some journalists and congressmen.
Soon it became clear that many, although not all, were in the group
that is commonly called in diplomatic and political circles the
"Israeli-firsters," meaning that they would always put Israeli policy,
or even their perception of it, above anything else.
Geyer believed that this line of thinking was "being contained by cool
heads in the administration, but that could change at any time." [47]
Lighting up the recesses of Bush
Neoconservatives have presented the September 11 atrocities as a
lightning bolt to make President Bush aware of his destiny: destroying
the evil of world terrorism. Ironically enough, Podhoretz adopted
Christian terminology to describe a changed Bush:
A transformed — or, more precisely, a transfigured — George W. Bush
appeared before us. In an earlier article ... I suggested, perhaps
presumptuously, that out of the blackness of smoke and fiery death let
loose by September 11, a kind of revelation, blazing with a very
different fire of its own, lit up the recesses of Bush's mind and
heart and soul. Which is to say that, having previously been unsure as
to why he should have been chosen to become President of the United
States, George W. Bush now knew that the God to whom, as a born-again
Christian, he had earlier committed himself had put him in the Oval
Office for a purpose. He had put him there to lead a war against the
evil of terrorism. [48]
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, administration heavyweights
debated the scope of the "war on terrorism." According to Bob
Woodward's Bush at War, as early as September 12 Rumsfeld "raised the
question of attacking Iraq. Why shouldn't we go against Iraq, not just
al Qaeda? he asked. Rumsfeld was speaking not only for himself when he
raised the question. His deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, was committed to a
policy that would make Iraq a principal target of the first round in
the war on terrorism." [49]
Woodward adds, "The terrorist attacks of September 11 gave the United
States a new window to go after Hussein." On September 15, Wolfowitz
put forth military arguments to justify a U.S. attack on Iraq rather
than Afghanistan. Wolfowitz expressed the view that "attacking
Afghanistan would be uncertain," voicing the fear that American troops
would be "bogged down in mountain fighting.... In contrast, Iraq was a
brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily. It was
doable." [50]
However, the neoconservatives were not able to achieve their goal of a
wider war at the outset, in part because of the opposition of
Secretary of State Powell, who held that the war should focus on the
actual perpetrators of September 11. (That was how most Americans
actually envisioned the war.) Perhaps Powell's most telling argument
was his declaration that an American attack on Iraq would lack
international support. He claimed that a U.S. victory in Afghanistan
would enhance the United States's ability to deal militarily with Iraq
at a later time, "if we can prove that Iraq had a role" in September
11. [51]
Powell diverged from the neocon hawks in his emphasis on the need for
international support, as opposed to American unilateralism, but an
even greater difference lay in his contention that the "war on terror"
had to be directly linked to the perpetrators of September 11 — Osama
bin Laden's network. Powell publicly repudiated Wolfowitz's call for
"ending states" with the response that "we're after ending terrorism.
And if there are states and regimes, nations, that support terrorism,
we hope to persuade them that it is in their interest to stop doing
that. But I think 'ending terrorism' is where I would leave it and let
Mr. Wolfowitz speak for himself." [52]
Very significantly, however, while the "war on terrorism" would not
begin with an attack on Iraq, military plans were being made for just
such an endeavor. A Top Secret document outlining the war plan for
Afghanistan, which Bush signed on September 17, 2001, included, as a
minor point, instructions to the Pentagon to also start making plans
for an attack on Iraq. [53]
Bush's public pronouncements evolved rapidly in the direction of
expanding the war to Iraq. On November 21, 2001, in a speech at Fort
Campbell, Kentucky, he proclaimed that "Afghanistan is just the
beginning of the war against terror. There are other terrorists who
threaten America and our friends, and there are other nations willing
to sponsor them. We will not be secure as a nation until all these
threats are defeated. Across the world, and across the years, we will
fight these evil ones, and we will win." [54]
On November 26, in response to a question whether Iraq was one of the
terrorist nations that he had in mind, Bush said: "Well, my message
is, is that if you harbor a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If you feed
a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If you develop weapons of mass
destruction that you want to terrorize the world, you'll be held
accountable." Note that Bush included possession of weapons of mass
destruction as an indicator of "terrorism." And none of that terrorist
activity necessarily related to the September 11 attacks. [55]
Transformation complete
The transformation to support of a wider war was complete with Bush's
January 29, 2002, State of the Union speech, in which he officially
decoupled the "war on terrorism'' from the specific events of 9/11.
Bush did not even mention bin Laden or al Qaeda. The danger now was
said to come primarily from three countries — Iran, Iraq, and North
Korea — which he dubbed "an axis of evil" that allegedly threatened
the world with their weapons of mass destruction. According to Bush:
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of
evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of
mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They
could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match
their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the
United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would
be catastrophic. [56]
The phrase "axis of evil" was coined by Bush's neoconservative
speechwriter, David Frum. [57]
By April 2002, Bush was publicly declaring that American policy was to
secure "regime change" in Iraq. And in June, he stated that the United
States would launch preemptive strikes on those countries that
threatened the United States. [58] According to what passes as the
conventional wisdom, Iraq now posed such a threat. Moreover, by the
spring of 2002, General Tommy R. Franks, chief of U.S. Central
Command, began giving Bush private briefings every three or four weeks
on the planning for a new Iraq war. [59]
Neoconservatives both within and without the administration sought a
unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq that would not be encumbered by the
conflicting goals of any coalition partners. That push was countered
by Powell's efforts to persuade Bush that UN sanction would be
necessary to justify a U.S. attack, which the President ultimately
found persuasive. That slowed the rush to war, but it also represented
a move by Powell away from his original position that Washington
should make war on Iraq only if Baghdad were proven to have been
involved in the September 11 terrorism.
The UN Security Council decided that UN inspectors, with sweeping
inspection powers, would determine whether Iraq was violating her
pledge to destroy all of her weapons of mass destruction. UN Security
Council Resolution 1441 (November 8, 2002) places the burden of proof
on Iraq to show that she no longer possesses weapons of mass
destruction. The resolution states that any false statements or
omissions in the Iraqi weapons declaration would constitute a further
material breach by Iraq of her obligations. That could set in motion
discussions by the Security Council on considering the use of military
force against Iraq.
While some have claimed that this might mean that war would be put
off, [60] it also allows the United States to use the new UN
resolution as a legal justification for war. In fact, the United
States could choose to enforce the resolution through war without
additional UN authorization. As British journalist Robert Fisk writes:
"The United Nations can debate any Iraqi non-compliance with weapons
inspectors, but the United States will decide whether Iraq has
breached UN resolutions. In other words, America can declare war
without UN permission." [61]
To part four
greg
wrote:
How about the scenario suggested by some that Israel was behind the
attack on 9/11. It is said that Israeli Mossad agents pretending to
be representatives of a powerful Islamic group convinced some naïve
Muslims to to get involved in the operation.
My opinion is that this is a possibility.
coaste...@yahoo.com
© 2003 WTM Enterprises
All rights reserved.
Armchair strategists
Neoconservatives not only have determined the foreign policy leading
to war against Iraq but have played a role in molding military
strategy as well. Top military figures, including members of the Joint
Chiefs, initially expressed opposition to the whole idea of such a
war. [62] But Perle and other neoconservatives have for some time
insisted that toppling Saddam would require little military effort or
risk. They pushed for a war strategy dubbed "inside-out" that would
involve attacking Baghdad and a couple of other key cities with a very
small number of airborne troops, as few as 5,000 in some estimates.
According to the plan's supporters, such strikes would cause Saddam's
regime to collapse. American military leaders adamantly opposed that
approach as too risky, offering in its stead a plan to use a much
larger number of troops — about 250,000 — who would invade Iraq in a
more conventional manner, marching from the soil of her neighbors, as
was done during the Gulf War of 1991.
Perle and the neoconservatives, for their part, feared that no
neighboring country would provide the necessary bases, so that this
approach would likely mean that no war would be initiated or that,
during the lengthy time needed to assemble this large force,
opposition to war would so burgeon as to render the operation
politically impossible. Perle angrily responded to the military's
demurral by saying that the decision to attack Iraq was "a political
judgment that these guys aren't competent to make." [63] Cheney and
Rumsfeld went even further, referring to the generals as "cowards" for
being insufficiently gung-ho about an Iraq invasion. [64]
Now, one might be tempted to attribute Perle and the other neocons'
rejection of the military's caution to insane hubris — how could
amateurs pretend to know more about military strategy than
professional military men? However, Richard Perle may be many things,
but insane is not one of them. Nor is he stupid. Undoubtedly he has
thought through the implications of his plan. And it is apparent that
the "inside-out" option would be a win-win proposition from Perle's
perspective.
Let's assume that it works — that a few American troops can capture
some strategic areas and the Iraqi army quickly folds. Perle and the
neocons appear as military geniuses and are rewarded with free rein to
prepare a series of additional low-cost wars in the Middle East.
On the other hand, let's assume that the mini-invasion is a complete
fiasco. The American troops are defeated in the cities. Many are
captured and paraded around for all the world to see. Saddam makes
bombastic speeches about defeating the American aggressor. All the
Arab and Islamic world celebrates the American defeat. American flags
are burned in massive anti-American celebrations throughout the Middle
East. America is totally humiliated, depicted as a paper tiger, and
ordinary Americans watch it all on TV. How do they react?
Such a catastrophe would be another Pearl Harbor in terms of
engendering hatred of the enemy. The public would demand that American
honor and prestige be avenged. They would accept the idea fed to them
by the neoconservative propagandists that the war was one between
America and Islam. Washington would unleash total war, which would
involve heavy bombing of cities. And the air attacks could easily
spread from Iraq to the other neighboring Islamic states. A war of
conquest and extermination is the neocons' fondest dream since it
would destroy all of Israel's enemies in the Middle East. (It appears
that the Pentagon has augmented the magnitude of the Iraq strike force
to reduce the risk of the aforementioned scenario.) [65]
"Our Enemies, the Saudis"
Indications are plentiful that the war will not be limited to Iraq
alone. On July 10, 2002, Laurent Murawiec, at Perle's behest, briefed
the Defense Policy Board about Saudi Arabia, whose friendly
relationship with the United States has been the linchpin of American
security strategy in the Middle East for more than 50 years. Murawiec
described the kingdom as the principal supporter of anti-American
terrorism — "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous
opponent." It was necessary, he claimed, for the United States to
regard Saudi Arabia as an enemy. Murawiec said Washington should
demand that Riyadh stop funding fundamentalist Islamic outlets around
the world, prohibit all anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli propaganda in the
country, and "prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain,
including in the Saudi intelligence services." If the Saudis refused
to comply with the ultimatum, Murawiec contended that the United
States should invade and occupy the country, including the holy sites
of Mecca and Medina, seize her oil fields, and confiscate her
financial assets. [66]
Murawiec concluded the briefing with the astounding summary of what he
called a "Grand Strategy for the Middle East:" "Iraq is the tactical
pivot. Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot. Egypt the prize." In short,
the goal of the war on Iraq was the destruction of the United States'
closest allies. It would be hard to envision a policy better designed
to inflame the entire Middle East against the United States. But that
is exactly the result sought by neoconservatives. [67]
Predictably, the day after the briefing, the Bush administration
disavowed Murawiec's scenario as having nothing to do with actual
American foreign policy and pronounced Saudi Arabia a loyal ally. [68]
However, the White House did nothing to remove or even discipline
Perle for holding a discussion of a plan for attacking a close ally —
and individuals have frequently been removed from administrations for
much smaller faux pas. We may be certain that the Bush
administration's inaction failed to assure the Saudis that Murawiec's
war plan was beyond the realm of possibility.
