The War Hawks wanted a personal piece of the pipelines action.
Mort Zuckerman
Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu, gary_w...@nymc.edu,
scientifi...@ostp.gov, pkru...@princeton.edu,
Stanle...@fiu.edu, emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: The War Hawks wanted a personal piece of the pipelines
action.
Date: Feb 9, 2010 6:03 AM
The War Hawks (NeoCons and James Baker in
Turkey, for instance) wanted a personal piece
of the pipelines action.
That's all it was about.
Look at a map of the intended pipelines:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=turkey+pipelines+israel&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
[Turkey, Pipelines, Israel]
And See, Also, Sibel Edmonds, and
Bush Senior re securing for Halliburton
(Rockefeller's empire, which includes
Citigroup and Exxon) with his trip to
Saudi Arabia on or around 11 Sep 2001.
So, is it treasonous to falsify a cause
for war for personal profit reasons?
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/02/08/i_dont_mean_to_say_i_told_you_so_but
The grand bargain was the 911 stunt for
protection against Iran while performing
Grand Theft Oil to prop up the phoney
petrodollar indefinitely. The Israelis were
essential since they provided the Kroll Associates
911 Demolition Team and the phoney Niger
Uranium letter.
This man is right, below. There was never
a cause or a case for war in the Middle East
in terms of an actual US "national" interest.
Unfortunately, we humans - we Americans - have
to deal with these strange entities that call
themselves the FBI, the USDOJ, and SCOTUS.
They're like the entire DHHS- the CDC, the NIH
and the FDA. There's no difference between
the FDA, USDOJ, FBI, SCOTUS, and NIH and
some TV celebs' pet Pet Project.
SAVE THE LEPTOTHORAX!!!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040129072935.htm
Hang Evil Porn-Watchers!!!
Throw Lyme Activist Mothers of Children
With Lyme in Jail!! for saying things "like
TED KASCYNSKI!!!" that happen to be *TRUE*
about Yale!!
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/connecticut-attorney-general-charges-idsa,1155030.shtml
http://www.actionlyme.org/Schoen.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/CT_MED_BOARD_BLOW_OFF.htm
But don't even investigate what happened
on 911.
Don't even consider that Yale wanted to
drop the OspA/Pam3Cys bomb on everyone,
when the OspA bomb is the thing that causes
AIDS and LymeAIDS, and that they lie to
cover their asses to this very day.
See.
They, the experts we employ to protect us,
are the same petty ass fools as the TV stars
who worry about forsooken pets while the whole
fricken world falls apart, America murders
over a million Iraqis for the oil-dollars,
the pipelines, and 1 in 8 Americans are on
food stamps, 1/5 are unemployed...
How much smarter is Anton Scalia than
Sarah Palin? Why can't a Supreme Court
Justice think? Why can't Rudi the Lawyer
aks a simple question, like how did the
7 building fall in under 7 seconds?
How come the NYFD didn't know the formula?
"When buildings apparently don't burn for
7 hours, they spontaneously collapse in
7 seconds."
KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.actionlyme.org
===============================
http://original.antiwar.com/jay-hatheway/2010/02/08/the-middle-east-no-longer-matters/
The Middle East No Longer Matters
by Jay Hatheway, February 09, 2010
Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment | Antiwar Forum
As the Obama administration gears up for additional commitments to
Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East, it is good to remind
ourselves that in spite of the overheated rhetoric of the past few
years, the region is of very little, if any, strategic value to the
United States. Although we have sacrificed our national honor, our
fortune, and the lives of our military personnel to bring security and
stability from Lebanon to Pakistan, the fact remains that our presence
is as ill-conceived as it is unnecessary: ill-conceived because the
interjection of American power feeds the anger of those who would harm
us, and unnecessary because there is nothing there we need. While it
may be the case that portions of the Middle East are of significant
humanitarian interest, such is not synonymous with our strategic
national interests except in the very broadest terms that humanitarian
help implies.
Indeed, one can make the argument that the primary destabilizing
influence in the region is the American military, with its continued
arming of any number of factions across the entire arc from Israel to
India. This is exemplified most recently by the plans to place Patriot
missile systems in the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait in addition to
those in Israel aimed, it seems, at Iran. This is not to suggest that
there are no threats; it is to suggest instead that those which do
exist are seriously overblown in comparison to the Cold War between
1945 and 1989. Ironically, it is the heavy presence of this past that
now cripples our ability to discern regional concerns from those that
have a broader impact.
Although Americans have been interacting with the Middle East since
the founding of our Republic, it was only in the 1930s that the United
States found itself reflecting upon its strategic importance. To the
dismay of the British, the U.S. courted the king of Saudi Arabia for
rights to explore for oil, which would be found in 1938. World War II
put further exploration on hold, but not American interests. With the
express consent of the British and the Iranians, the U.S. moved into
southern Iran in 1942 in order to develop a Persian corridor to assist
the Russians in the aftermath of Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi
invasion of the USSR.
Fearful of impending defeat at the hands of the Germans, the Russians
also pressed the U.S. to open up a second front somewhere in Western
Europe. Ill prepared as we were in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the
most the U.S. was willing to do was enter the war in Morocco and
Algeria in November 1942 and assist the British roll back German
advances. As the war wound down, our ties were further cemented when
FDR on his way back from Potsdam in February 1945 met with the Saudi
king on an American boat in the Suez Canal. The purpose of this
meeting was simple: American protection for Saudi oil, an agreement
that has lasted until today.
During the Cold War, the Middle East was of enormous strategic
interest to the United States. We wanted to protect our oil supplies
and prevent the USSR from making inroads into the region. To
accommodate these goals, we gradually filled the power vacuum created
by the retreat of the British in the aftermath of the war and
developed the seemingly contradictory policies of supporting Iran,
Saudi Arabia, and Israel as bulwarks against the spread of communism.
All might have remained relatively stable and predictable but for the
Iranian Revolution and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
The advent of the Islamic Revolution and the invasion of Afghanistan
at virtually the same time rattled Washington to the core: one pillar
of our Middle East policy was lost to a virulently anti-American
regime while the Russians were believed to be on the move to capture
the oil fields. Threatened by this doomsday scenario, Washington
panicked. When Iraq invaded Iran, we supported both, to the detriment
of each. We also increased our covert aid to jihadists fighting
against the USSR in Afghanistan. With the end of the Iran-Iraq war and
the withdrawal of the USSR from Afghanistan and the Soviet collapse
shortly thereafter, it seemed the U.S. stood victorious: the Cold War
was over, the Russian Empire was gone, and the U.S. was unassailable
as the most powerful country in the world.
Yet victory was short-lived in view of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
The introduction of American forces into Saudi Arabia in 1990-91
provided the justification for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda’s war
against the United States that culminated in the attacks of 9/11. In
response, the U.S. launched its multi-country attacks and began to
gradually redirect its oil purchases away from the Gulf to other
potentially more secure sources such that by 2009, only around 18
percent of oil imports came from the region [.pdf]. The bulk of our
imported oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola,
Brazil, Algeria, Colombia, Russia, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, and
Libya, essentially abnegating any security rationale for an American
presence in the Middle East. Absent threats from the USSR and freed
from dependence upon Middle East oil, the U.S. has absolutely no
strategic interests in the region.
Why then is the United States fixated with an area of the world that
is of only marginal importance to our security? The answer, I suspect,
has as much to do with the inertia of almost 70 years of political
engagement as it does with muddleheaded attempts to control the
distribution of the region’s supply of oil and, more importantly, the
economic growth of potential economic competitors. Both of these goals
are unreasonable and do little to contribute to American national
security; indeed, our continuous meddling does just the opposite, as
bin Laden and his supporters have made so evident.
Some will argue that an American retreat will lead to chaos and
catastrophe – but honestly, how much worse could it be than the
unmitigated disaster that is currently the case? At some point, we
must realize we cannot continue to fight wars that have absolutely
nothing to do with our actual national interests but instead reflect a
rather perverse attachment to “tradition.” With the U.S. (and USSR)
gone from the region, al-Qaeda, Iran, and others will have lost the
objects of their resentments. Threats of a lesser sort to American
security there will be, but with good oversight, vigilance, and
selective, mutually agreed-upon political engagement, we can keep them
to a minimum. The implication is that the regional powers will have to
confront their differences without the presence of the U.S., and that
includes the ever present Arab-Israeli conflict. No matter how
intractable that issue remains, it is, after all, a regional concern
to which we may become a party only when asked. To elevate the ongoing
Middle East conflicts to the level of existential threat is simply
wrong, and a profound misreading of the regional conflicts themselves.
It is time to bring everyone home.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci