'It's Imperialism, Stupid!'

[urbsdad6]

By Professor Noam Chomsky, MIT
7-8-5

Fighting the so-called, phony and staged 'War On Terror' takes a back seat to Bush's #1 Objective: Controlling the center of the world's major energy resources and supplies: Iraq - with the world's 2nd largest known oil reserves!

In his June 28 speech, President Bush asserted that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken as part of "a global war against terror" that the United States is waging. In reality, as anticipated, the INVASION INCREASED THE THREAT OF TERROR, perhaps significantly.

Half-truths, MISinformation and HIDDEN AGENDAS have characterised official pronouncements about U.S. war motives in Iraq from the very beginning. The recent revelations about the rush to war in Iraq stand out all the more starkly amid the chaos that ravages the country and threatens the region and indeed the world.

In 2002, the U.S. and United Kingdom proclaimed the right to invade Iraq because it was developing weapons of mass destruction. That was the "single question," as stressed constantly by Bush, Prime Minister Blair and associates. It was also THE SOLE BASIS on which Bush received congressional authorisation to resort to force. The answer to the "single question" was given shortly after the invasion, and reluctantly conceded: The WMD didn't exist. Scarcely missing a beat, the government and media doctrinal system concocted NEW pretexts and JUSTIFICATIONS FOR GOING TO WAR.

"Americans do not like to think of themselves as aggressors, but raw aggression is what took place in Iraq," national security and intelligence analyst John Prados concluded after his careful, extensive review of the documentary record in his 2004 book "Hoodwinked." Prados describes the Bush "scheme to convince America and the world that war with Iraq was necessary and urgent" as "a case study in government dishonesty ... that required patently UNtrue public statements and egregious manipulation of intelligence." The Downing Street memo, published on May 1 in The Sunday Times of London, along with other newly available confidential documents, have DEEPENED THE RECORD OF DECEIT.

The memo came from a meeting of Blair's war cabinet on July 23, 2002, in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence, made the now-notorious assertion that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of going to war in Iraq. The memo also quotes British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the U.S. had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime."

British journalist Michael Smith, who broke the story of the memo, has elaborated on its context and contents in subsequent articles. The "spikes of activity" apparently included a coalition air campaign meant to PROVOKE IRAQ INTO SOME ACT that could be portrayed as what the memo calls a "casus belli."

Warplanes began bombing in southern Iraq in May 2002 " 10 tons that month, according to British government figures. A special "spike" started in late August (for a September total of 54.6 tons). "In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq," Smith wrote. The bombing was presented as defensive action to protect coalition planes in the no-fly zone. Iraq protested to the United Nations but didn't fall into the trap of retaliating. For U.S.-UK planners, INVADING IRAQ WAS A FAR HIGHER PRIORITY than the "war on terror." That much is revealed by the reports of their own intelligence agencies.

On the eve of the allied invasion, a classified report by the National Intelligence Council, the intelligence community's center for strategic thinking, "predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and WOULD RESULT IN A DEEPLY DIVIDED IRAQI SOCIETY prone to violent internal conflict," Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger reported in The New York Times last September.

In December 2004, Jehl reported a few weeks later, the NIC warned that "Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide RECRUITMENT, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency FOR A NEW CLASS OF TERRORISTS who are 'professionalised' and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself." The willingness of top planners to risk increase of terrorism does not of course indicate that they welcome such outcomes. Rather, they are simply NOT a high priority in comparison with other objectives, such as CONTROLLING THE WORLD's MAJOR ENERGY RESOURCES. Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the more astute of the senior planners and analysts, pointed out in the journal National Interest that America's control over the Middle East "gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the region."

If the United States can maintain its CONTROL OVER IRAQ, with the world's second largest known oil reserves, and right at the HEART OF THE WORLD's MAJOR ENERGY SUPPLIES, that will enhance significantly its strategic power and influence over its major rivals in the tripolar world that has been taking shape for the past 30 years: U.S.-dominated North America, Europe, and Northeast Asia, linked to South and Southeast Asia economies.

It is a rational calculation, on the assumption that human survival is not particularly significant in comparison with short-term power and wealth. And that is nothing new. These themes resonate through history. The difference today in this age of nuclear weapons is only that the stakes are enormously higher.


Dr Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author, most recently, of "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance." ? Copyright. All rights reserved. http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle9387.htm

This article and all links at:

http://www.rense.com/general66/impp.htm


Doc Urb

[BLUEHAWK]

Unlike many academics, I do not entirely discredit Professor Chomsky. His book about Israel and Palestine, "The Fateful Triangle" was right on the money, IMHO... just as Michael Parenti's "Black Shirts and Reds" was about the Cold War.

However, as prescient as the professor is able to be, he is utterly wrong about the above posted.

Bitter medicine is, certainly, most difficult to swallow or even to taste. No doubt, the worst of humanity seize upon vulnerability in order to advance their personal and insane agendas.

However, albeit there are always forces within all governments whose aims are unsavory, in this instance there had to be retaliation and a standing up against a murderous enemy who had struck horribly within our own borders.

At our most extreme peril, some consider pulling back.

They and the enemy can, will and must be thwarted or destroyed, severally and in kind.

[Advisor]

Ahh, Noam my man..avowed socialist & Hilary's mentor. Sees everything through the dialectic & class struggle. Some of what he has said & written is correct, but to find it you have to sift through a lot ob crap..just not worth it.

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Advisor Ahh, Noam my man..avowed socialist & Hilary's mentor. Sees everything through the dialectic & class struggle. Some of what he has said & written is correct, but to find it you have to sift through a lot ob crap..just not worth it.

Hell, he got it right the once!

That's a whole lot more than I can say fer me self.

[urbsdad6]

You folks just don't get it. Anyone that speaks out or even possibly suggests that your paradigm could be wrong makes you defend even harder that there isn't an elephant in the room even though it sounds like an elephant, smells like an elephant, and eats like an elephant, you come out saying it must be a leftist with gas. It's not about the left or the right or the in between. Wake up and smell the elephant before you get buried in it's crap.


Doc Urb

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by urbsdad6 Wake up and smell the elephant before you get buried in it's crap.


Doc Urb

Let's destroy Terrorists first, then we can talk about other stuff.

[blues clues]

Like I've said in the past terronists have been around for 5000 years and they will be around long after we pack up your gear and come home, Doc no matter what you say these people will turn it around and blame it on the left . maybe one day they will wake-up and look around and wornder what happened to their country. maybe but I"ll not stay awake and wait.


razz

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by blues clues Like I've said in the past terronists have been around for 5000 years and they will be around long after we pack up your gear and come home, Doc no matter what you say these people will turn it around and blame it on the left . maybe one day they will wake-up and look around and wornder what happened to their country. maybe but I"ll not stay awake and wait.
razz

I do not blame "it" on the Left, razz. Not at all.

Just want to clarify that.

[Seascamp]

Blaming the Left? How far left are we talking about? I suppose the former Soviet Union is squeaky clean and has no culpability or stake in the mid east blood bath or the African chaos. Beg to differ, the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism hard bolts and is direct drive coupled to Moscow. The Whabbi sect of Islam has been around since 950 A.D. and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan galvanized that cult and what was originally called the ?Whabbi? became ?the list? or Al Qaeda and that was well over a decade before 9/11. Alas, an odd-ball blood cult became main stream, courtesy Moscow. Then there is the matter of the Soviet-Cuban ?Wars of Liberation? in Angola, the Congo and the horn of Africa. These days Africa is awash with cheep Russian military hardware and the going rate for an AK is $8 for a well used one and $12 for a less used one. And the wars still go on in Angola, The Congo and the Horn of Africa. The warring parties don?t even bother with a statement of ideology or a political arm anymore, just grab and kill, grab and kill and lethal Russian weaponry is abundant and as common as pig tracks.

As to the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party, well, if they?d get some organization about themselves and present a cohesive plan and a bit of consistency they might pick up a wider audience. Presently the writhing around in the left hand side of the DNC tent isn?t doing them or anyone else any good at all. They own that part of the problem and indiscriminately alienating large groups of average folks is counter productive. A thermos cork and some duct tape for Dean and Durbin would be a step in the right direction. I listen closely to Democrats that know what they are talking about and recognize the need to get over our cultural cold war. Those who choose to slam-dunk people because of what they may believe are in favor of increasing the rift and they get no air time with me, none.

And Nome, good old Nome. He is off the charts on the vertical brilliance line and equally off the charts to the left hand side, way out there in the lunatic fringe somewhere. His article is clearly a misstatement of reality and a total political rant. It is Osama Bin Laden who is claiming a Global Islamic Empire and has so stated over and over again and with the bombing of London, the Koran statement requiring non-belligerence of a guest has been declared null and void now, publicly. I guess Nome couldn?t see that part through his rant and rave political kaleidoscope. He is in charge of his own relevance and deception by omission is irrelevance by definition.

Scamp

[urbsdad6]

Osama is just the go to boy for the CIA anytime they need the rabble roused. Bush has been friends and business partners with the Bin Laden family for a long time. Dad "was" the head of the CIA at one time. Explain why all of the Bin Laden family was secretly flown out of the U.S. post 9/11 when all other air traffic was grounded? Conjecture? Theory? Not! It's fact. We are so tied in with world terrorism through the CIA training insurgents to affect other nations stability that we have become just as guilty as any other pawn in the Globalist scheme. It's not just about us and the terrorists, it's about a global effort using the UN as a front to hide "dirty deeds done dirt cheap".

Doc Urb