Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on June 26, 2014

Bookmark and Share

The Chaos In Iraq Is By DESIGN

The Chaos In Iraq Is By DESIGN thumbnail
Neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz planned regime change in Iraq more than 20 years ago … in 1991.

But the goal wasn’t just regime change (or oil).  The goal was to break up the country, and to do away with the sovereignty of Iraq as a separate nation.

The Guardian noted in 2003:

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt predicted devastating consequences for the Middle East if Iraq is attacked. “We fear a state of disorder and chaos may prevail in the region,” he said.

***

They are probably still splitting their sides with laughter in the Pentagon. But Mr Mubarak and the [Pentagon] hawks do agree on one thing: war with Iraq could spell disaster for several regimes in the Middle East. Mr Mubarak believes that would be bad.The hawks, though, believe it would be good.

For the hawks, disorder and chaos sweeping through the region would not be an unfortunate side-effect of war with Iraq, but a sign that everything is going according to plan.

***

The “skittles theory” of the Middle East – that one ball aimed at Iraq can knock down several regimes – has been around for some time on the wilder fringes of politics but has come to the fore in the United States on the back of the “war against terrorism”.

Its roots can be traced, at least in part, to a paper published in 1996 by an Israeli thinktank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Entitled “A clean break: a new strategy for securing the realm”, it was intended as a political blueprint for the incoming government of Binyamin Netanyahu. As the title indicates, it advised the right-wing Mr Netanyahu to make a complete break with the past by adopting a strategy “based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism …”

***

The paper set out a plan by which Israel would “shape its strategic environment”, beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the installation of a Hashemite monarchy in Baghdad.

With Saddam out of the way and Iraq thus brought under Jordanian Hashemite influence, Jordan and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and “roll back” Syria. Jordan, it suggested, could also sort out Lebanon by “weaning” the Shia Muslim population away from Syria and Iran, and re-establishing their former ties with the Shia in the new Hashemite kingdom of Iraq. “Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them”, the paper concluded.

***

The leader of the “prominent opinion makers” who wrote it was Richard Perle – now chairman of the Defence Policy Board at the Pentagon.

Also among the eight-person team was Douglas Feith, a neo-conservative lawyer, who now holds one of the top four posts at the Pentagon as under-secretary of policy.

***

Two other opinion-makers in the team were David Wurmser and his wife, Meyrav(see US thinktanks give lessons in foreign policy, August 19). Mrs Wurmser was co-founder of Memri, a Washington-based charity that distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light. After working with Mr Perle at the American Enterprise Institute, David Wurmser is now at the State Department, as a special assistant to John Bolton, the under-secretary for arms control and international security.

A fifth member of the team was James Colbert, of the Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) – a bastion of neo-conservative hawkery whose advisory board was previously graced by Dick Cheney (now US vice-president), John Bolton and Douglas Feith.

***

With several of the “Clean Break” paper’s authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to “transcend” its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it.

(Before assuming prominent roles in the Bush administration, many of the same people – includingRichard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and others – advocated their imperial views during the Clinton administration via their American think tank, the “Project for a New American Century”.)

Thomas Harrington – professor of Iberian Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut – writes:

[While there are some good articles on the chaos in Iraq, none of them] consider whetherthe chaos now enveloping the region might, in fact, be the desired aim of policy planners in Washington and Tel Aviv.

***

One of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine conflict in the territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet.

***

The most efficient way of sparking such open-ended internecine conflict is to brutally smash the target country’s social matrix and physical infrastructure.

***

Ongoing unrest has the additional perk of justifying the maintenance and expansion of the military machine that feeds the financial and political fortunes of the metropolitan elite.

In short … divide and rule is about as close as it gets to a universal recourse the imperial game and that it is, therefore, as important to bear it in mind today as it was in the times of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the Spanish Conquistadors and the British Raj.

To those—and I suspect there are still many out there—for whom all this seems too neat or too conspiratorial, I would suggest a careful side-by side reading of:

a) the “Clean Break” manifesto generated by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) in 1996

and

b) the “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” paper generated by The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in 2000, a US group with deep personal and institutional links to the aforementioned Israeli think tank, and with the ascension of  George Bush Junior to the White House, to the most exclusive  sanctums of the US foreign policy apparatus.

To read the cold-blooded imperial reasoning in both of these documents—which speak, in the first case, quite openly of the need to destabilize the region so as to reshape Israel’s “strategic environment” and, in the second of the need to dramatically increase the number of US “forward bases” in the region ….

To do so now, after the US’s systematic destruction of Iraq and Libya—two notably oil-rich countries whose delicate ethnic and religious balances were well known to anyone in or out of government with more than passing interest in history—, and after the its carefully calibrated efforts to generate and maintain murderous and civilization-destroying stalemates in Syria and Egypt (something that is easily substantiated despite our media’s deafening silence on the subject), is downright blood-curdling.

And yet, it seems that for even very well-informed analysts, it is beyond the pale to raise the possibility that foreign policy elites in the US and Israel, like all virtually all the ambitious hegemons before them on the world stage, might have quite coldly and consciously fomented open-ended chaos in order to achieve their overlapping strategic objectives in this part of the world.

Antiwar’s Justin Raimondo notes:

Iraq’s fate was sealed from the moment we invaded: it has no future as a unitary state. As I pointed out again and again in the early days of the conflict, Iraq is fated to split apart into at least three separate states: the Shi’ite areas around Baghdad and to the south, the Sunni regions to the northwest, and the Kurdish enclave which was itching for independence since well before the US invasion. This was the War Party’s real if unexpressed goal from the very beginning: the atomization of Iraq, and indeed the entire Middle East. Their goal, in short, was chaos – and that is precisely what we are seeing today.

***

As I put it years ago:

“[T]he actual purpose was to blow the country to smithereens: to atomize it, and crush it, so that it would never rise again.

“When we invaded and occupied Iraq, we didn’t just militarily defeat Iraq’s armed forces – we dismantled their army, and their police force, along with all the other institutions that held the country together. The educational system was destroyed, and not reconstituted. The infrastructure was pulverized, and never restored. Even the physical hallmarks of a civilized society – roadsbridgeselectrical plantswater facilitiesmuseumsschools – were bombed out of existence or else left to fall into disrepair. Along with that, the spiritual and psychological infrastructure that enables a society to function – the bonds of trust, allegiance, and custom – was dissolved, leaving Iraqis to fend for themselves in a war of all against all.

“… What we are witnessing in post-Saddam Iraq is the erasure of an entire country. We can say, with confidence: We came, we saw, we atomized.”

Why? This is the question that inevitably arises in the wake of such an analysis: why deliberately destroy an entire country whose people were civilized while our European ancestors were living in trees?

The people who planned, agitated for, and executed this war are the very same people who have advanced Israeli interests – at America’s expense – at every opportunity. In “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” a 1996 document prepared by a gaggle of neocons – Perle, Douglas Feith, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was urged to “break out” of Israel’s alleged stagnation and undertake a campaign of “regime change” across the Middle East, targeting Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and eventually Iran. With the exception of Iran – and that one’s still cooking on the back burner – this is precisely what has occurred. In 2003, in the immediate wake of our Pyrrhic “victory” in Iraq, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared to a visiting delegation of American members of Congress that these “rogue states” – Iran, Libya, and Syria – would have to be next on the War Party’s target list.

(Indeed.)

And Michel Chossudovsky points out:

The division of Iraq along sectarian-ethnic lines has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than 10 years.

What is envisaged by Washington is the outright suppression of the Baghdad regime and the institutions of the central government, leading to a process of political fracturing andthe elimination of Iraq as a country.

This process of political fracturing in Iraq along sectarian lines will inevitably have an impact on Syria, where the US-NATO sponsored terrorists have in large part been defeated.

Destabilization and political fragmentation in Syria is also contemplated: Washington’s intent is no longer to pursue the narrow objective of “regime change” in Damascus. What is contemplated is the break up of both Iraq and Syria along sectarian-ethnic lines.

The formation of the caliphate may be the first step towards a broader conflict in the Middle East, bearing in mind that Iran is supportive of the al-Maliki government and the US ploy may indeed be to encourage the intervention of Iran.