Murawiec's anti-Saudi scenario simultaneously emerged in the neocon
press. The July 15, 2002, issue of The Weekly Standard featured an
article titled "The Coming Saudi Showdown," by Simon Henderson of the
neoconservative Washington Institute for Near East Policy. And the
July/August issue of Commentary, published by the American Jewish
Committee, contained an article titled, "Our Enemies, the
Saudis." [69]
The leading neoconservative expert on Saudi Arabia, Stephen Schwartz,
made his views known, too, though he did pay a price for it. Schwartz
has written numerous articles as well as a recent book, The Two Faces
of Islam: The House of Sa'ud from Tradition to Terror, in which he
posits a Saudi/Wahhabist conspiracy to take over all of Islam and
spread terror throughout the world. As a result of his anti-Saudi
comments, Schwartz was dismissed from his brief tenure as an editorial
writer with the Voice of America at the beginning of July 2002, thus
becoming a martyr in neoconservative circles. [70]
As Thomas E. Ricks points out in the Washington Post, the anti-Saudi
bellicosity expressed by Murawiec "represents a point of view that has
growing currency within the Bush administration — especially on the
staff of Vice President Cheney and in the Pentagon's civilian
leadership — and among neoconservative writers and thinkers closely
allied with administration policymakers." [71]
By November 2002, the anti-Saudi theme had reached the mainstream —
with an article in Newsweek alleging financial support for the 9/11
terrorists from the Saudi royal family, and commentary on the subject
by such leading figures in the Senate as Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.),
John McCain (R-Ariz.), Charles Schumer (D-New York), and Richard
Shelby (R-Ala.). [72]
Bush administration policy has come a long way but has still not
reached what neocons seek: a war by the United States against all of
Islam. According to Podhoretz, doyen of the neoconservatives:
"Militant Islam today represents a revival of the expansionism by the
sword" of Islam's early years. [73] In Podhoretz's view, to survive
resurgent Islam the United States must not simply stand on the
defensive but must stamp out militant Islam at its very source in the
Middle East:
The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not
confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil. At a
minimum, this axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as
well as "friends" of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt's
Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by
Arafat or one of his henchmen.
After the great conquest, the United States would remake the entire
region, which would entail forcibly re-educating its people to fall
into line with the thinking of America's leaders. Podhoretz
acknowledges that the people of the Middle East might, if given a free
democratic choice, pick anti-American and anti-Israeli leaders and
policies. But he proclaims that "there is a policy that can head it
off" provided "that we then have the stomach to impose a new political
culture on the defeated parties. This is what we did directly and
unapologetically in Germany and Japan after winning World War
II." [74]
Expulsion redux
Within Israel herself, however, the Arabs would not be expected to
adopt a "new political culture"; they would be expected to vanish.
Expulsion of the Palestinians is inextricably intertwined with a
Middle Eastern war — or, in Ben-Gurion's phrase, "revolutionary
times." As the post-September 11 "war on terror" has heated up, the
talk of forcibly "transferring" the Palestinians has once again moved
to the center of Israeli politics. According to Illan Pappe, a Jewish
Israeli revisionist historian, "You can see this new assertion talked
about in Israel: the discourse of transfer and expulsion which had
been employed by the extreme Right, is now the bon ton of the
center." [75]
Even the dean of Israel's revisionist historians, Benny Morris,
explicitly endorsed the expulsion of the Palestinians in the event of
war. "This land is so small," Morris exclaimed, "that there isn't room
for two peoples. In fifty or a hundred years, there will only be one
state between the sea and the Jordan. That state must be Israel."
According to a recent poll conducted by Israel's Jaffee Center for
Strategic Studies, nearly one-half of Israelis support expulsion of
West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, and nearly one-third support
expulsion of Israeli Arabs. Three-fifths support "encouraging" Israeli
Arabs to leave. [76]
In April 2002, leading Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld
held that a U.S. attack on Iraq would provide the cover for Prime
Minister Sharon to forcibly remove the Palestinians from the West
Bank. In Creveld's view, "The expulsion of the Palestinians would
require only a few brigades," which would rely on "heavy artillery."
Creveld continued: "Israeli military experts estimate that such a war
could be over in just eight days. If the Arab states do not intervene,
it will end with the Palestinians expelled and Jordan in ruins. If
they do intervene, the result will be the same, with the main Arab
armies destroyed.... Israel would stand triumphant, as it did in 1948,
1956, 1967, and 1973." [77]
Although Creveld did not express any opposition to this impending
expulsion, in September 2002, a group of Israeli academics did issue a
declaration of opposition, stating, "We are deeply worried by
indications that the 'fog of war' could be exploited by the Israeli
government to commit further crimes against the Palestinian people, up
to full-fledged ethnic cleansing." [78]
The declaration continued:
The Israeli ruling coalition includes parties that promote "transfer"
of the Palestinian population as a solution to what they call "the
demographic problem." Politicians are regularly quoted in the media as
suggesting forcible expulsion, most recently [Knesset members] Michael
Kleiner and Benny Elon, as reported on Yediot Ahronot website on
September 19, 2002. In a recent interview in Ha'aretz, Chief of Staff
Moshe Ya'alon described the Palestinians as a "cancerous
manifestation" and equated the military actions in the Occupied
Territories with "chemotherapy," suggesting that more radical
"treatment" may be necessary. Prime Minister Sharon has backed this
"assessment of reality." Escalating racist demagoguery concerning the
Palestinian citizens of Israel may indicate the scope of the crimes
that are possibly being contemplated. [79]
In the fall of 2002, the Jordanian government, fearing that Israel
might push the Palestinian population into Jordan during the
anticipated U.S. attack on Iraq, asked for public assurances from the
Israeli government that it would not make such a move. The Sharon
regime, however, has refused to publicly renounce an expulsion policy.
[80]
coaste...@yahoo.com
© 2003 WTM Enterprises
All rights reserved.
Simply a pretext
As is now apparent, the "war on terrorism" was never intended to be a
war to apprehend and punish the perpetrators of the September 11
atrocities. September 11 simply provided a pretext for government
leaders to implement long-term policy plans. As has been pointed out
elsewhere, including in my own writing, oil interests and American
imperialists looked upon the war as a way to incorporate oil-rich
Central Asia within the American imperial orbit. [81] While that has
been achieved, the American-sponsored government of Hamid Karzai in
Afghanistan is in a perilous situation. Karzai's power seems to be
limited to his immediate vicinity, and he must be protected by
American bodyguards. The rest of Afghanistan is being fought over by
various war lords and even the resurgent Taliban. [82] Instead of
putting forth the effort to help consolidate its position in Central
Asia, Washington has shifted its focus to gaining control of the
Middle East.
It now appears that the primary policymakers in the Bush
administration have been the Likudnik neoconservatives all along.
Control of Central Asia is secondary to control of the Middle East. In
fact, for the leading neocons, the war on Afghanistan may simply have
been an opening gambit, necessary for reaching their ultimate and
crucial goal: U.S. control of the Middle East in the interests of
Israel. That is analogous to what revisionist historians have
presented as Franklin D. Roosevelt's "back door to war" approach to
World War II. Roosevelt sought war with Japan in order to be able to
fight Germany, and he provoked Japan into attacking U.S. colonial
possessions in the Far East. Once the United States got into war
through the back door, Roosevelt focused the American military effort
on Germany. [83]
The oil motive
But what about the American desire for controlling Iraqi oil? Iraq
possesses the world's second-largest proven oil reserves, next to
Saudi Arabia. Moreover, many experts believe that Iraq possesses vast
undiscovered oil reserves, making her the near-equal of Saudi Arabia.
Most critics of war allege that American oil companies' desire to gain
control of Iraqi oil is what motivates U.S. war policy. Some, mostly
proponents of war, have also argued that, once in control of Iraqi
oil, the United States could inundate the world with cheap oil, thus
boosting the American and world economies out of recession. [84]
Although the arguments have a prima facie plausibility, the oil motive
for war has a couple of serious flaws. First, oil industry
representatives or big economic moguls do not seem to be clamoring for
war. According to oil analyst Anthony Sampson, "oil companies have had
little influence on U.S. policy-making. Most big American companies,
including oil companies, do not see a war as good for business, as
falling share prices indicate." [85]
Further, it is not apparent that war would be good for the oil
industry or the world economy. Why would Big Oil want to risk a war
that could ignite a regional conflagration threatening their existing
investments in the Gulf? Iraq does indeed have significant oil
reserves, but there is no reason to believe that they would have an
immediate impact on the oil market. Daniel Yergin, chairman of
Cambridge Energy Research Associates, points out:
In terms of production capacity, Iraq represents just 3 percent of the
world's total. Its oil exports are on the same level as Nigeria's.
Even if Iraq doubled its capacity, that could take more than a decade.
In the meantime, growth elsewhere would limit Iraq's eventual share to
perhaps 5 percent, significant but still in the second tier of oil
nations. [86]
A war would pose a great risk to the oil industry in the entire Gulf
region. As William D. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at
Yale and a member of the President Carter's Council of Economic
Advisers, writes:
War in the Persian Gulf might produce a major upheaval in petroleum
markets, either because of physical damage or because political events
lead oil producers to restrict production after the war.
A particularly worrisome outcome would be a wholesale destruction of
oil facilities in Iraq, and possibly in Kuwait, Iran, and Saudi
Arabia. In the first Persian Gulf War, Iraq destroyed much of Kuwait's
oil wells and other petroleum infrastructure as it withdrew. The
sabotage shut down Kuwaiti oil production for close to a year, and
prewar levels of oil production were not reached until 1993 — nearly
two years after the end of the war in February 1991.
Unless the Iraqi leadership is caught completely off-guard in a new
war, Iraq's forces would probably be able to destroy Iraq's oil
production facilities. The strategic rationale for such destruction is
unclear in peacetime, but such an act of self-immolation cannot be
ruled out in wartime. Contamination of oil facilities in the Gulf
region by biological or chemical means would pose even greater threats
to oil markets. [87]
Nordhaus's forecasts may be excessively bleak. However, the point is
that the experts simply cannot gauge what will happen. War poses
tremendous risk. In his evaluation of the possible economic impact of
a war on Iraq, economic analyst Robert J. Samuelson concludes: "If
it's peace and prosperity, then war makes no sense. But if fighting
now prevents a costlier war later, it makes much sense." [88]
None of this to deny that certain oil companies might benefit from a
Middle East war, just as some businesses profit from any war.
Particular oil companies could stand to benefit from American control
of Iraq, since under a postwar U.S.-sponsored Iraqi government,
American companies could be expected to be favored and gain the most
lucrative oil deals. However, that particular oil companies could
derive some benefits does not undercut the overall argument that war
is a great risk for the American oil industry and the American economy
as a whole.
An American-imperialist strategic motive might be more plausible than
the economic interests of the oil industry and the economy in general.
Instead of the current informal influence over the oil producing areas
of the Middle East, the United States would move into direct control,
either with a puppet government in Iraq providing enough leverage for
Washington to dictate to the rest of the Middle East, or actual direct
U.S. control of other parts of the Middle East as well as Iraq.
Presumably that state of affairs would provide greater security for
the oil flow than exists under the current situation, where the client
states enjoy some autonomy and face the possibility of being
overthrown by anti-American forces. Neoconservative Robert Kagan
maintains, "When we have economic problems, it's been caused by
disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will
be no disruption in oil supplies." [89]
Neoconservatives often try to gloss over this projected American
colonialism by claiming that the United States would be simply
spreading democracy. They imply that "democratic" Middle East
governments would support American policies, including support of
Israel and an oil policy oriented toward the welfare of the United
States. However, given popular anti-Zionist and anti-American opinion
in the region, it seems highly unlikely that governments
representative of the popular will would ever pursue such policies.
Only a non-representative dictatorship could be pro-American and pro-
Israeli. Zionist U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) put it candidly in
calming the worries of an Israeli member of the Knesset: "You won't
have any problem with Saddam. We'll be rid of the bastard soon enough.
And in his place we'll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be
good for us and for you." [90]
A truly foreign imperialism
Control of the Middle East oil supply would certainly augment U.S.
domination of the world. However, American imperialists who are in no
way linked to the Likudnik position on Israel — e.g., Zbigniew
Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft — are cool to such a Middle East war.
[91] If such a war policy would be an obvious boon to American
imperialism, why isn't it avidly sought by leading American
imperialists?
Direct colonial control of a country's internal affairs would be a
significant break with American policy of the past half-century.
America might have client states and an informal empire, but the
direct imperialism entailed by an occupation of the Middle East would
be, as Mark Danner put it in the New York Times, "wholly foreign to
the modesty of containment, the ideology of a status-quo power that
lay at the heart of American strategy for half a century." [92]
Moreover, a fundamental concern of American global policy has been to
maintain peace and stability in the world. Washington preaches probity
and restraint to other countries regarding the use of force. Hence,
for the United States to launch a preemptive strike on a country would
undoubtedly weaken her ability to restrain other countries, which
would also see a need to preemptively strike at their foes. In short,
the launching of preemptive war would destabilize the very world order
that the United States allegedly seeks to preserve in her "war on
terrorism." In fact, world stability is often seen as central to the
global economic interdependence that is the key to American
prosperity. [93]
Since America already exercises considerable power in the oil-
producing Persian Gulf region through her client states — Saudi Arabia
and the Gulf emirates — it is difficult to understand why American
imperialists would make a radical change from their status-quo policy.
Would the benefits to be gained from direct control of the region
outweigh the risks involved? War could unleash virulent anti-American
forces that could destabilize America's Middle East client states and
incite terrorist attacks on the American homeland. Moreover, American
military occupation of Iraq, not to mention other Middle Eastern
countries, would place a heavy burden on the U.S. government and
people. [94]
Would such a burden be acceptable to the American people? Would they
support the brutal policies needed to suppress any opposition? In the
1950s the people of France would not support the brutality necessary
to retain the colonial empire in Algeria. Even in the totalitarian
Soviet Union, popular opinion forced the abandonment of the
imperialistic venture in Afghanistan, which contributed to the break-
up of the entire Soviet empire. In short, the move from indirect to
direct control of the Middle East would strike men who were simply
concerned about enhancing American imperial power as the gravest sort
of risk-taking, because it could undermine America's entire imperial
project.
Direct American control of the Middle East would not only prove
burdensome to the American people but would also undoubtedly provoke a
backlash from other countries. That almost seems to be a law of
international relations — operating since the time of the balance-of-
power politics practiced during the Peloponnesian War. As Christopher
Layne points out:
The historical record shows that in the real world, hegemony never has
been a winning grand strategy. The reason is simple: The primary aim
of states in international politics is to survive and maintain their
sovereignty. And when one state becomes too powerful — becomes a
hegemon — the imbalance of power in its favor is a menace to the
security of all other states. So throughout modern international
political history, the rise of a would-be hegemon always has triggered
the formation of counter-hegemonic alliances by other states. [95]
The British Empire, which might seem an exception to the rule of the
inevitable failure of hegemons, achieved its success because of its
caution. Owen Harries, editor of the National Interest, has pointed
out that England's imperial successes stemmed from her rather cautious
approach. "England," observed Harries in the Spring 2001 issue, "was
the only hegemon that did not attract a hostile coalition against
itself. It avoided that fate by showing great restraint, prudence and
discrimination in the use of its power in the main political arena by
generally standing aloof and restricting itself to the role of
balancer of last resort. In doing so it was heeding the warning given
it by Edmund Burke, just as its era of supremacy was beginning: 'I
dread our own power and our own ambition. I dread being too much
dreaded.'" Notes Harries, "I believe the United States is now in dire
need of such a warning." [96]
Obviously, the American takeover of the major oil-producing area of
the world would be anything but a cautious move. It would characterize
a classic example of what historian Paul Kennedy refers to as
"imperial over-stretch." Tied down in the Middle East, the United
States would find it more difficult to counter threats to its power in
the rest of the world. Even now it is questionable whether the U.S.
military has the capability to fight two wars at once, a problem (from
the standpoint of the U.S. regime) that has now come to the fore with
the bellicosity of North Korea. [97] In essence, it is not apparent
that intelligent American imperialists concerned solely about the
power status of the United States, which holds preeminence in the
world right now, would want to take the risk of a Middle East war and
occupation.
No American motive
The previous analysis leads to the conclusion not only that the
neoconservatives are obviously in the forefront of the pro-war
bandwagon but also that pro-Israeli Likudnik motives are the most
logical, probably the only logical, motives for war. As I have noted,
Likudniks have always sought to deal in a radical fashion with the
Palestinian problem in the occupied territories — a problem that has
gotten worse, from their standpoint, as a result of demographic
changes. A U.S. war in the Middle East at the present time provides a
window of opportunity to permanently solve that problem and augment
Israel's dominance in the region. The existing perilous situation, as
Likud thinkers see it, would justify the taking of substantial risks.
And a look at history shows that countries whose leaders believed they
were faced with grave problems pursued risky policies, such as Japan
did in 1941. [98]
In contrast, no such dire threats face the United States. American
imperialists should be relatively satisfied with the status quo and
averse to taking any risks that might jeopardize it.
***
The deductions drawn in this essay seem obvious but are rarely
broached in public because Jewish power is a taboo subject. As the
intrepid Joseph Sobran puts it: "It's permissible to discuss the power
of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right,
but the much greater power of the Jewish establishment is off-
limits." [99]
So in a check for "hate" or "anti-Semitism," let's recapitulate the
major points made in this essay. First, the initiation of a Middle
East war to solve Israeli security problems has been a long-standing
idea among Israeli rightist Likudniks. Next, Likudnik-oriented
neoconservatives argued for American involvement in such a war prior
to the atrocities of September 11, 2001. Since September 11, neocons
have taken the lead in advocating such a war; and they hold
influential foreign policy and national security positions in the Bush
administration.
If Israel and Jews were not involved, there would be nothing
extraordinary about my thesis. In the history of foreign policy, it
has frequently been maintained that various leading figures were
motivated by ties to business, an ideology, or a foreign country. In
his Farewell Address, George Washington expressed the view that the
greatest danger to American foreign relations would be the "passionate
attachment" of influential Americans to a foreign power, which would
orient U.S. foreign policy for the benefit of that power to the
detriment of the United States. It is just such a situation that
currently exists.
We can only look with trepidation to the near future, for in the
ominous words of Robert Fisk, "There is a firestorm coming." [100]
February 10, 2003
coaste...@yahoo.com
Please post what you believe to be responsible studies on this
question. This would be a good thread to use.
drahcir
keep his lies straight, until they drove him INSANE!
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
dsharavi
What other explanation can there be for someone who advocates the
interests of other nations over and above those of his own?
Oh wait, I know what it is: H is a traitor.
Deborah
benjie
wrote:
>
> read more »
Thank you for posting this most informative information "H".
You will be beaten about the head by the usual suspects, but I expect
their screeching is of little consequence to you.
This article alone, should show the world what a nasty, corrupt,
extortive, dishonest, terroristic, brutal people these jews really
are.
benjie
Good god, shoveari. How dare YOU ever accuse anyone of being a
traitor. YOU of all people. A stinking zionist, israel-firster who
lies through her gormy teeth to further the advancement of the filth
that is zionazism.
You are lower than a snake's fart, shoveari. Pure filth and slime.
The Peeler
<tsk> You don't have the slight feeling that you are actually describing
yourself, screeching banshee, and that you are demonstrating it the very
moment that you project the contents of your sick mind on others, like ALL
Nazis ALWAYS have done and do? <VBG>
RJ11
benjie <bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are lower than a snake's fart, shoveari. Pure filth and slime.
Do calm down, "Cramer". Soon, your little brother will arrive
with the new shipment, and everything will be fine.
"my younger Brother got me absolutely stoned on magic mushrooms.
I spent three days sitting in the corner of the tent waiting to come
down." -- the neo-Nazi "Ben Cramer" reflects on his usage of
hallucinatory drugs. Source:
Message-ID: <1125123267.5e5d281ad88798917af26011bcb01dc0@teranews>
There you go. That's a good lad.
RJ.
Bolt Upright
bullshit.
Bolt Upright
Why do you constantly post the same drivel for six fucking years?
And why do you have so many sock-puppets?
The Peeler
Why have you been consistently trolling and pestering these groups with your
imbecility and hypocrisy for years, Dolt Unright? You got a "mission", like
all the other mentally challenged Nazi trolls here? LMAO!
The Peeler
Feeling attracted to screeching banshee's filth, Dolt? As they say about
your sort: shit sticks to shit! <BG>
Fish Supper
"greg" <egoro...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5e98288c-48fc-400a...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
On May 18, 1:59 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> The war on Iraq:
> Conceived in Israel
>
> By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
>
> All rights reserved.
>
> In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the
> rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran
> diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what
> is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the
> However, Segev continues, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly
> proclaim their plan of mass expulsion because "this would cause the
> Zionists to lose the world's sympathy." [4]
>
> The key was to find an opportune time to initiate the expulsion so it
> would not incur the world's condemnation. In the late 1930s, David
> Ben-Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in
>
> revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and
> Israelica on the Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and treat
> published in 1988. Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi
> concluded that Israel did not have the power to achieve that goal,
> given the strength of the Arab states, the large Palestinian
> population involved, and the vehement opposition of world opinion. He
> hoped that "the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the
> ambitions in other territories." [8] Left unconsidered by Harkabi was
> the possibility that the United States would act as Israel's proxy to
> achieve the overall goal.
>
> U.S. Realpolitik
>
> In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. Middle Eastern policy, although
> sympathetic to Israel, was not identical to that of Israel. The
> fundamental goal of U.S. policy was to promote stable governments in
> the Middle East that would allow oil to flow reliably to the Western
> industrial nations. It was not necessary for the Muslim countries to
> The United States worked for peace between Israel and the Muslim
> states in the region, but it was to be a peace that would accommodate
be representatives of a powerful Islamic group convinced some na�ve
Muslims to to get involved in the operation.
My opinion is that this is a possibility.
***
My opinion is that it is not. The basic premise that any Muslims were
involved has no foundation in fact. Of the three planes which did exist,
there is no evidence whatsoever that a) they were hijacked and b) that they
were hijacked by muslims. No rational human being could possibly believe
that 9/11 was the work of a rag-bag group of Islamic fundamentalists - in
fact, no rational human being could come to any conclusion other than it was
an inside job. The only question is *who* was on the inside.
Alistair
"Fish Supper" <li...@sea.com> wrote in message
news:B9ednTA7KfIy-WnW...@bt.com...
>
> "greg" <egoro...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:5e98288c-48fc-400a...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 18, 1:59 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> The war on Iraq:
>> Conceived in Israel
>>
>> By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
>>
>> All rights reserved.
>>
>> In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the
>> rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran
>> diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what
>> is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the
>> However, Segev continues, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly
>> proclaim their plan of mass expulsion because "this would cause the
>> Zionists to lose the world's sympathy." [4]
>>
>> The key was to find an opportune time to initiate the expulsion so it
>> would not incur the world's condemnation. In the late 1930s, David
>> Ben-Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in
>>
>> revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and
>> Israelica on the Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and treat
>> published in 1988. Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi
>> concluded that Israel did not have the power to achieve that goal,
>> given the strength of the Arab states, the large Palestinian
>> population involved, and the vehement opposition of world opinion. He
>> hoped that "the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the
>> ambitions in other territories." [8] Left unconsidered by Harkabi was
>> the possibility that the United States would act as Israel's proxy to
>> achieve the overall goal.
>>
>> U.S. Realpolitik
>>
>> In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. Middle Eastern policy, although
>> sympathetic to Israel, was not identical to that of Israel. The
>> fundamental goal of U.S. policy was to promote stable governments in
>> the Middle East that would allow oil to flow reliably to the Western
>> industrial nations. It was not necessary for the Muslim countries to
>> The United States worked for peace between Israel and the Muslim
>> states in the region, but it was to be a peace that would accommodate
> Muslims to to get involved in the operation.
> My opinion is that this is a possibility.
As time progresses and more real facts are disclosed, this possibility
becomes more and more a probability.
The Jews and Israelis are masters at false flag and black ops. They wrote
the handbook.
Alistair
"Bolt Upright" <Nob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:ccd4$4bf44ea2$cf701db7$18...@PRIMUS.CA...
You omitted "odious."
someone-who-knows
"Ben Cramer", posting as Alistair <amcl...@home.net> wrote:
> "Fish Supper" <li...@sea.com> wrote in message
> news:B9ednTA7KfIy-WnW...@bt.com...
Say, nazi trash -- do you remember what "Fish supper"
wrote about you?
"You are the personification of the dim witted racist scumbag whose
anti-semitic ravings do nothing but help the zionists.
But more than aiding the enemy and more than being a vile racist you are
irredemably stupid and other than exposing your moronic insights into how
all the world's evils are the fault of Jews, including my grandmother's
stroke and any cheese made in Holland, you have nothing of any value to
contribute.
I really, honestly, with all my heart wish you'd just fuck off."
Seems that even the anti-Zionists don't have a very high
opinion of you, nazi trash.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "greg" <egorovm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5e98288c-48fc-400a...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 18, 1:59 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The war on Iraq:
> > Conceived in Israel
>
> > By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
>
> > All rights reserved.
>
> > In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the
> > rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran
> > diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what
> > is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the
> > However, Segev continues, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly
> > proclaim their plan of mass expulsion because "this would cause the
> > Zionists to lose the world's sympathy." [4]
>
> > The key was to find an opportune time to initiate the expulsion so it
> > would not incur the world's condemnation. In the late 1930s, David
> > Ben-Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in
>
> > revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and
> > Israelica on the Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and treat
> > published in 1988. Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi
> > concluded that Israel did not have the power to achieve that goal,
> > given the strength of the Arab states, the large Palestinian
> > population involved, and the vehement opposition of world opinion. He
> > hoped that "the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the
> > ambitions in other territories." [8] Left unconsidered by Harkabi was
> > the possibility that the United States would act as Israel's proxy to
> > achieve the overall goal.
>
> > U.S. Realpolitik
>
> > In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. Middle Eastern policy, although
> > sympathetic to Israel, was not identical to that of Israel. The
> > fundamental goal of U.S. policy was to promote stable governments in
> > the Middle East that would allow oil to flow reliably to the Western
> > industrial nations. It was not necessary for the Muslim countries to
> > The United States worked for peace between Israel and the Muslim
> > states in the region, but it was to be a peace that would accommodate
> Muslims to to get involved in the operation.
> My opinion is that this is a possibility.
>
> ***
>
> My opinion is that it is not. The basic premise that any Muslims were
> involved has no foundation in fact. Of the three planes which did exist,
> there is no evidence whatsoever that a) they were hijacked and b) that they
> were hijacked by muslims. No rational human being could possibly believe
> that 9/11 was the work of a rag-bag group of Islamic fundamentalists - in
> fact, no rational human being could come to any conclusion other than it was
> an inside job. The only question is *who* was on the inside.
I''m hyperventilating. Can't wait to hear more detail.
coaste...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> In article <vp0Jn.25950$pv.14...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> "Ben Cramer", posting as Alistair <amclym...@home.net> wrote:
>
> > "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
> >news:B9ednTA7KfIy-WnW...@bt.com...
>
> Say, nazi trash -- do you remember what "Fish supper"
> wrote about you?
>
> "You are the personification of the dim witted racist scumbag whose
> anti-semitic ravings do nothing but help the zionists.
>
> But more than aiding the enemy and more than being a vile racist you are
> irredemably stupid and other than exposing your moronic insights into how
> all the world's evils are the fault of Jews, including my grandmother's
> stroke and any cheese made in Holland, you have nothing of any value to
> contribute.
>
> I really, honestly, with all my heart wish you'd just fuck off
If that means the same thing as bugger off, please tell Ratner.
The Peeler
<BG> You don't ever get the idea that this is perhaps EXACTLY what YOU are,
you hysterical, odious, hate-mongering, filthy, degenerate Nazi swine?
drahcir
Chill out. Maybe get yourself a hobby to occupy your time. You might
enjoy stamp collecting.
drahcir
wrote:
Poor H, completely helpless against me, now resorting to stuff like
the above - "please tell Ratner" - pitiful - your brain is as
impotent, useless, flaccid, and decrepit as your dick.
P.S. Why do you feel compelled to pretend to be British? Phrases
you're fond of, like "bugger off", are of course British, but
pretending you don't know what "fuck off" means is nothing but loony.
drahcir
<snip>
>
> My opinion is that it is not. The basic premise that any Muslims were
> involved has no foundation in fact. Of the three planes which did exist,
> there is no evidence whatsoever that a) they were hijacked and b) that they
> were hijacked by muslims. No rational human being could possibly believe
> that 9/11 was the work of a rag-bag group of Islamic fundamentalists - in
> fact, no rational human being could come to any conclusion other than it was
> an inside job. The only question is *who* was on the inside.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! that's Fish's "opinion"! Dirty Harry, anyone?
Fish Supper
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ebc056fd-a5fc-4436...@11g2000prw.googlegroups.com...
On May 19, 5:21 pm, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
> "greg" <egorovm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5e98288c-48fc-400a...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 18, 1:59 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The war on Iraq:
> > Conceived in Israel
>
> > By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
>
> > All rights reserved.
>
> > In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the
> > rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran
> > diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what
> > is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the
> > However, Segev continues, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly
> > proclaim their plan of mass expulsion because "this would cause the
> > Zionists to lose the world's sympathy." [4]
>
> > The key was to find an opportune time to initiate the expulsion so it
> > would not incur the world's condemnation. In the late 1930s, David
> > Ben-Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in
>
> > revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and
> > Israelica on the Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and treat
> > published in 1988. Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi
> > concluded that Israel did not have the power to achieve that goal,
> > given the strength of the Arab states, the large Palestinian
> > population involved, and the vehement opposition of world opinion. He
> > hoped that "the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the
> > ambitions in other territories." [8] Left unconsidered by Harkabi was
> > the possibility that the United States would act as Israel's proxy to
> > achieve the overall goal.
>
> > U.S. Realpolitik
>
> > In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. Middle Eastern policy, although
> > sympathetic to Israel, was not identical to that of Israel. The
> > fundamental goal of U.S. policy was to promote stable governments in
> > the Middle East that would allow oil to flow reliably to the Western
> > industrial nations. It was not necessary for the Muslim countries to
> > The United States worked for peace between Israel and the Muslim
> > states in the region, but it was to be a peace that would accommodate
> Muslims to to get involved in the operation.
> My opinion is that this is a possibility.
>
> ***
>
> My opinion is that it is not. The basic premise that any Muslims were
> involved has no foundation in fact. Of the three planes which did exist,
> there is no evidence whatsoever that a) they were hijacked and b) that
> they
> were hijacked by muslims. No rational human being could possibly believe
> that 9/11 was the work of a rag-bag group of Islamic fundamentalists - in
> fact, no rational human being could come to any conclusion other than it
> was
> an inside job. The only question is *who* was on the inside.
I''m hyperventilating. Can't wait to hear more detail.
****
The details of the *what* is there for anyone to see;
i) buildings which collapse at freefall speed through the path of greatest
resistance into their own footprint;
ii) aircraft which disappear into a hole the size of a double garage door,
with wings folded neatly behind them like some huge origami and whose
elements of greatest density and mass, the engines and tail fin, leave not a
scratch on the walls where they would have hit whilst the softest part of
the aircraft, the nose, punches a hole through multiple reinforced walls
*after* having blown itself up in an explosion, - all of which remains
unseen despite having taken place at the most secure and televisually
observed spot on planet earth. The place is ringed by multiple layers of
cameras and they *all* fail to capture a single image of a 757 hitting the
building?
iii) an aircraft which dived like an arrow into the ground into a hole the
size of a garden shed whilst leaving trails of debris miles long along its
flightpath? The *what* is all there in plain sight. compare the damage
caused by the impact of flight 93, fully laden, :
http://www.fishy911.org/img/flight93.jpg with the aircraft which hit
lockerbie, which although a 747 had disintegrated whilst in the air:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00451/lockerbie-aerial_451371a.jpg
The *why*, we can make an informed guess about. In my opinion there are
multiple strings to the *why* which coincide - i) the need for an enemy to
replace the Russians - the military/industrial complex isn't going to run
itself, y'know (and who better to scapegoat than the common enemy of the
unholy alliance of christians and jews - the Muslims) ii) the public
rationale for middle eastern (i.e oil) adventures and iii) the fact that the
towers needed to come down anyway but at prohibitive cost to those who owned
them.
The *who*, is a lot murkier - but certain shadows are emerging from the
gloom. Unfortunately before they can be executed for treason they will most
likely be long dead of natural causes.
The Peeler
Don't even TRY to spoil the fun I'm having with the Nazi scum here! You
can't have them all for yourself! ;-)
Bolt Upright
Bolt Upright
drahir to stick her ears up.
Bolt Upright
"fucking", but it certainly is buggery. The latter term is certainly
more applicable to a turd countersinker like yourself.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ebc056fd-a5fc-4436...@11g2000prw.googlegroups.com...
> On May 19, 5:21 pm, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
>
> > "greg" <egorovm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:5e98288c-48fc-400a...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 18, 1:59 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > The war on Iraq:
> > > Conceived in Israel
>
> > > By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
>
> > > All rights reserved.
>
> > > In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the
> > > rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran
> > > diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what
> > > is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the
> > > However, Segev continues, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly
> > > proclaim their plan of mass expulsion because "this would cause the
> > > Zionists to lose the world's sympathy." [4]
>
> > > The key was to find an opportune time to initiate the expulsion so it
> > > would not incur the world's condemnation. In the late 1930s, David
> > > Ben-Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in
>
> > > revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and
> > > Israelica on the Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and treat
> > > published in 1988. Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi
> > > concluded that Israel did not have the power to achieve that goal,
> > > given the strength of the Arab states, the large Palestinian
> > > population involved, and the vehement opposition of world opinion. He
> > > hoped that "the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the
> > > ambitions in other territories." [8] Left unconsidered by Harkabi was
> > > the possibility that the United States would act as Israel's proxy to
> > > achieve the overall goal.
>
> > > U.S. Realpolitik
>
> > > In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. Middle Eastern policy, although
> > > sympathetic to Israel, was not identical to that of Israel. The
> > > fundamental goal of U.S. policy was to promote stable governments in
> > > the Middle East that would allow oil to flow reliably to the Western
> > > industrial nations. It was not necessary for the Muslim countries to
> > > The United States worked for peace between Israel and the Muslim
> > > states in the region, but it was to be a peace that would accommodate
> lockerbie, which although a 747 had disintegrated whilst in the air:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00451/lockerbie-aeria...
>
> The *why*, we can make an informed guess about. In my opinion there are
> multiple strings to the *why* which coincide - i) the need for an enemy to
> replace the Russians - the military/industrial complex isn't going to run
> itself, y'know (and who better to scapegoat than the common enemy of the
> unholy alliance of christians and jews - the Muslims) ii) the public
> rationale for middle eastern (i.e oil) adventures and iii) the fact that the
> towers needed to come down anyway but at prohibitive cost to those who owned
> them.
>
> The *who*, is a lot murkier - but certain shadows are emerging from the
> gloom. Unfortunately before they can be executed for treason they will most
> likely be long dead of natural causes.
I really liked "into their own footprint". We all saw that happen.
But, no, no, no! Ya can't stop now. Who are those shadows--or who
might they be and why? Can't wait. This is great.
drahcir
wrote:
last_per...@yahoo.com
<snip>
Couldn't help but notice the ZioNazi signature subject line change.
The Peeler
Every single one of those socks way outsmarts you, Dolt Unright! ...and they
sure manage to make you reveal yourself as the plain idiot that you are!
The Peeler
Interesting quote that I fully subscribe to! Keep up the good work,
"someone"!
The Peeler
Remember, Dolt: YOU are the one "shining" with your detailed knowledge of
what is most likely some special homo lingo (that most of us here don't even
understand)!
partisan
OTHER ISNT THE JEWS CLEVER?
On 18 May, 18:59, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> in 1967. The United States along with other ...
>
> read more »
drahcir
Does your announcement to the group that you noticed a subject line
change mean that you think that that is a great and special
accomplishment, a rare feat of observation, attainable by only a
select few scatologists?
drahcir
You have yet to answer precisely what percentage of you posts do NOT
refer to your obsession - homosexuality and especially homosexual anal
sex. That's ok, you don't need to answer - no one here isn't aware
that it is minuscule. It's interesting that although you realize that
every post of yours like the above confirms the obvious, you can't
help yourself. It's really great. Clearly your acquisition of a female
mail-order bride was your last-ditch effort to resist the
irresistible. Why fight it, Gar? There's really nothing wrong with it
- it's simple biology.
Fish Supper
On May 20, 9:17 am, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ebc056fd-a5fc-4436...@11g2000prw.googlegroups.com...
> On May 19, 5:21 pm, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
>
> > "greg" <egorovm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:5e98288c-48fc-400a...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 18, 1:59 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > The war on Iraq:
> > > Conceived in Israel
>
> > > By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
>
> > > All rights reserved.
>
> > > In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the
> > > rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran
> > > diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what
> > > is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the
> > > However, Segev continues, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly
> > > proclaim their plan of mass expulsion because "this would cause the
> > > Zionists to lose the world's sympathy." [4]
>
> > > The key was to find an opportune time to initiate the expulsion so it
> > > would not incur the world's condemnation. In the late 1930s, David
> > > Ben-Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible
> > > in
>
> > > revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and
> > > Israelica on the Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and treat
> > > published in 1988. Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi
> > > concluded that Israel did not have the power to achieve that goal,
> > > given the strength of the Arab states, the large Palestinian
> > > population involved, and the vehement opposition of world opinion. He
> > > hoped that "the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the
> > > ambitions in other territories." [8] Left unconsidered by Harkabi was
> > > the possibility that the United States would act as Israel's proxy to
> > > achieve the overall goal.
>
> > > U.S. Realpolitik
>
> > > In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. Middle Eastern policy, although
> > > sympathetic to Israel, was not identical to that of Israel. The
> > > fundamental goal of U.S. policy was to promote stable governments in
> > > the Middle East that would allow oil to flow reliably to the Western
> > > industrial nations. It was not necessary for the Muslim countries to
> > > The United States worked for peace between Israel and the Muslim
> > > states in the region, but it was to be a peace that would accommodate
******
Well, I've already indicated much of the *why* and if you ask yourself who
had the most to gain from the events of that day and from ensnaring the US
in middle eastern adventures like removing Saddam, you'll find the answer to
that as well. I'm sure you can make an educated guess.
Alistair
"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4e239bc-72c1-403a...@l6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
Is that any way to treat one of only two people who support you? How very
ungrateful of you.
Alistair
>
> "icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:514353e9-09af-4fb6...@32g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
> On May 20, 9:17 am, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
>> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ebc056fd-a5fc-4436...@11g2000prw.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 19, 5:21 pm, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "greg" <egorovm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:5e98288c-48fc-400a...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>> > On May 18, 1:59 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > The war on Iraq:
>> > > Conceived in Israel
>>
>> > > By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
>>
>> > > All rights reserved.
>>
>> > > In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the
>> > > rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran
>> > > diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what
>> > > is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the
>> > > However, Segev continues, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly
>> > > proclaim their plan of mass expulsion because "this would cause the
>> > > Zionists to lose the world's sympathy." [4]
>>
>> > > The key was to find an opportune time to initiate the expulsion so it
>> > > would not incur the world's condemnation. In the late 1930s, David
>> > > Ben-Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible
>> > > in
>>
>> > > revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed
>> > > and
>> > > Israelica on the Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and
>> > > treat
>> > > published in 1988. Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi
>> > > concluded that Israel did not have the power to achieve that goal,
>> > > given the strength of the Arab states, the large Palestinian
>> > > population involved, and the vehement opposition of world opinion. He
>> > > hoped that "the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the
>> > > ambitions in other territories." [8] Left unconsidered by Harkabi was
>> > > the possibility that the United States would act as Israel's proxy to
>> > > achieve the overall goal.
>>
>> > > U.S. Realpolitik
>>
>> > > In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. Middle Eastern policy, although
>> > > sympathetic to Israel, was not identical to that of Israel. The
>> > > fundamental goal of U.S. policy was to promote stable governments in
>> > > the Middle East that would allow oil to flow reliably to the Western
>> > > industrial nations. It was not necessary for the Muslim countries to
>> > > The United States worked for peace between Israel and the Muslim
>> > > states in the region, but it was to be a peace that would accommodate
It's probably what drove Netanyahu to say "this... is good for Israel"
>
RJ11
"Ben Cramer", posting as Alistair <amcl...@home.net> wrote:
(snip)
Doper, the "Fish Supper" guy is a violent critic of
Israel and Zionism.
Yet, he wrote this to you:
"You are the personification of the dim witted racist scumbag whose
anti-semitic ravings do nothing but help the zionists.
But more than aiding the enemy and more than being a vile racist you are
irredemably stupid and other than exposing your moronic insights into how
all the world's evils are the fault of Jews, including my grandmother's
stroke and any cheese made in Holland, you have nothing of any value to
contribute.
I really, honestly, with all my heart wish you'd just fuck off."
Why do you think he wrote this?
RJ.
Honest truth
Cramer I agree is not very smart but he is cute, so I like him.
--
About us
The Palestinian Zionist Organization is:
Against the lying and deceitfull activities of the terroristic Palestinian
Government led by Hamas and Fatah.
Against the lies that the Palestinians show the world media so the world
ALWAYS blames Israel!
Against the 'Land for Peace' policy forced by the USA and the UN. The only
thing that Israel receives in return for land are rockets send by Hamas and
Fatah. 'Land for Peace' is one big Palestinian lie!
Against a Palestinian State. This Palestinian State will become the most
terroristic state in the world! Official Hamas documents show that they
will only use every 'new inch of land' to destroy the nation of Israel.
Politics does not change the hearts of people!
Against the Palestinian child abuse by Hamas and Fatah who turn children
into suicide bombers.
Against the division of Jerusalem. The Palestinians will only use their
part of Jerusalem to terrorize the Jewish part of Jerusalem.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:514353e9-09af-4fb6...@32g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
> On May 20, 9:17 am, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
>
> > "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ebc056fd-a5fc-4436...@11g2000prw.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 19, 5:21 pm, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
>
> > > "greg" <egorovm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:5e98288c-48fc-400a...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> > > On May 18, 1:59 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > The war on Iraq:
> > > > Conceived in Israel
>
> > > > By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
>
> > > > All rights reserved.
>
> > > > In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the
> > > > rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran
> > > > diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what
> > > > is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the
> > > > However, Segev continues, the Zionist leaders learned not to publicly
> > > > proclaim their plan of mass expulsion because "this would cause the
> > > > Zionists to lose the world's sympathy." [4]
>
> > > > The key was to find an opportune time to initiate the expulsion so it
> > > > would not incur the world's condemnation. In the late 1930s, David
> > > > Ben-Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible
> > > > in
>
> > > > revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and
> > > > Israelica on the Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and treat
> > > > published in 1988. Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi
> > > > concluded that Israel did not have the power to achieve that goal,
> > > > given the strength of the Arab states, the large Palestinian
> > > > population involved, and the vehement opposition of world opinion. He
> > > > hoped that "the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the
> > > > ambitions in other territories." [8] Left unconsidered by Harkabi was
> > > > the possibility that the United States would act as Israel's proxy to
> > > > achieve the overall goal.
>
> > > > U.S. Realpolitik
>
> > > > In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. Middle Eastern policy, although
> > > > sympathetic to Israel, was not identical to that of Israel. The
> > > > fundamental goal of U.S. policy was to promote stable governments in
> > > > the Middle East that would allow oil to flow reliably to the Western
> > > > industrial nations. It was not necessary for the Muslim countries to
> > > > The United States worked for peace between Israel and the Muslim
> > > > states in the region, but it was to be a peace that would accommodate
> > lockerbie, which although a 747 had disintegrated whilst in the
> > air:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00451/lockerbie-aeria...
>
> > The *why*, we can make an informed guess about. In my opinion there are
> > multiple strings to the *why* which coincide - i) the need for an enemy to
> > replace the Russians - the military/industrial complex isn't going to run
> > itself, y'know (and who better to scapegoat than the common enemy of the
> > unholy alliance of christians and jews - the Muslims) ii) the public
> > rationale for middle eastern (i.e oil) adventures and iii) the fact that
> > the
> > towers needed to come down anyway but at prohibitive cost to those who
> > owned
> > them.
>
> > The *who*, is a lot murkier - but certain shadows are emerging from the
> > gloom. Unfortunately before they can be executed for treason they will
> > most
> > likely be long dead of natural causes.
>
> I really liked "into their own footprint". We all saw that happen.
> But, no, no, no! Ya can't stop now. Who are those shadows--or who
> might they be and why? Can't wait. This is great.
>
> ******
>
> Well, I've already indicated much of the *why* and if you ask yourself who
> had the most to gain from the events of that day and from ensnaring the US
> in middle eastern adventures like removing Saddam, you'll find the answer to
> that as well. I'm sure you can make an educated guess.
Yes I can, just as I can even though the government can not regarding
this:
How US Weapons Grade Uranium Was Diverted To Israel
Contributed by jackloel (Reporter)
Sun May 16 2010 16:47
This story has been viewed 285 times
(21 times in the past 24 hours, 2 times in the past hour)
How US Weapons Grade Uranium was Diverted to Israel
Declassified GAO Report Exposes Fatally Flawed Israel Investigations
By Grant Smith
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25457.htm
May 16, 2010 "Antiwar" May 10, 2010 -- The 2010 Review Conference of
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is underway at
UN Headquarters in New York. A working paper calls for a nuclear-free
Middle East. It would require member states of the NPT to “disclose in
their national reports on the implementation of the resolution on the
Middle East all information available to them on the nature and scope
of Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information
pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel.” On May 6, 2010,
the Government Accountability Office (formerly known as the General
Accounting Office) released the previously secret 1978 report “Nuclear
Diversion in the U.S.? 13 Years of Contradiction and
Confusion” [.pdf]. It fills in important historic gaps about weapons-
grade uranium diversions from the U.S. to Israel.
U.S. presidents have long acquiesced to “strategic ambiguity” – a
policy of neither confirming nor denying that Israel even possesses
nuclear weapons. This pretext has allowed the U.S. to deliver the
lion’s share of its foreign assistance budget to Israel, despite clear
legal prohibitions imposed by the Glenn and Symington amendments to
the Foreign Assistance Act. UN member countries have long suspected
that the United States either turns a blind eye or actively supports
the transfer of know-how, weapons-grade uranium, and dual-use
technology to Israel. The 62-page General Accounting Office
investigation and correspondence confirms the United States refuses to
mount credible investigations that would enable warranted prosecutions
of the perpetrators.
“Nuclear Diversion in the U.S.? 13 Years of Contradiction and
Confusion” investigates the period between 1957 and 1967 when the
Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC) received over 22
tons of uranium-235 – the key material used to fabricate nuclear
weapons. NUMEC’s founder and president Zalman M. Shapiro was head of a
local Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) chapter and a sales agent
for the Defense Ministry of Israel in the U.S. In the early 1960s the
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) began documenting suspicious lapses in
security at NUMEC’s plant at Apollo, Pa. In 1965 an AEC audit found
NUMEC could no longer account for over 200 pounds of highly enriched
uranium. Subsequent estimates spiraled to almost 600 pounds.
The GAO was chartered by Congress to investigate four allegations
about what happened to the uranium. The first was that “the material
was illegally diverted to Israel by NUMEC management for use in
nuclear weapons.” This was a result of early AEC and FBI
investigations into the activities of Zalman Shapiro. The second
theory “the material was diverted to Israel by NUMEC management with
the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)” came from the
CIA’s silence and demonstrated lack of interest in the entire matter.
The final theories explored by GAO were more general, that “the
material was diverted to Israel with the acquiescence of the United
States Government” or “there has been a cover-up of the NUMEC incident
by the United States Government.”
GAO solicited all available information developed by the CIA, FBI,
Department of Energy, and AEC, but was “continually denied necessary
reports and documentation … by the CIA and FBI.” GAO attempted to fill
in gaps or outright refusals to cooperate by directly interviewing FBI
special agents. The GAO also intended to make the report public, in
order to respond to growing public concerns. Rep. John Dingell (D-
Mich.), the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
who requested the inquiry, was assured six months before it was issued
that only the most sensitive areas in the report would be classified.
The CIA and FBI insisted that the entire report be classified at the
“secret” level over the objections of Dingell, who said, ”I think it
is time that the public be informed about the facts surrounding the …
affair and the possible diversion of bomb-grade uranium to Israel.”
The GAO report lambastes the FBI’s on-again off-again approach to
investigating NUMEC: “The FBI, which had the responsibility and
authority to investigate the alleged incident, did not focus on the
question of a possible nuclear diversion until May 1976 – nearly 11
years later. Initially, the FBI declined DOE’s request to conduct an
investigation of the diversion possibility even though they are
required to conduct such investigations under the Atomic Energy Act….”
The FBI’s initial investigation during the 1960s quickly zeroed in on
NUMEC management, but FBI recommendations for action were stymied.
According to the GAO, “The FBI became so concerned about the security
risks posed by NUMEC’s president that they asked DOE whether it
planned to terminate his security clearance or stop the flow of
materials to NUMEC. According to the FBI’s liaison with GAO, the FBI
recommended that NUMEC’s operating license be taken away….” When the
FBI request was ignored, it dropped the entire investigation between
1969 and 1976.
It took a direct order from President Gerald Ford in 1976 for the FBI
and Department of Justice to “address the diversion aspect.” The
renewed investigation soon led to reversals of official U.S.
government positions on NUMEC. According to the GAO report, “until the
summer of 1977, the only publicized Government view on the NUMEC
incident was that there was no evidence to indicate that a diversion
of nuclear material had occurred.” By February 1978, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced it had “reconsidered” its
previous position that there had been “no evidence” to support
diversion.
But the 11-year gap “obviously hampered” the effort. The GAO revealed
that the DOE’s nuclear materials safeguards, which before 1967 tracked
the monetary value rather than the precise mass of the uranium, were
seriously flawed. NUMEC claimed key records covering a period of heavy
uranium loss were destroyed during a “labor dispute” in 1964. NUMEC
paid a $1.1 million fine for 206 pounds of missing uranium in 1966,
which closed the DOE case. NUMEC also hired away one of the DOE’s
chief on-site investigators to enhance the appearance of serious
materials control and accountability. The GAO found that even by 1978
the FBI had not contacted key individuals in the affair. An FBI agent-
in-charge told the GAO it did not investigate the source of funds to
pay NUMEC’s DOE fine anticipating “legal difficulties.” So the GAO
investigated the matter, placing its own telephone calls to Mellon
Bank.
The GAO report is highly critical of the CIA: “From interviews with a
former CIA official and with former and current officials and staff of
DOE and the FBI we concluded that the CIA did not fully cooperate with
DOE or the FBI in attempting to resolve the NUMEC matter.” The report
is inconclusive about exactly what happened at NUMEC, but not about
the agencies involved in the investigation through 1978. “We believe a
timely, concerted effort on the part of these three agencies would
have greatly aided and possibly solved the NUMEC diversion questions,
if they desired to do so.”
The passage of time has removed any remaining doubts that NUMEC
diverted uranium to Israel. Rafael Eitan, who visited NUMEC in 1968,
was later revealed as the top Israeli spy targeting U.S. nuclear,
national defense, and economic targets when his agent (U.S. Navy
analyst Jonathan Pollard) was arrested spying for Israel in 1985.
According to Anthony Cordesman, “there is no conceivable reason for
Eitan to have gone [to the Apollo plant] but for the nuclear
material.” CIA Tel Aviv station chief John Hadden called NUMEC “an
Israeli operation from the beginning,” a conclusion supported by its
startup financing and initial ties to Israeli intelligence. Why both
the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administrations failed to
credibly investigate NUMEC as a diversion challenge is also now
obvious.
John F. Kennedy’s direct diplomatic pressures for U.S. inspections of
Israel’s Dimona reactor grew throughout 1962-1963. During a Dec. 27,
1963, meeting with Foreign Minister Golda Meir, Kennedy expressed his
hope that the relationship was a “two-way street.” Meir reassured
President Kennedy that there “would not be any difficulty between us
on the Israeli nuclear reactor.” Kennedy delivered a final ultimatum
to Israel on July 5, 1963, insisting that Dimona undergo serial
inspections “in accord with international standards” in order to
verify its “peaceful intent.” Simultaneously, the Kennedy Justice
Department was waging an intense battle behind closed doors to
register and regulate Israel’s elite U.S. lobby, the American Zionist
Council, which was bringing in funds from overseas to lobby. Kennedy’s
assassination in November traumatized the nation and led to the
complete and permanent reversal of both initiatives.
According to Avner Cohen, in 1958 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben
Gurion had arranged with Abraham Feinberg, a “major Democratic fund-
raiser,” to secretly finance a nuclear weapons program among
“benedictors” in America. Abraham Feinberg, who backed Harry S.
Truman’s successful whistle-stop election campaign, was personally
succinct about his role in the U.S. political system: “My path to
power was cooperation in terms of what they needed – campaign money.”
Feinberg opened doors in Congress for up and coming leaders of the
Israel lobby, including AIPAC founder Isaiah L. Kenen. According to
Seymour Hersh, “there is no question that Feinberg enjoyed the
greatest presidential access and influence in his 20 years as a Jewish
fund-raiser and lobbyist with Lyndon Johnson. Documents at the Johnson
Library show that even the most senior members of the National
Security Council understood that any issue raised by Feinberg had to
be answered.” His power and role in financing Lyndon B. Johnson’s
election prospects temporarily quashed scrutiny of Israel’s nuclear
weapons program – in the U.S. and abroad – at a critical moment.
On Oct. 14, 1964, less than three weeks before the 1964 presidential
elections, Johnson’s top administrative assistant Walter Jenkins was
arrested in a public restroom on sexual solicitation charges. At least
$250,000 Abraham Feinberg raised for Johnson was located in Jenkins’
office safe. Johnson phoned his trusted aides Bill Moyers and Myer
Feldman with orders to move the cash, which they did with the help of
a heavy briefcase. Israel would later replenish Feinberg’s coffers (as
it had with Zalman Shapiro through sales commissions) with multi-
million dollar favors, such as major ownership in the nation’s Coca-
Cola franchise.
In 1968 as Israel noticeably ramped up activities at the Dimona
nuclear weapons facility, Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford placed a
final urgent call to Johnson, “Mr. President, I don’t want to live in
a world where the Israelis have nuclear weapons.” President Johnson
was abrupt before he hung up on Clifford, “Don’t bother me with this
anymore.” By the time Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meier lobbied
President Nixon to redefine U.S. non-proliferation policy as
“ambiguity” toward Israeli nuclear weapons, Israel’s stockpile and
number of deployed weapons was steadily growing.
The report reveals why the 2010 Non-Proliferation Review Conference at
the UN – like the GAO – isn’t really capable of challenging the true
drivers of Middle East nuclear proliferation. “Nuclear Diversion in
the U.S.? 13 Years of Contradiction and Confusion” is a report so
unique and noble in intent that there will probably never be another
like it. While it leaves unexplored the ongoing presence, influence,
and effect of Israel’s lobbyists working at the center of U.S.
presidential administrations, for concerned Americans the GAO provides
a snapshot of a moment in time before their Congress, aspiring
politicians, and mid-level management of government agencies all “got
the memo.”
In 2010 that unwritten memo reads something like this: Crimes
committed in the name of Israel – no matter how audacious – will never
be properly investigated, let alone prosecuted… so don’t waste your
time.
Grant F. Smith is the author of the new book Spy Trade: How Israel's
Lobby Undermines America's Economy. He is a frequent contributor to
Radio France Internationale and Voice of America's Foro
Interamericano. Smith has also appeared on BBC News, CNN, and C-SPAN.
He is currently director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern
Policy in Washington, D.C.
This article was first published at www.antiwar.com
Fish Supper
On May 21, 11:53 am, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:514353e9-09af-4fb6...@32g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
> On May 20, 9:17 am, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
>
> > "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ebc056fd-a5fc-4436...@11g2000prw.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 19, 5:21 pm, "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote:
>
> > > "greg" <egorovm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:5e98288c-48fc-400a...@o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> > > On May 18, 1:59 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > The war on Iraq:
> > > > Conceived in Israel
>
> > > > By STEPHEN J. SNIEGOSKI
>
> > > > All rights reserved.
>
> > > > In a lengthy article in The American Conservative criticizing the
> > > > rationale for the projected U.S. attack on Iraq, the veteran
> > > > diplomatic historian Paul W. Schroeder noted (only in passing) "what
> > > > is possibly the unacknowledged real reason and motive behind the
> > > > However, Segev continues, the Zionist leaders learned not to
> > > > publicly
> > > > proclaim their plan of mass expulsion because "this would cause the
> > > > Zionists to lose the world's sympathy." [4]
>
> > > > The key was to find an opportune time to initiate the expulsion so
> > > > it
> > > > would not incur the world's condemnation. In the late 1930s, David
> > > > Ben-Gurion wrote: "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible
> > > > in
>
> > > > revolutionary times; and if at this time the opportunity is missed
> > > > and
> > > > Israelica on the Middle East, to dominate the Arab countries and
> > > > treat
> > > > published in 1988. Writing from a realist perspective, Harkabi
> > > > concluded that Israel did not have the power to achieve that goal,
> > > > given the strength of the Arab states, the large Palestinian
> > > > population involved, and the vehement opposition of world opinion.
> > > > He
> > > > hoped that "the failed Israeli attempt to impose a new order in the
> > > > ambitions in other territories." [8] Left unconsidered by Harkabi
> > > > was
> > > > the possibility that the United States would act as Israel's proxy
> > > > to
> > > > achieve the overall goal.
>
> > > > U.S. Realpolitik
>
> > > > In the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. Middle Eastern policy, although
> > > > sympathetic to Israel, was not identical to that of Israel. The
> > > > fundamental goal of U.S. policy was to promote stable governments in
> > > > the Middle East that would allow oil to flow reliably to the Western
> > > > industrial nations. It was not necessary for the Muslim countries to
> > > > The United States worked for peace between Israel and the Muslim
> > > > states in the region, but it was to be a peace that would
> > > > accommodate
Middle East. It would require member states of the NPT to �disclose in
their national reports on the implementation of the resolution on the
Middle East all information available to them on the nature and scope
of Israeli nuclear facilities and activities, including information
pertaining to previous nuclear transfers to Israel.� On May 6, 2010,
the Government Accountability Office (formerly known as the General
Accounting Office) released the previously secret 1978 report �Nuclear
Diversion in the U.S.? 13 Years of Contradiction and
Confusion� [.pdf]. It fills in important historic gaps about weapons-
grade uranium diversions from the U.S. to Israel.
U.S. presidents have long acquiesced to �strategic ambiguity� � a
policy of neither confirming nor denying that Israel even possesses
nuclear weapons. This pretext has allowed the U.S. to deliver the
lion�s share of its foreign assistance budget to Israel, despite clear
legal prohibitions imposed by the Glenn and Symington amendments to
the Foreign Assistance Act. UN member countries have long suspected
that the United States either turns a blind eye or actively supports
the transfer of know-how, weapons-grade uranium, and dual-use
technology to Israel. The 62-page General Accounting Office
investigation and correspondence confirms the United States refuses to
mount credible investigations that would enable warranted prosecutions
of the perpetrators.
�Nuclear Diversion in the U.S.? 13 Years of Contradiction and
Confusion� investigates the period between 1957 and 1967 when the
Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC) received over 22
tons of uranium-235 � the key material used to fabricate nuclear
weapons. NUMEC�s founder and president Zalman M. Shapiro was head of a
local Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) chapter and a sales agent
for the Defense Ministry of Israel in the U.S. In the early 1960s the
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) began documenting suspicious lapses in
security at NUMEC�s plant at Apollo, Pa. In 1965 an AEC audit found
NUMEC could no longer account for over 200 pounds of highly enriched
uranium. Subsequent estimates spiraled to almost 600 pounds.
The GAO was chartered by Congress to investigate four allegations
about what happened to the uranium. The first was that �the material
was illegally diverted to Israel by NUMEC management for use in
nuclear weapons.� This was a result of early AEC and FBI
investigations into the activities of Zalman Shapiro. The second
theory �the material was diverted to Israel by NUMEC management with
the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)� came from the
CIA�s silence and demonstrated lack of interest in the entire matter.
The final theories explored by GAO were more general, that �the
material was diverted to Israel with the acquiescence of the United
States Government� or �there has been a cover-up of the NUMEC incident
by the United States Government.�
GAO solicited all available information developed by the CIA, FBI,
Department of Energy, and AEC, but was �continually denied necessary
reports and documentation � by the CIA and FBI.� GAO attempted to fill
in gaps or outright refusals to cooperate by directly interviewing FBI
special agents. The GAO also intended to make the report public, in
order to respond to growing public concerns. Rep. John Dingell (D-
Mich.), the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
who requested the inquiry, was assured six months before it was issued
that only the most sensitive areas in the report would be classified.
The CIA and FBI insisted that the entire report be classified at the
�secret� level over the objections of Dingell, who said, �I think it
is time that the public be informed about the facts surrounding the �
affair and the possible diversion of bomb-grade uranium to Israel.�
The GAO report lambastes the FBI�s on-again off-again approach to
investigating NUMEC: �The FBI, which had the responsibility and
authority to investigate the alleged incident, did not focus on the
question of a possible nuclear diversion until May 1976 � nearly 11
years later. Initially, the FBI declined DOE�s request to conduct an
investigation of the diversion possibility even though they are
required to conduct such investigations under the Atomic Energy Act�.�
The FBI�s initial investigation during the 1960s quickly zeroed in on
NUMEC management, but FBI recommendations for action were stymied.
According to the GAO, �The FBI became so concerned about the security
risks posed by NUMEC�s president that they asked DOE whether it
planned to terminate his security clearance or stop the flow of
materials to NUMEC. According to the FBI�s liaison with GAO, the FBI
recommended that NUMEC�s operating license be taken away�.� When the
FBI request was ignored, it dropped the entire investigation between
1969 and 1976.
It took a direct order from President Gerald Ford in 1976 for the FBI
and Department of Justice to �address the diversion aspect.� The
renewed investigation soon led to reversals of official U.S.
government positions on NUMEC. According to the GAO report, �until the
summer of 1977, the only publicized Government view on the NUMEC
incident was that there was no evidence to indicate that a diversion
of nuclear material had occurred.� By February 1978, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced it had �reconsidered� its
previous position that there had been �no evidence� to support
diversion.
But the 11-year gap �obviously hampered� the effort. The GAO revealed
that the DOE�s nuclear materials safeguards, which before 1967 tracked
the monetary value rather than the precise mass of the uranium, were
seriously flawed. NUMEC claimed key records covering a period of heavy
uranium loss were destroyed during a �labor dispute� in 1964. NUMEC
paid a $1.1 million fine for 206 pounds of missing uranium in 1966,
which closed the DOE case. NUMEC also hired away one of the DOE�s
chief on-site investigators to enhance the appearance of serious
materials control and accountability. The GAO found that even by 1978
the FBI had not contacted key individuals in the affair. An FBI agent-
in-charge told the GAO it did not investigate the source of funds to
pay NUMEC�s DOE fine anticipating �legal difficulties.� So the GAO
investigated the matter, placing its own telephone calls to Mellon
Bank.
The GAO report is highly critical of the CIA: �From interviews with a
former CIA official and with former and current officials and staff of
DOE and the FBI we concluded that the CIA did not fully cooperate with
DOE or the FBI in attempting to resolve the NUMEC matter.� The report
is inconclusive about exactly what happened at NUMEC, but not about
the agencies involved in the investigation through 1978. �We believe a
timely, concerted effort on the part of these three agencies would
have greatly aided and possibly solved the NUMEC diversion questions,
if they desired to do so.�
The passage of time has removed any remaining doubts that NUMEC
diverted uranium to Israel. Rafael Eitan, who visited NUMEC in 1968,
was later revealed as the top Israeli spy targeting U.S. nuclear,
national defense, and economic targets when his agent (U.S. Navy
analyst Jonathan Pollard) was arrested spying for Israel in 1985.
According to Anthony Cordesman, �there is no conceivable reason for
Eitan to have gone [to the Apollo plant] but for the nuclear
material.� CIA Tel Aviv station chief John Hadden called NUMEC �an
Israeli operation from the beginning,� a conclusion supported by its
startup financing and initial ties to Israeli intelligence. Why both
the Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon administrations failed to
credibly investigate NUMEC as a diversion challenge is also now
obvious.
John F. Kennedy�s direct diplomatic pressures for U.S. inspections of
Israel�s Dimona reactor grew throughout 1962-1963. During a Dec. 27,
1963, meeting with Foreign Minister Golda Meir, Kennedy expressed his
hope that the relationship was a �two-way street.� Meir reassured
President Kennedy that there �would not be any difficulty between us
on the Israeli nuclear reactor.� Kennedy delivered a final ultimatum
to Israel on July 5, 1963, insisting that Dimona undergo serial
inspections �in accord with international standards� in order to
verify its �peaceful intent.� Simultaneously, the Kennedy Justice
Department was waging an intense battle behind closed doors to
register and regulate Israel�s elite U.S. lobby, the American Zionist
Council, which was bringing in funds from overseas to lobby. Kennedy�s
assassination in November traumatized the nation and led to the
complete and permanent reversal of both initiatives.
According to Avner Cohen, in 1958 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben
Gurion had arranged with Abraham Feinberg, a �major Democratic fund-
raiser,� to secretly finance a nuclear weapons program among
�benedictors� in America. Abraham Feinberg, who backed Harry S.
Truman�s successful whistle-stop election campaign, was personally
succinct about his role in the U.S. political system: �My path to
power was cooperation in terms of what they needed � campaign money.�
Feinberg opened doors in Congress for up and coming leaders of the
Israel lobby, including AIPAC founder Isaiah L. Kenen. According to
Seymour Hersh, �there is no question that Feinberg enjoyed the
greatest presidential access and influence in his 20 years as a Jewish
fund-raiser and lobbyist with Lyndon Johnson. Documents at the Johnson
Library show that even the most senior members of the National
Security Council understood that any issue raised by Feinberg had to
be answered.� His power and role in financing Lyndon B. Johnson�s
election prospects temporarily quashed scrutiny of Israel�s nuclear
weapons program � in the U.S. and abroad � at a critical moment.
On Oct. 14, 1964, less than three weeks before the 1964 presidential
elections, Johnson�s top administrative assistant Walter Jenkins was
arrested in a public restroom on sexual solicitation charges. At least
$250,000 Abraham Feinberg raised for Johnson was located in Jenkins�
office safe. Johnson phoned his trusted aides Bill Moyers and Myer
Feldman with orders to move the cash, which they did with the help of
a heavy briefcase. Israel would later replenish Feinberg�s coffers (as
it had with Zalman Shapiro through sales commissions) with multi-
million dollar favors, such as major ownership in the nation�s Coca-
Cola franchise.
In 1968 as Israel noticeably ramped up activities at the Dimona
nuclear weapons facility, Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford placed a
final urgent call to Johnson, �Mr. President, I don�t want to live in
a world where the Israelis have nuclear weapons.� President Johnson
was abrupt before he hung up on Clifford, �Don�t bother me with this
anymore.� By the time Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meier lobbied
President Nixon to redefine U.S. non-proliferation policy as
�ambiguity� toward Israeli nuclear weapons, Israel�s stockpile and
number of deployed weapons was steadily growing.
The report reveals why the 2010 Non-Proliferation Review Conference at
the UN � like the GAO � isn�t really capable of challenging the true
drivers of Middle East nuclear proliferation. �Nuclear Diversion in
the U.S.? 13 Years of Contradiction and Confusion� is a report so
unique and noble in intent that there will probably never be another
like it. While it leaves unexplored the ongoing presence, influence,
and effect of Israel�s lobbyists working at the center of U.S.
presidential administrations, for concerned Americans the GAO provides
a snapshot of a moment in time before their Congress, aspiring
politicians, and mid-level management of government agencies all �got
the memo.�
In 2010 that unwritten memo reads something like this: Crimes
committed in the name of Israel � no matter how audacious � will never
be properly investigated, let alone prosecuted� so don�t waste your
time.
Grant F. Smith is the author of the new book Spy Trade: How Israel's
Lobby Undermines America's Economy. He is a frequent contributor to
Radio France Internationale and Voice of America's Foro
Interamericano. Smith has also appeared on BBC News, CNN, and C-SPAN.
He is currently director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern
Policy in Washington, D.C.
This article was first published at www.antiwar.com
*****
Indeed.
And this snippet more or less says it all:
"While it leaves unexplored the ongoing presence, influence,
and effect of Israel�s lobbyists working at the center of U.S.
presidential administrations," for concerned Americans the GAO provides
a snapshot of a moment in time before their Congress, aspiring
politicians, and mid-level management of government agencies all �got
the memo.�
In 2010 that unwritten memo reads something like this: Crimes
committed in the name of Israel � no matter how audacious � will never
be properly investigated, let alone prosecuted� so don�t waste your
time."
The only addendum I would make is; "Crimes committed in the name of, or BY,
Israel or by agents working for Israeli interests, irrespective of whether
these be contrary or harmful to the welfare of the United States or her
allies...will never be investigated"
As for Israel's nukes, they would only ever be used as a last resort.
However, the Zionists need to ensure that Israels regional enemies are
neutralised well before there is any need to use nukes - and as we know,
when the Israelis are faced with any opposition tougher than women, children
and demoralised conscripts, they tend to fold like a bad poker hand. Thus,
they need their US wardogs and the American lapdogs from the UK to do their
fighting for them - the only question is how to get the American public
motivated for war.
*That's* the easy part - you just do what you did with the USS Maine, Pearl
Harbour and the Gulf of Tonkin.
Fish Supper
"RJ11" <rj...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ht7urq$ed0$1...@pcls6.std.com...
Let me help you out on this one.
I wrote it because I detest racists, be they white supremacists,
anti-semites or zionists. They symbols they wear, the swastika or the star
of david, may differ, but they are the same species. They are the enemy.
Here's why I hate them:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=71343&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=141043411701&id=100001036281056
I have a special place of hatred in my heart for the knuckle draggers who
manage to lift their hands off the ground long enough to point and shout
"jew" at everything and anything. I detest them because they divert from the
real enemy: Israel.
Have another look, Dicky, Debby and all the other zionazis, you'll love
this:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=71343&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=141043411701&id=100001036281056
Alistair
within Jewdaism and Jews?
"Fish Supper" <li...@sea.com> wrote in message
news:Epidnbks5Jn8rWbW...@bt.com...
drahcir
> You have no problems with the intrinsic, genetic and entrenched racism
> within Jewdaism
Just out of curiosity, are you too stupid to know how to spell
"Judaism", or are you too stupid to know that its purposeful
misspelling expresses nothing?
and Jews?
>
> "Fish Supper" <l...@sea.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Epidnbks5Jn8rWbW...@bt.com...
>
>
>
> > "RJ11" <r...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:ht7urq$ed0$1...@pcls6.std.com...
> >> In article <J3LJn.26376$pv.13...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> >> "Ben Cramer", posting as Alistair <amclym...@home.net> wrote:
>
> >> (snip)
>
> >> Doper, the "Fish Supper" guy is a violent critic of
> >> Israel and Zionism.
>
> >> Yet, he wrote this to you:
>
> >> "You are the personification of the dim witted racist scumbag whose
> >> anti-semitic ravings do nothing but help the zionists.
>
> >> But more than aiding the enemy and more than being a vile racist you are
> >> irredemably stupid and other than exposing your moronic insights into how
> >> all the world's evils are the fault of Jews, including my grandmother's
> >> stroke and any cheese made in Holland, you have nothing of any value to
> >> contribute.
>
> >> I really, honestly, with all my heart wish you'd just fuck off."
>
> >> Why do you think he wrote this?
>
> >> RJ.
>
> > Let me help you out on this one.
>
> > I wrote it because I detest racists, be they white supremacists,
> > anti-semites or zionists. They symbols they wear, the swastika or the star
> > of david, may differ, but they are the same species. They are the enemy.
> > Here's why I hate them:
> >http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=71343&op=1&o=global&view=global...
>
> > I have a special place of hatred in my heart for the knuckle draggers who
> > manage to lift their hands off the ground long enough to point and shout
> > "jew" at everything and anything. I detest them because they divert from
> > the real enemy: Israel.
>
> > Have another look, Dicky, Debby and all the other zionazis, you'll love
> > this:
> >http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=71343&op=1&o=global&view=global...
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Oh, shit, look what we got here. One of the zoo creatures has gathered
all its strength and drummed up the courage to address me. I do think
it thinks it's, um, "challenging" me. How adorable. Someone get me
some peanuts so I can feed it.
TallHenry
Alistair <amcl...@home.net> wrote:
[...]
You're really one disgusting aussie bastard, posting
these lies and forgeries instead of dealing with the
*real* crimes you people commit on a daily basis:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/07/31/australia.woomera/
"CANBERRA, Australia (CNN) -- A United Nations human rights envoy
has slammed conditions in Australia's Woomera detention camp, saying
the situation there in many cases was 'inhuman and degrading'".
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/refu-o13.shtml
"Australian navy fires on refugee boat".
Australia's culpability in East Timor's genocide
------------------------------------------------
http://www.pcug.org.au/~wildwood/earlyviva.htm
"Australian governments all sought to influence the destiny of East
Timor. This destiny became one of the longest ongoing acts of genocide
since the European Holocaust of the Second World War. I am reminded of
the French Vichy Government of that war which supplied and organised
the freight train convoys that carried persecuted Jews to the Nazi
ovens. Canberra's warts-and-all allegiance with Jakarta; the almost $2
billion in bilateral aid; the million of dollars in military gifts,
defence training and defence co-operation; and the political lobbying
in the international arena for Jakarta's position, all helped to
create a similar cattlewagon, transporting the East Timorese to their
diabolical fate." Jim Aubrey, editor, 'Free East Timor: Australia's
culpability in East Timor's genocide'.
It seems that genocide in an old aussie tradition:
"The second consequence of British settlement was
appropriation of land and water resources. The combination
of disease, loss of land and direct violence reduced the
Aboriginal population by up to 80% between 1788 and 1900.
A wave of massacres and resistance followed the frontier
of British settlement. By the 1870s all the fertile areas
of Australia had been appropriated, and Indigenous communities
reduced to impoverished remnants living either on the fringes
of Australian communities or on lands considered unsuitable
for settlement".
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians)