Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.
Israel to blame for Iraq War - Part 2 MUST READ AG POST
americangoy.blogspot.com — A great article by Ari Shavit, in Ha'aretz (an Israeli newspaper) tells us, in candid, simple to understand language how Iraq War 2 happened. Ari interviews the key Jewish-American neocons who forced America into war with Iraq, and they spill to him exactly how they did it and why. A MUST READ AMERICAN GOY POST
americangoy- 74 diggs
- digg it
- Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -8/+16this is why the mossad helped the CIA pull of 9/11
- americangoy, on 04/04/2008, -5/+4am not convinced of that b-owl.
at all.- cageybee, on 04/04/2008, -7/+10why not, mossad starts ***** around the world, frames others, and watches how people fight for the interests of zionists.
zionists wish to rule the wold from jerusalem. they use USA to do the dirty work.- americangoy, on 04/04/2008, -5/+3Look!
I am as big a fan of conspiracy as anybody, also watch the stupid UFO shows on the so called History Channel.
Now, show me any proof, any shred of proof, that Israel was involved in 9/11 in any form, and I will investigate and if true, blog it.
I do not deal with conspiracy theories - I do research and write actual truth, actual modern history.
The fact is that neocons, acting on behalf of Israel, got us, the USA into the current Iraq fiasco. I do not know, and have no proof, that Mossad or Israel had anything to do with attacks on 9/11.- cageybee, on 04/04/2008, -4/+4it is only logical for 9/11 pupetrators to be mossad and here is why...
what was 9/11?
9/11 was a pre-text for declaration of "war on terror." "war on terror" is a diplomatic cover to hide the true reasons for invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and soon probably Iran as well.
so, the question is, what are the true reasons for invasion?
in order to understand it a little better, you should read Z. Brzezinski's book called "The Grand Chessboard."
Here are some quotes from "The Grand Chessboard":
"...The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power... (p. xiii)
"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)
"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (pp 24-5)
"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)
"America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)
"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)
"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)
"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)
"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)
"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)
Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict - describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance - Brzezinski writes: "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124) [Emphasis added]
"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)
"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)
"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people. (p.132)
"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).
"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)
"Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)
"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)
"China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)
"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)
"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)
"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)
"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)
"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)
"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
now that you understand American geopolitical strategy, you should learn a little more about Russia.
Russia is a #2 biggest oil producer in the world. As of right now, Russia is dependent on oil profits. However, since USA does not produce oil, but instead is the biggest buyer of oil, then you can see that rising oil prices are great for Russia, but very bad for USA.
Too many products are made from oil. Therefore, if oil price rises, then the prices on many more products rise as well.
Now, you must learn about Yeltsin's presidency and Putin's presidency.
Yeltsin was pro-USA. He did not do anything for Russia. He brought Russia down. He did everything he could to please the west and was pretty much a puppet. And that's why US wasn't worried when Yeltsin was the president of Russia.
Then, in 1999, Putin forced Yeltsin to resign and took over Russia.
I am sure everyone in CIA knew then that Putin would not be playing along and would not be the puppet of USA.
Russia has a very strong influence on Middle East. In 2000, Russia probably persuaded Saddam Husein to stop trading oil in US dollar and to start asking for Euros.
so, Bush, ever since he became the president was talking about removing Saddam from power because Saddam was threatening to break American oil and dollar monopoly.
But how could Bush get support from American public and soldiers to attack Iraq, especially when everyone in the world would be very opposed to attacks?
Bush knew back then that one by one, all OPEC countries would start dropping the dollar because of the influence from Russia, because Russia doesn't want the dollar and in fact, Russia wants to make the Ruble a world currency.
So, with no enemy and no support, Bush needed to overthrow Saddam. How could he do it? 9/11.
Now, the American agents are sons and daughters of America and would never do anything against their own country. So, in order to create 9/11, Bush outsourced the task to American ally Israeli Mossad.
Once 9/11 happened, Bush declared "war on terror" and went after Afghanistan, because the Taliban had control and would not cooperate on the pipeline that was in the plans and then Bush went after Saddam because he dropped the US dollar.
Now that Iran had dropped the dollar too, Bush is threatening Iran.
so...
- cageybee, on 04/04/2008, -4/+4it is only logical for 9/11 pupetrators to be mossad and here is why...
- americangoy, on 04/04/2008, -5/+3Look!
- cageybee, on 04/04/2008, -7/+10why not, mossad starts ***** around the world, frames others, and watches how people fight for the interests of zionists.
- yellowcakewalk, on 04/04/2008, -3/+5Israeli interests were clearly served by 9/11. That does not prove, however that they "did it". What we need is a genuine investigation into 9/11.
- americangoy, on 04/04/2008, -5/+4am not convinced of that b-owl.
- pitlord, on 04/04/2008, -5/+4So, the President of the United States of America under the control of a few journalists?
>.>
Yeah, right and chicks dig Gene Simmons because he's good looking.
X^P- piper999, on 04/04/2008, -3/+2I once watched a sex tape featuring Gene Simmons. It was like watching a dying beached whale. He didn't even have the energy to take his pants off.
- TrevaLVF, on 04/04/2008, -3/+13I don't argue Israel's obvious involvement. I don't place all the blame on the culprits in Israel and the neo-con Israeli/Americans. They have their own reasons for their involvement in this. There are a lot of groups that have invested something, or other in this imperialistic agenda, including those operating in the shadows and others masquerading around as "friends" of somebody, or other, out to do good in the world.
If you had read some oil and gas trade periodical publications, then you might have caught, at least, one article in the late 1990's that explained how the presumed supply deficit of Iraq's rich quality oil turned out to be a surplus supply. Add that to rumored (or fact-based) reports of the known and tapped into global oil supply reaching its resource peak, where some sources reported that the supply was about to start depleting over the next oh-so-many-years, or decades.
If you knew about the gas pipeline deal that went bad, because the Taliban felt that US and international oil and gas investors involved in it were cheating them out of what they thought they should get to allow these prospectors to run a pipeline from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, to Pakistan, and later, to New Delhi, India, then you would see why so many of us suspected a future of oil and gas wars being waged by greedy groups that sought global domination of these and other valuable resources.
To control the world's resources (like for fuel, food, precious metals and such) is to rule the world.
That's the PNAC agenda. Not only were some right-wing Israeli/Americans in on it, but so were men whose fathers and grandfathers that had Nazi ties, among other self-serving men that believe, the means justifies the end and that they are naturally entitled to get what they want by any means.- americangoy, on 04/04/2008, -3/+4I personally figure that the neocon movement, the pro-Israel lobby has effectively pushed, or at least tipped the scales for the USA to invade and occupy Iraq. Their plan was grand - to change the entire Middle East, every country, and turn them pro - American.
It had no chance of succeeding short of using an Atom bomb of course... but the real plan behind all the ideology was to de-fang Iraq and as many other countries as possible in the ME.
That is why many neocons and media pundits now say that Iraq was a mistake, we should withdraw.... and attack Iran :-)- TrevaLVF, on 04/05/2008, -2/+1Several groups had their own agenda, which many started working on and toward materializing decades ago.
You're probably familiar with the childrens' game, "King of the Mountain." What usually happens is that many of the players will agree to be allies, to cooperate with each other in order to take down strong opponents first, to get them out of the gang. They cooperate in a process of elimination as their numbers are reduced by other opponents. Once the number of competitors gets narrowed down, they turn on their own allies, starting with the least favorite, or the strongest, depending on how they think. Once it's down to two competitors, the battle is on until one player (king) remains standing.
Israel and the idiots and devious neo-cons here have been using each other, just as they'll use anybody they consider to be resourceful. The neo-cons that say Iraq is a mistake can be split between the ones that really believed that it was a "cakewalk," and others giving lip service now that the war is very unpopular in the Republican party.
- TrevaLVF, on 04/05/2008, -2/+1Several groups had their own agenda, which many started working on and toward materializing decades ago.
- americangoy, on 04/04/2008, -3/+4I personally figure that the neocon movement, the pro-Israel lobby has effectively pushed, or at least tipped the scales for the USA to invade and occupy Iraq. Their plan was grand - to change the entire Middle East, every country, and turn them pro - American.
- Siegfriedson, on 04/13/2008, -0/+1This submission pretty much seals the deal by proving who successfully pushed for the Iraq War:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Jewish_Press ...
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is