The carnage continues in Baghdad with 24 killed and 60 wounded today. The death toll for American soldiers now stands at 2500 and will undoubtedly pass this figure. The Iraqis suffered 20 times more, including women and children. The Bush Administration spent US$319 billion on the occupation in Iraq, on top of another 400+ billions since 2001.
US$800+ billion! What good the USA could have done with so much money, like medical research, aid to the poor of the world, science, environment, even rebuild New Orleans, etc. Instead they used it to kill Iraqis, Afghans and their own young men and women.
WMDs? Everyone, even those in USA, knows it has been one big fat lie.
Saddam Hussein’s link with al Qaeda? Proven to be another lie. The irony has been that, with Saddam out of the way, his enemy al Qaeda could infiltrate into Iraq.
Regime change? The USA supporting warlords in Somalia, (until recently) the brutal President Islam in Uzbekistan, the draconian regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.
Oil? The price has gone through the roof, with the Chinese and Indians now about to grab the lion’s share, already from Iran, and very soon one day from Iraq and Saudi Arabia too, as the Asian giants will offer higher prices that the Americans would be willing to.
Already, many western countries are now talking nuclear energy when once it would have been taboo – eg. Australia.
For Israel? Yes, that has been the real reason.
George Bush had been duped into removing one of Israel’s potential threat in Saddam Hussein and was about to rid the other one, Iran, when things didn’t work out in Iraq as the Americans had hoped.
Israel has been boasting of an oil pipeline soon from Mosul (Northern Iraq) to Israel, courtesy of their new partners, the Kurds.
Americans have paid a terrible price in money, lives, international goodwill, morale and and morality, for another country, Israel.
The Chinese believe that generally in a well-to-do family, where granddad had built up the family fortune from nowhere, all it would last is until the 3rd generation, before grandsons destroy that wealth and take the family back to square one.
The Bush family just needed two generations to take the USA back to square one in so many aspects. But the price for Iraqis has been far too terrible.
Why do so many people think The US invaded Iraq for Israel? For your information neither Iraq nor Iran has the resources to do Israel in. Even a nuclear weapon capable Iran will have tremendous difficulties in 'wiping Israel of the map of the world'. Israel is estimated to have around 130 nuclear warheads. More than enough to take out the capital cities of every contry in the Arab world. Moreover, the Iranians have pressing internal problems to solve first before they can even think of taking on Israel. The inept rebuilding of Bam after the earthquake is a manifestation of the problems Iran has.
ReplyDeleteThe only Arab nation today capable of doing the Israelis in will be the Syrians. However, they seem to be very occupied with Lebanon and hunting for anti-Syrian Muslim militants.
The US can easily protect Israel without having to invade Iraq. Millitarily, no one even comes close to the US.
While you dismiss oil as the reason behind the invasion of Iraq you also mention that Israel is boasting of an oil pipeline from Mosul to Israel. So, which is which?
If you are really interested in knowing the reasons behind the invasion of Iraq you will have to drop the Israel factor from your line of thinking.
The US invaded Iraq so as to sow greater disunity in the Muslim world. Look at how Israel deals wth Fatah and Hamas and you will see what I mean. Think about it Ktmoc.
Oil has been only the "overlay" attraction or reason for the true objective which has been to debilitate potentially powerful (rich and has extremely hostile-to-Israel) regimes.
ReplyDeleteIraq (with Saddam as its head) and Iran were the two rich and potentially dangerous nations near Israel that would pose enormous problems for Israel.
Look at the Bush Administration (1st and 2nd terms) and count how many Zionists have been or are there. Some of them have family ties in Israel, some even worked for Likud Party.
Google JINSA and check its objective. Google to see how many Jews are there in the Bush Administration - remember the Jews represent only less than 2% of the American population, so view the percentage of Jews in the Administration against the national percentage. But to be fair, remember not all Jews are Zionists.
To convince the American oil lobby (greedy blokes like Cheney) and idiotic Bush that there was a need to invade Iraq, and then Iran, oil was used as a motivator or "overlay" reason; to convince the rest of America, some lies like WMDs and al Qaeda links were tossed in.
The fact that Israel has nuclear weapons doesn't mean she does not want to destroy the truly potential powerful enemies - that's what is called strategic thinking. You must think ahead, and Israel is one nation who looks very far ahead, including packing the US Administration with its people and sympathisers.
Yes, Iran is and Iraq was (until its current fragmentation - guess who's arming and training the Kurds) Israel's greatest strategic threats. Syria is just an aggressive nuisance without the wealth to be a potentially dangerous foe.
As for oil, the USA is screwed while Israel believes it will benefit from the Kurds' future oil pipeline from Mosul to the Mediterranean coast. So there's no inconsistency in these two different interests.
Anonymous is quite right that part of the strategy has been to sow disunity among the Arabs but the originator of the strategy is Israel with only the US as a tool. Who do you think got the Danish newspaper and a Norwegian Christian magazine to publish the caricatures that has now alienated the Europeans against the Palestinians? The Europeans had provided 60% of the required funding for Palestinians.
Who do you think had funded Hamas, and who is now arming Fatah? Divide and conquer; rubbish Palestinian reputation (terrorists rather than freedom fighters); curtail their funding; undermine the Palestinian Authority; sabotage or delay indefinitely Palestinian statehood (Israel's most important strategy); destroy potential foes, etc - that's strategy.
"Who do you think got the Danish newspaper and a Norwegian Christian magazine to publish the caricatures that has now alienated the Europeans against the Palestinians?"
ReplyDeleteDo you have an answer, with proof, to your rhetorical question?
And what makes you think that Europeans believe Palestinians and fundamentalist Muslims are the same?
I think that your repeated assertions that Zionists control everything the American government does, and apparently these Norwegian and Danish newsapapers too, do disservice to your otherwise excellent posts.
mate, you are asking for "proof", which is technically and practically the impossible, otherwise other parties would have taken action earlier. But that doesn't mean we cannot put 2 and 2 together. I promise I will blog on what I have read that led me to this conclusion.
ReplyDeleteQuote
ReplyDeleteI think that your repeated assertions that Zionists control everything the American government does ...
Unquote
Sorry I didn't response to this in my first reply. I didn't say the Zionists control "everything" the US govt does, but most certainly they would seek to influence very strongly US policies in the Middle East, in their favour.
'Look at the Bush Administration (1st and 2nd terms) and count how many Zionists have been or are there. Some of them have family ties in Israel, some even worked for Likud Party'.
ReplyDeleteKissinger was a Jew and also a Zionist but he engineered a peace deal which has brought 30 years of peace for Israel and Eqypt. This is a fact.
Now, how do you know thw Zionists, as you put it, engineered the invasion of Iraq Ktemoc?
Kissinger was NSA and US State Sec in an era when American presidents weren't so easily duped or Zionists so prominent in US Administration.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, Egypt was a different kettle of fish, quite different from Iraq. While Iraq by virtue of its wealth has the potential to be a real threat to Israel, Egypt even without any oil wealth was already a real threat by size and proximity.
The peace wrought out of the 1973 war was a strategic benefit more for Israel, though Egypt benefitted too from US aid, approx US$2 billion a year plus some older military arms.
Previous to 1973, Israel had thumped Egypt easily, but the Yom Kippur War, though eventually lost by Egypt, was a watershed, showing that Egypt could hurt Israel. It very nearly won the war but faltered towards the end due to poor communications among its army, and the daringly reckless but successful adventure of Ariel Sharon. But the war showed that Egypt has the strong potential and the generalship to one day win against Israel if peace was not quickly instituted.
As mentioned I'll blog on your last question soon.
'The peace wrought out of the 1973 war was a strategic benefit more for Israel, though Egypt benefitted too from US aid, approx US$2 billion a year plus some older military arms'.
ReplyDeleteYou mean to tell me a peace deal which ended a string of humiliating millitary defeats stretching over decades
and countless loss of life benifitted the Israelis more than the Egyptians?. Anwar Sadat was bold enough to see Kissinger's peace initiatives as a way to stop Egyptians from being the perpetual cannon fodder in the Arab-Israeli conflicts. Kissinger was probably the only Zionist at that point in time who saw the neccessity of 'realpolitik" with the Arabs.
The peace deal between Israel and Egypt was the work of two men on opposing sides who decided to make co-existence rather than conflict the creed in the Arab-Israeli conflicts.
These two men have done the impossible. The Palestinians should learn from them.
Israel would never have peace unless it suits its interest. Yom Kippur gave Israel a real shakeup. It was said that Golda Meir contemplated suicide when she thought Israel was lost.
ReplyDeleteGoogle Operations Nickel Grass - if not for the USA and Portugal, which allowed the USAF to use its air base, Israel won't be existing today.
I got this from the web - Israel suffered 10,800 killed and wounded-a traumatic loss for a nation of some 3 million persons-plus 100 aircraft and 800 tanks. The Arab nations suffered 17,000 killed or wounded and 8,000 prisoners, and lost 500 aircraft and 1,800 tanks.
But Egypt and Syria combined could take the attrition; Israel couldn't.
Except the USA poured in F4E warplanes straight from USAF squadrons in Europe, still in US camouflage markings, tanks, weapons, ammo, various equipment, money. There were even rumours that American pilots flew some of the F4Es for Israel - who knows?
The US Sixth Fleet was mobilised into war footing to provide protection between Portugal and Israel.
This was what Golda Meir said of Ops Nickel Grass:
"For generations to come, all will be told of the miracle of the immense planes from the United States bringing in the material that meant life for our people."
It was said she presented every heavy transport pilot who took part in Ops NG a gold Star of David medallion as appreciation.
Without the USA in that war, and its massive military airlift, Israel would have existed no more.
That's why Israel accepted Kissinger's plan for peace and withdrew from Egyptian territory she had kept since 1967.
Read a bit more and you'll understand why Israel only accepted peace when it's in her favour. And America will always be there to support her, including massive bribing of Egypt. The Christian Right, for their own belief, wants "Hebrews" to walk the "Holy Land", and today the US President owes his domestic support to the American Christian Right.
So Israel chose peace because it suited its strategic interest. Is there somthing wrong with that? Moreover, you talk as if the peace deal did not have to face immense hurdles put up by the Hawks in Washington and Tel Aviv along with those put up by the Hawks in the Arab world. It is always easier to continue fighting a conflict than to stop it. There are numerous examples in history attesting to this truism. It is true that Sadat fought the 1973 to bring Israel to the negotiating table. But when they were at the the negotiating table there were no indications they were willing to go to another war. With the exception of people like Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler most leaders do not wish to bring death upon their people. Kissinger and Sadat came up with the peace plan knowing full well the plan had a higher chance of failure than success. Both knew if they were to fail the price will be very high for the Israelis and Arabs. It took two great man to see the battles fought on the land they love cannot go on forever. Peace can only be forged by great men who are able to put aside their pride and narrow interest to see that it is in their strategic interest to make peace. This is something Hamas has yet to learn.
ReplyDeleteNow, Sadat was bribed into accepting the peace deal. What did he get? He was killed by Muslim militants who could not fathom peace with the Israelis. He knew of this danger and yet he persisted. On a larger scale what was the bribe for the Egyptians, in concrete terms please.
The US supported Israel against numerically superior Arab armies which were well supplied by the USSR. Levelling the odds, I say.
OK thanks Ktemoc, looking forward to your reasoning.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "I didn't say the Zionists control "everything" the US govt does..."; well you sometimes give that impression, maybe you should consider how what you say may seem to others...
I for one agree that Israel has an undue influence on the USA, and I sometimes daydream that America turns around and says to Israel: "Stop buiding settlements, and get out of the territories, or we stop all military and financial aid."
... dream on I know... but that would solve so many problems...
Peace is always good, and Israel could have peace earlier with Fatah-controlled PA, if it had withdrew to the 1967 borders. It murdered its only PM who was willing to make peace wth the Palestinians, so what's the difference between the Arabs and Osraelis - same hardline behaviour except for one thing, the land belongs to the Arabs, in particular the Palestinians.
ReplyDeleteThe Israelis had no political linkage or association for 2000 years with the land it now occupies. It was placed there by a Chritian Right British PM, and supported by a guilty Europe. Now the artificially created state wants to swallow up the entire city of Jerusalem and huge chunks of Palestnian land in what it thinks would be a final border.
Its government believes now's the best opportunity for it to do so with its US sponsor under an Christian Right controlled idiotic Bush.
What proof of US bribe of Egypt - an annual aid of more than US$2 billion, less than half of what Israel gets too (for different reasons, both of which are for Israeli interests).
Look no one gives you something for nothing in the world of politics. When the US gives aid to Egypt you call it a bribe. But when the US withdraws aid from the Palestinians
ReplyDeleteyou accuse them of trying to starve the Palestinians.
Ktemoc you cannot have it both ways.
The land of Israel reappeared after two thousand years on Arab land. So what? The Chinese communist swallowed Tibet and a chunk of northern India. The Malays in Malaysia claim to be the indigenous people of the peninsula at the expense of the orang aslis.
I could go on but the list would be too long.
The Palestinians can either learn to live with the Israelis or they can subject themselves to more pain and suffering. Not much of a choice I know, But thats all they have got.
Quote
ReplyDelete... no one gives you something for nothing in the world of politics
Unquote
Glad you're coming around to my assertion that Israel only make peace when it has something to gain, else it would go on gobbling up "holy" land.
The Chinese swallowed Tibet, or British India seized land from China in the Himalayas and HK, that's invasion by a powerful neighbour or colonizing power, but to equate that to artificially creating a state out of Arab land because of the religious belief of a Christian Right British PM or a guilty Europe is nonsense.
Because if that's the case, then let's also support the Jihadis in their wish to re-create a golden Caliphate today - because that would also be an attempt to artificially create a state out of various land based on the religious belief of a religious bloke by the name of Osama bin Laden.
The US bribes a corrupt dictatorial Egyptian govt, and at the same time enforces financial sanction on a democratically elected govt. No, I am not inconsistent because neither is the US. It does both seemingly different things, but both have been for Israel.
The US should stop being hypocritical about democracy and freedom because it is not practicisng either. Its behaviour, policy and action are all completely subservient to Israel, not because it loves the Israelis, but because of US Christian Right's belief in their salvation.
Quote
The Palestinians can either learn to live with the Israelis or they can subject themselves to more pain and suffering
Unquote
Will the Israelis allow them? Don't forget they killed their own PM who wanted to make peace with the Palestinians. Those were the Israelis who wanted Greater Israel, the "holy" land of their beliefs. They want Palestinian to live in an Arab Bantustan, as serfs for the Israelis.
Sometimes I wonder how can a land that's most soaked in blood, innocent blood, can ever be "holy".
"Glad you're coming around to my assertion that Israel only make peace when it has something to gain, else it would go on gobbling up "holy" land".
ReplyDeleteNever did I deny the peace accord between Israel and Egypt and Israel was in the interest of both sides.
Peace is always in ones interest even if it just means removing the deaths and sufferings that come from the conflicts.
However, you are saying that the Israelis and Egyptians were 'bribed' into accepting peace. Such a simplistic view of the peace accord is simply not supported by the prevaling evidence.
'The Chinese swallowed Tibet, or British India seized land from China in the Himalayas and HK, that's invasion by a powerful neighbour or colonizing power, but to equate that to artificially creating a state out of Arab land because of the religious belief of a Christian Right British PM or a guilty Europe is nonsense'.
The invasion of Tibet and the British occupation of HK are based on belief systems which justify such occupations. The problems face by the Israels and the Palestinians are also caused by such belief systems.
The effect is the same Ktemoc and that is all that counts in the real world. You can shout all you like about how the Palestinian problem is 'special'. It is not.
The Palestinians have to grow up and stop whining about how they are being mistreated.
The Egyptian-Israeli peace accord is based on such realities. The Palestinians will do well to learn.