The proposed re-division of both Iraq and Syria is broadly modeled on that of the Federation of Yugoslavia which was split up into seven “independent states” (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia (FYRM), Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo).

According to Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, the re division of Iraq into three separate states is part of a broader process of redrawing the Map of the Middle East.

The above map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers”. (See Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, November 2006)

Notes: While a senior Bush adviser said that the Iraq war was launched to protect Israel, that is too simplistic an explanation. The architects of foreign policy in both the U.S. and Israel are either literally one and the same – e.g. Richard Perle – or see things identically.

And if you think things are different under the Obama administration, please note that not only are theNeocons back, they never actually left.

Washington’s Blog



40 Comments on "The Chaos In Iraq Is By DESIGN"

  1. Plantagenet on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 9:55 am 

    Obama is not a Neocon. Obama is an incompetent. The current chaos in Iraq is not due to things neocons said 20 years ago—its a result of Obama’s wimpiness and incompetence right now.

  2. J-Gav on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 10:24 am 

    Plant – You don’t appear to be dumb, but you don’t have a geo-political bone in your body. Your judgement is clouded by ideological nonsense.

    It matters little who is sleeping and farting in the White House at any given moment – that second-tier shmuck will always will be dancing at the end of strings pulled by the real powers: the military-industrial complex, the multinational corporations, the bankers and the paid-off congressional lackeys they need to keep up an appearance of democracy. Aided and abetted by the pusillanimous press-titutes, charged with keeping a confused citizenry “on message” by baffling them with bullshit.

    This article seems pretty much on target to me, even if it presents only a small fraction of the available evidence showing how thoroughly the U.S. has integrated Britain’s “divide and rule” strategy into its own hegemonic plans.

  3. bobinget on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 10:53 am 

    Plantagenet gives no chaos credits to a Bush Administration that actually started our American Adventure into Iraq. Me thinks Plant would prefer
    we forgot events prior to 2009.
    Too late Sir, we have it all on tape.

  4. Northwest Resident on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 11:00 am 

    Plant — If you would just read the article and digest the facts, you will begin to understand how utterly foolish and devoid of fact your post is. But you’re just an 8-track tape stuck on the same track, playing the “Obama did it” crap over and over. It hurts to see someone so pathetically inept at deciphering fact from fiction.

    The article confirms what I have suspected all along. That is, the goal in Iraq is to create chaos. My assumption was that the reasoning behind that goal was because TPTB wanted to preserve Iraq’s oil — keep it in the ground — better to have a huge and easily extracted reserve of energy for rebuilding in a post-collapse world. But this article brings up a lot of interesting points which are difficult to argue with. They aren’t trying to create chaos in just Iraq, but the entire Middle East? If so, that is brutal Machiavellian rationale at work, and a very ugly reality to ponder.

  5. bobinget on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 12:06 pm 

    Here’s a short on topic article I dug up from this week’s New Yorker..
    Dexter Filkins covered the entire Iraq War for the NYT.
    Today, he writes for the NewYorker.

    CHOICES AT THE TOP

    President Obama won the White House in part by promising to end the war in Iraq, and since then he placed his faith in Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to help him do so. It was Maliki who would hold together the state that the Americans had helped build. Obama had correctly judged the war in Iraq to be a catastrophe, but placing his confidence in Maliki required no small exertion of faith. Maliki’s past, and his present, often raised doubts about his inclination to reach beyond his own community, the Shiites—the country’s long-suppressed majority—and mend relations with the country’s other main groups, the Sunnis and the Kurds. In early 2009, a group of American diplomats in Iraq warned the White House that it ran the risk of creating a dictator. They were largely ignored, and when Maliki won reëlection a year later Obama gave him his full support. In 2011, after the collapse of halfhearted discussions about keeping some U.S. forces in Iraq, the last American soldiers left the country. Just a few months ago, Maliki was feeling so proudly independent that he wrote in an e-mail, “I am the owner of the idea of withdrawing the U.S. troops.”

    Then, in recent days, Sunni militants took over Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, and a string of towns along the Tigris River. The Iraqi Army, trained and equipped at enormous American expense, melted before the rebel advance; the Sunni insurgents, led by a vanguard called the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), have moved to within forty miles of the capital, threatening to reignite the sectarian war that inflamed the country during the American occupation. In a strange and unpredictable way, the crisis has brought President Obama and Maliki together again.

    As dramatic as the insurgents’ approach has been, it is not terribly surprising. They have fed on the deep discontent that prevails across the Sunni heartland, provoked and sustained by Maliki. Since the last American forces departed, he has embarked on a stridently sectarian project aimed at marginalizing the Sunni minority. He has presided over the arrest of his Sunni political opponents, jailed thousands of Sunni men, and excluded the Sunni population from any meaningful role in government. The Sunni Finance Minister, Rafe al-Essawi, fled the capital; the Sunni Vice-President, Tariq al-Hashemi, fled the country and faces a death sentence if he returns. When the Sunnis rose up in anger, as they did in Falluja and elsewhere, Maliki ordered the Army to shell civilian areas and detain more Sunni men. Ever since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s Sunnis have been faced with the choice of pledging their allegiance to the Shiite-led government in Baghdad or to the armed groups within their own community. Ordinary Sunnis may find the insurgents’ methods barbaric—during the occupation, Sunni leaders helped the Americans crush Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia—but the relentless sectarianism of the government in Baghdad has confirmed for many of them that they have no place in Maliki’s Iraq. The Kurds in the north of Iraq have pulled away from the rest of the country; as the conflict between Sunnis and Shiites becomes an explicit land war, Iraq threatens to break apart.

    Last week, responding to pleas from Maliki’s government, President Obama announced that he would deploy as many as three hundred military advisers to Iraq, step up intelligence gathering, and, if he deems it necessary, carry out air strikes on insurgents in both Iraq and Syria. The President intended to boost the Iraqi Army’s morale and, more broadly, to degrade the terrorist threat that is growing in the vast ungoverned area along the border between Syria and Iraq. Some of the measures announced last week were similar, if scaled back, versions of those discussed by Obama and Maliki in 2011; this time, the objections on both sides fell away.

    Some leaders in both countries have said that the presence of even a small number of American troops, acting in non-combat roles, would help stabilize not just the military but Iraq as a whole, in part by helping to blunt the country’s sectarian dynamics. Whether or not this proves true, the actions that the President ordered will probably not prove decisive. Administration officials said that they were shocked not by the strength of ISIS, a group they have been tracking, but by the woeful performance of the Iraqi security forces. For the foreseeable future, the Iraqi Army is unlikely to be capable of retaking many of the areas lost to the militants.

    In any case, the real questions are political, and they center on Maliki. Obama suggested that his offer of help would be determined by the progress the Iraqis make in knitting the country back together. The President didn’t say it, but he almost certainly wants Maliki to step down, and American diplomats in Baghdad appear to have begun signalling such a desire to other Iraqi leaders. This will be no easy thing. Maliki, whose self-regard has ballooned during his eight years in office, will very likely try to prevent his Shiite competitors from marshalling the support they need to unseat him. (As long as they can’t, he will remain in the job.) And he has very likely appealed to his backers in Iran, who have assisted him in his sectarian project. Removing Maliki would deal the Iranians a blow as well.

    In 2003, when American troops first rolled into Baghdad, they destroyed the Iraqi state and its institutions; for the next eight and a half years they tried to build something to replace it. The truth is that the political system imposed on the Iraqis has never worked very well without substantial U.S. involvement; since the Americans left, it hasn’t worked at all. American diplomats and military advisers can’t save Iraq and they can’t govern it, but the decision by President Obama to return to Iraq amounts to a recognition that there was work left unfinished. It’s likely to be a long and difficult job. ♦

  6. bobinget on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 12:12 pm 

    Mr Filkins expands on this topic in an excellent NPR
    interview with Terry Gross on “Fresh Air”

    http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=325503790&m=325607041&live=1

  7. paulo1 on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 12:24 pm 

    This is what everyone is up against. No fighting these scorpions except turning the rock over and stepping down hard. They want a Police State in every way with themselves at the top.

    Paulo

    “Perle’s book An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror which he coauthored with fellow neoconservative David Frum in 2004 criticizes American bureaucracy, civil service, and law. The book suggests that we as Americans must “overhaul the institutions of our government to ready them for a new kind of war against a new kind of enemy” including the FBI, CIA, armed forces, and State Department.[2] The book is also used as a defense of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and outlines important neoconservative ideas, including ways to abandon all Israeli-Palestinian peace processes, invade Syria, and implement strict US domestic surveillance with biometric identity cards and public vigilance to hinder potential terrorist immigrant or terrorist sympathizer threats.[9] Perle and Frum conclude: “For us, terrorism remains the great evil of our time, and the war against this evil, our generation’s great cause … There is no middle way for Americans: it is victory or holocaust.” [2] These ideas are foundational elements of neoconservatism.”

  8. Plantagenet on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 2:09 pm 

    President Obama won the White House in part by
    @Bobinget:
    “Obama…placed his faith in Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki ”

    Yes—that was dumb of Obama, wasn’t it?

    ” In early 2009, a group of American diplomats in Iraq warned the White House that it ran the risk of creating a dictator. They were largely ignored, and when Maliki won reëlection a year later Obama gave him his full support.”

    AND that was dumb of Obama, wasn’t it?

    ” In a strange and unpredictable way, the crisis has brought President Obama and Maliki together again.”

    It wasn’t unpredictable at all—Obama was warned this would happen in 2009—see just above

    ” The President didn’t say it, but he almost certainly wants Maliki to step down, and American diplomats in Baghdad appear to have begun signalling such a desire to other Iraqi leaders. This will be no easy thing.”

    So Obama’s main concern is removing Maliki, not stopping al Qaeda from controlling territory and setting up terrorist training camps. Riiiiight. Thats pretty dumb too.

    “the decision by President Obama to return to Iraq amounts to a recognition that there was work left unfinished. ”

    It wasn’t dumb enough that Obama bungled things in Ukraine and restarted the Cold War with Russia—now he is restarting the Iraq War as well. Dumb dumb dumb.

  9. rockman on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 2:09 pm 

    Paulo – In some ways I agree with Perle and From. And I know how to address the problem. But that “solution” just isn’t going to be acceptable to me, you and the vast majority of Americans IMHO: we simply use every capability to kill any Muslim we feel could be a threat. No sanctions, no containment efforts, no more Gizmo’s. Just unmerciful search and destroy until the radicals are rendered ineffective. Of course, the process itself would create more radicalization so it would get worse before better.

    So short of that extreme I believe all we can do is let the Sunni/Shia battles continue without interference except when it significantly threatens global oil supplies. And even then I would like to see the normally weak UN be the organizing force. But even that approach will be uncertain, expensive and bloody. In essence it seems to boil down to choosing the lesser of two really bad options IMHO.

  10. Plantagenet on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 2:16 pm 

    @rockman

    Its too late for your suggestion that we let the “Sunni/Shia battles” go on without us.

    We are currently providing money, training and equipment to the Sunni in Syria, and doing the same thing for the Shia in Iraq. Unfortunately, some of the very same Sunni we are backing in Syria are now fighting the Shia we back in Iraq, so we are in the curious position of arming and funding and training both sides.

    That is not a “win-win” situation for the USA.

  11. Plantagenet on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 2:21 pm 

    The claim that the US goal in Iraq is to create chaos is ridiculous.

    Yes, we have currently have chaos—but thats not because some secret cabal of clever neocons plotted this all out. The current chaos is the product of a long run of bunging, ignorance, incompetence and stupidity in DC.

  12. J-Gav on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 3:06 pm 

    Now Syria has carried out air strikes against ISIS near the Iraq border.

    Ha, the irony of it all! If Obama opts for drone help to save Maliki’s ass, he will be partnering with the dreaded Bashar Al-Assad! And doing the bidding of the Iranians – who might well chip in with some of their own crack troops too …

    Otherwise the deal is what? Allow the U.S. organized, Saudi-Kuwaiti-Qatari financed ISIS gang to take over the oil fields? I hardly see that as an option but I could be wrong. Ha-ha and a couple of whoops – what a bunch of pathetic ass-holes! Not funny though as we may all be paying the price soon – if we’re lucky it’ll only be at the gas pump …

  13. Keith_McClary on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 3:27 pm 

    So what would President Plant have done in 2009? Tear up Bush’s withdrawal agreement, depose Maliki, install somebody else (who) and continue the occupation?

  14. J-Gav on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 3:42 pm 

    Plant – “a long run of bungling, ignorance, incompetence and stupidity.”

    You got that right! And could add arrogance and economic rapaciousness for good measure.

    However, when you say “The claim that the U.S. goal in Iraq is to create chaos is ridiculous”, think twice!

    Oh no, not ‘total’ chaos! Just enough to divide the country into three more manageable pieces (from a Western ‘business’ point of view), than one united Iraq would be. TPTB who are treading this fine line apparently believe they can control the outcome. After all, risk-taking is part of the capitalist mentality, n’est-ce pas?

    But one question we should all be asking is: “Who bears the brunt of negative consequences should said plans go awry?” I’m sure you’re intelligent enough to answer that one without any prompting …

  15. Northwest Resident on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 3:43 pm 

    “The claim that the US goal in Iraq is to create chaos is ridiculous.”

    Not to those of us who aren’t stuck in a deep rut blaming anything and everything on Obama without anything original to say — just “Obama did it! Obama’s fault!” over and over, infinitely, stupidly repeating.

    By the way Plant, in case you didn’t understand it, the article made a VERY good case that the chaos in Iraq was planned — the exact opposite of what you claim is ridiculous. The fact that an individual a brain so lame that he’s stuck on blaming everything on Obama would dare to stick his neck out and dispute this very well documented article seems a little ridiculous to me.

  16. Plantagenet on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 3:56 pm 

    The article never proved its point that the chaos in Iraq is planned. I know some people imagine that the neocons or the iluminati or the devil is behind everything that happens, but the reality is far more mundane. Miscalculation, misunderstanding and downright ignorance are to blame here.

    The problem isn’t that the US cleverly brought this chaos about—the problem is that the USA, led by Bush and then Obama, stumbled and bumbled into chaos.

  17. Arthur on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 5:16 pm 

    Bob on the left and plant on the… cough… ‘right’ are certain, it was Bush/Obama who did it. After all, they were/are president, meaning the nr 1, so case closed.

    Both gentlemen are absolutely clueless about who is pulling the strings in America since the beginning of the 20th century.

    Where to begin?

    Bob/Plant, why not take a pencil and start to scan the article for family names and write them down. Done? Good!

    Next open a new tab in your browser and fire up google. Next for every name on your list enter ‘wiki familyname’ in the search field. Open the wikipedia page and scroll to the nottom of the wiki page and try to discover a factor all these people have in common. Success! Maybe, just maybe you will figure who was behind the chaos created in the ME. Don’t hold your breath though.

    And yes, the chaos was by design. What these… cough… Neocohns did not realize at the time…. 1991, with the USSR out of business and the US elite contemplating how to set up a world government with Jeruzalem as it’s capital, was that by organizing regime change, eliminating secular regimes, they would pave the way for something much more threatening for their NWO designs, than these shabby secular socialist dictators ever could embody.

    But let these insights not awaken you from your political coma, bob/plant. Besides, awakening in this field is a bad career move.

  18. Plantagenet on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 6:36 pm 

    What names are those Arthur?

    Your post doesn’t make any sense.

    Lets follow your advice. I start at the top of the article, the first name I see is the name Mubarak, I google it, and of course it is the former dictator of Egypt. …so you imagine that Mubarak secretly is directing the foreign policy of the USA?

    Jeez….that makes even less sense then the people who think the neocons are in control. SHEEESH!

  19. Arthur on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 7:09 pm 

    I was obviously talking about figures from US politics, not third rate politicians from a third rate country like Egypt, that can be bought with a few billion funny money per year.

    Sheees.

    You know what plant, it are the illuminati, really, honest. Ask Alex Jones.

    For the people with above room temperature IQ scan Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Netanyahoo, Wurmser, Loewenberg and the rest of the 2%. Note additionally AEI, Jinsa, Clean Break and all the ingredients are there for a nice kosher stew. What is happening in the ME now was planned right after the death of the USSR by the same gang that financed the bolshevik revolution, brought the US into WW1 in exchange for the Balfour declaration, masterminded WW2, wasted JFK, opened the US for mass immigration from the third world and organised 9/11 to create the excuse for the planned destruction of the old order in the ME with the aim of creating docile vassals out of them.lol

    Unfortunately for the PNAC/Clean Break gang things have changed dramatically since 1991: Russia is back, China will overtake the US economy this year and Europe is united under one competing currency.

    The prospects for the gang are extremely bleak. The waiting is for the moment that Orlov will be proven right.

  20. rockman on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 7:11 pm 

    Plant – “That is not a “win-win” situation for the USA.” Or as has been said many times before: When you find you’re digging yourself into a hole the first thing you do is stop digging. Everything we’ve done in the ME as far back as the Shah of Iran (and probably much further) has ultimately ended in failure to some degree. Maybe it’s time to stop doing anything. Unless there is a direct threat to global oil supplies. Then we just kill them all and let Dog sort them out.

  21. Plantagenet on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 7:32 pm 

    Rockman – I agree….the smart thing would be to stand back and let them sort it out amoungst themselves. Unfortunately, thats not what we are doing. Obama is simultaneously training, equiping and funding the Syrian Sunni rebels and the Iraqi Shia that are now fighting each other.

  22. Plantagenet on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 7:34 pm 

    Arthur—are you an hate-filled anti-semite?

    Your posts keeping referring to “kosher stews” and “neocohns” and other anti-semitic code words.

  23. GregT on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 7:57 pm 

    Israel’s Long-time Strategy to Destabilize the Middle East:

    http://davidduke.com/israels-long-time-strategy-to-destabilize-the-middle-east/

  24. GregT on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 8:03 pm 

    A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties:

    http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0005345.html

  25. DMyers on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 8:43 pm 

    Let’s just reduce Arthur to a pejorative stereotype and ignore what he’s saying.
    Go stick your finger in the dike, Arthur. They found the passport of a 911 terrorist in the streets of New York, after it should have burned in the jet fueled fire. God meant for that to happen. All your conspiracy theories are refuted.

  26. Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 9:57 pm 

    I find Art very entertaining and a 1st rate chap. His history borders on fiction at times but some of it is intriguing. When he is not reaching for a real long shot story he is right on with current events. If he is anti-Jew it is on the mild side. The Jews deserve criticism as shit disturbers anyway. Yet, there is much to admire about them.

  27. PrestonSturges on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 10:03 pm 

    Don’t forget that the neocon strategy outlined in the PNAC reports called for the invasion of Iraq and the remilitarization of the US, but it said that would take decades unless we experienced an attack on the scale of “Pearl Harbor.” And within 5 years we had 9-11.

  28. GregT on Thu, 26th Jun 2014 11:45 pm 

    Davy,

    Art’s history only borders on fiction sometimes to you, because you have been taught otherwise. Two quotes come to mind:

    The first thing lost in war, is the truth.

    And;

    History is always written by the victors.

  29. GregT on Fri, 27th Jun 2014 12:00 am 

    Also,

    As I have pointed out here before;

    Not all Zionists are Jews, and not all Jews are Zionists. Antisemitism is a distraction.

  30. PrestonSturges on Fri, 27th Jun 2014 12:39 am 

    John McCain is the godfather of ISIS

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/

  31. Perk Earl on Fri, 27th Jun 2014 1:30 am 

    It seems like such a wasted endeavor to try and involve ourselves with radically religious, incredibly violent fanatics. Just back away and let them annihilate each other.

    Our political leaders claim the US is headed for energy independence by 2020, so if they really think that’s true then leave those people to their own devices and forget about the oil.

  32. simonr on Fri, 27th Jun 2014 2:53 am 

    I remember long ago hearing someone from the US navy (ish) and he said that the USA was in WWIV (III being to smash communism)this being to smash islam, he also said that this was due to take 150years.
    In the light of this, these are simply the opening moves, setting the board if you will.

  33. sunweb on Fri, 27th Jun 2014 5:14 am 

    Engdahl,F. William. 2004. A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. London: Pluto.

    and
    Yant, Martin. 1991. Desert Mirage. Prometheus Books. N.Y.
    for starters. Instead of armchair BS

  34. Davy, Hermann, MO on Fri, 27th Jun 2014 5:56 am 

    Greg, it is like angels, ghost, and shaman spirits I am not going to say they are not but I don’t see them on a regular basis. You and Art research these thing much deeper and extensive. I am going to defer my competent criticism in that respect. My point is relative to what is spoken in the mainstream Art’s history “at times” and especially when he is “reaching” appears somewhat fictional. Greg you cannot tell me all mainstream history is propaganda by TPTB. We do have something called science that digest these things. I would agree not so long ago most of the population was believing in a flat earth yet today with the dissemination of the truth through the WWW it is hard to disguise the truth for very long. In that respect some of these long shots from Art may be part of that dissemination. In that his message is not more widely spoken are accepted lends me to believe the message is conjecture and speculation more than excepted truth. Mind you Greg, I am pointing to Art’s more drastic visions. I find them quite intriguing and entertaining. If I drank I would love to join Art in a pub and talk these things over late into the night being finally good and inebriated like I used to get 10 years ago.

  35. Davy, Hermann, MO on Fri, 27th Jun 2014 5:58 am 

    Simon, this will be an extended war that will last as long as globalism lasts then the belligerent parties will return to their caves.

  36. GregT on Fri, 27th Jun 2014 11:36 am 

    Davy,

    I used to be comfortable believing what I had been taught about modern history, until I met and lived with a Russian gal for a number of years. Her version of history was very different from the version that we have been taught here in North America. As they say, there is always more than one side to a story. Especially when that story is used to promote an ideology, and even more so when that story is being used to promote war.

    What really caught my attention, was a very good friend of mine who is a history professor at UBC. Her version of the geopolitical events leading to the two world wars, modern industrialism, and global finance, really made me question everything that I thought I understood. There is far more going on behind the scenes than what we are being lead to believe. There always has been. Propaganda is a very old and effective tool, that has been used to control the masses throughout history. Never has it been so effective as the present, with the advent of state mandated educational curriculum, and modern media communications, especially television.

    The truth is out there, for anyone who cares to search for it, but no one is going to spoon feed it to us. If more people were aware of what is really going on behind the scenes, there would be violent opposition, and bloody revolution. TPTB will do everything in their power to make sure that people are kept in the dark. Divide and conquer, it is the oldest strategy in the book.

  37. Davey on Fri, 27th Jun 2014 11:54 am 

    Greg what you just mentioned is apparent with our discussions of PO dynamics here on this board. The GP is clueless as well as many elites. I also like to expose the systematic underlying influences that are not dealt with by MSM and we were never taught growing up. Yet, Greg, do not get lost in these “behind the scenes” alter reality. If you get too extreme you will be suffering the same condition of a modified truth TPTB preach. We know there is a fine line between reality and fiction. We can never know the truth but we can try to get closer to it. I applaud you and Art bringing these point of view to this board. I listen to what you all say. Yet, I can’t believe in ghost and tooth fairies so when you all reach too far I am going to call it fiction.

  38. GregT on Fri, 27th Jun 2014 12:26 pm 

    Davy,

    As I mentioned above, the truth is out there, and it is well documented. Like Morpheus said in the Matrix:

    “You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.”

    Once you take ‘the red pill’ and begin to understand reality, there is no turning back. The ghosts and tooth fairies are the stories told to us by those with vested interests in our not knowing the truth. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is in human nature, always has been, and most likely always will be.

  39. Davey on Fri, 27th Jun 2014 12:31 pm 

    Fair enough Gerg. We are on the same page just slightly different angles. I can tell you this Greg reality and the truth will be plain to see when the lights go out.

  40. GregT on Fri, 27th Jun 2014 12:37 pm 

    Ya Davey,

    I’m not looking forward to when ‘the lights go out’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *