Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: twmoore who wrote (7854)	8/21/2004 6:31:14 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

twmoore > The architect of the Iraq war was Wolfowtz.That is a known fact. He is Jewish and is pro-Israel. With respect, I think you are oversimplifying the situation. Wolfowitz, although very important and clearly Jewish, is only one of the neoconservative "think tank" known as the Project For the New American Century (PNAC). This project, which includes the occupation of Iraq, is very extensive and, indeed, frightening. If you think the Iraq invasion was just about making the Mid East safer for Israel, or enabling other Israeli aspirations, whatever they are, you are very mistaken. cryptome.org >> A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001. The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.' The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'. This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'. The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'. << The rest of the document follows this. > What does he have to do with oil? I don't think he has very much, personally, to do with oil but he definitely has to support US policy which has everything to do with oil.

To: twmoore who wrote (7854)	8/21/2004 7:47:18 PM
From: Rock_nj	Respond to of 20039

That's true about Wolfowitz and Israel. But, a study of U.S. government policies dating back to the early 20th Century, and especially since the mid-1970s oil crises, clearly shows a military and political policy designed to ensure the free flow of oil from the Mid East. During the Cold War, all we could do was arm our allies in the Mid East and support dictators like the Shah of Iran; the Soviets provided a counterbalance to U.S. ambitions in the Mid East. Saddam changed all that when he invaded Kuwaitt (something the U.S. just let him do, as a pretext to stationing our troops in the region), and conviently did so around the time the Soviets no longer acted as a counter balance. Saddam gave us a reason to permantly place our troops right in the oil producing regions. Now, that the U.S. is the only real superpower left, we feel emboldened enough to just go take the oil for ourselves, something we would have never done back in the days of the Cold War. So, you have the March, 2003 attack on Iraq. Of course, our leaders need some sort of justification for taking us to war as PNAC notes, so we have 9/11 (which is why this thread exists) and all the BS about WMDs and other scare tactics. Sure, taking out Saddam helps Israel a lot, it certainly doesn't hurt them. But, it really was the Iranians who fed us that Chabilias guy from Iraq who was telling the U.S. government about the suppossed WMDs Saddam was stockpiling. We were played for fools by the Iranians, and we took out their biggest foe Saddam because they fooled us regarding WMDs. Strange bedfellows, both the Iranians and Israelies (staunch enemies) benefit from our attack on Iraq and Saddam, which was really about furthering a long-standing policy of ensuring the control of the oil supplies in the Mid East. Now the oil is ours! And it can be gotten out of the ground for $3.00/barrel in Iraq, and sold on the market for $48.00/barrel ++. What a slick move. That has got to be one of the best business moves ever. And, now we learn that $8.8 Billion given to the Provisional Governing Authority in Iraq can't be accounted for. LOL! These are great times for oil bandits and corporate thieves of all stripes. Kind of makes the street crime in America pale in comparisson. :-)