5.06.2006

The Real War and The Great Diversion, Part 1

In order to make any sense of the world today - see the biggest picture, so to speak - we must expose and examine the fundamental reasons the neoconservative cadre felt it was critical to seize power in the US in 2000, then quickly proceed to generate the conditions of perpetual war.

Although these reasons are self-evident and rather easily discernable, it has been essential that our rulers put much effort into obfuscation, spinning, secrecy, and outright lying in order to delay truth's revelation to the people. They perhaps rightfully fear a mass-panic uprising on a global scale not previously witnessed on this planet - an uprising which might quickly unravel their frankly tenuous hold on the chains of power.

Indeed, some of the recent cries of "conspiracy", "coming financial collapse", "total environmental breakdown", and "apocalypse/end times" may be somewhat alarmist in terms of their scale and immediacy, but they should be considered and studied seriously - there is much substance to them. We should be afraid . . . very afraid. And we should be well-informed enough to motivate ourselves to organize effectively for the eventual arrival of economic, ecological, and societal catyclism on at least a regional scale. Lovejoy's predictions of "broken rabble led by brutal warlords" are ignored to our great peril.

Here are some very simple facts: (1) the oil won't last forever, but presently the entire US economy and society depends on the inexpensive and continuous availability of this substance that lies mainly under foreign territory; (2) at the same time, two other great powers, China and India, are growing exponentially, consuming greater amounts of the limited oil supply; (3) the burgeoning consumption of oil has damaged and will increasingly damaged the entire biosphere - the damn planet's dying here, Mathilda! In the face of this global emergency, things like "reforming the Democratic Party" are a ludricrous waste of time and energy. It's sort of like changing the grease in your fryer while the whole kitchen is on fire.

In the same way, trying to get the government of the United States to withdraw its military from Iraq and Afghanistan (yes, we're still there, too - and that one's getting hotter) is, over the longer run, pretty useless unless it is part of a larger movement to change the core of global geopolitics. Otherwise, the government will simply add redeployment to its bottomless bag of diversionary tricks. Mark my words: the military will be withdrawn . . . when the country is irreparably destroyed and the oil resources are totally owned by the globalist forces. Then Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and eventually Bolivia and Venezuela. The terrible fact is that the motto of the neo-con/globalist cartel is, "He who dies with the most oil wins".

There are several important posts around the "LeftNet" today. Let me clip some . . .

First, at Antiwar.com, Jim Lobe chimes in with "Hawks Looking for New and Bigger Enemies?":
As if rallying fading public support for keeping more than 100,000 U.S. troops in a disintegrating Iraq and preparing the ground for a possible military attack on Iran were not enough, some influential hawks are now promoting a more confrontational stance against Russia and China, as well.

Their eagerness to take on new and bigger enemies, signaled by Vice Pres. Dick Cheney's blistering verbal assault on Russia Thursday, could be a calculated effort to intimidate the two Eurasian giants at a moment when the US and the European Union (EU) appear to have forged greater unity on key foreign policy issues than at any time since Washington invaded Iraq three years ago.

Russia and China, which were initially treated as allies in the "global war on terror," are now seen as the two biggest obstacles to Washington's drive to impose U.N. Security sanctions against Iran, the administration's current top foreign policy priority. Hardliners may believe that putting them on the defensive at this moment could persuade them to show greater flexibility, at least with respect to Iran.

At the same time, however, a more aggressive stance toward the two powers risks driving them further together in opposition to US geo-strategic designs, particularly isolating Iran and asserting more control over the flow of oil and gas out of Central Asia and the Caucasus . . .
This piece is excellent, and I have inadequately excerpted it. Please read the whole thing. It ends with Lobe quoting Robert Kagan of PNAC and The Weekly Standard:

"Unfortunately, al-Qaeda may not be the only challenge liberalism faces today, or even the greatest."
Before you read on, please notice that Kagan's use of the term "liberalism" reveals in full glaring light that both neoconservatism and neoliberalism are both just different sides of the coin of liberalism, a fact not lost on the likes of Joe Biden, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, and the quislings lurking around the DLC and The Kennedy School of Government, not mention the folks across town at Lockheed/MIT. If you still for one moment think that the Democratic agenda is any different from the Republican's, listen briefly to Scott Ritter, former US Marine and UN weapons inspector, who calls the US invasion of Iraq and the occupation illegal and unconstitutional:
I'm not going to defend the Clinton administration. I fully believe that the Bush administration should be investigated for lying, and lying in the course of official duty constitutes a felony, and I believe that there are many members of the Bush administration who could be brought up on felony charges for misleading Congress, misleading the American people. But don't stop at the Bush administration! This goes back to the Clinton administration.

Sandy Berger is a liar every bit as much as Condoleezza Rice is. Madeleine Albright's a liar every bit as much as Donald Rumsfeld is. I mean, they've all lied about the same thing, which is that Iraq represented a threat, in the form of weapons of mass destruction, that warranted military action. ...

But, no, Clinton's just as bad as Bush. The only difference is, he just bombed them; Bush invaded. But let's never forget: Under Clinton, another form of warfare took place, and that is the economic sanctions that the United States would never allow to be lifted regardless of Iraq's compliance level with its disarmament obligations. And these sanctions have killed far more people than George W. Bush's war has.
The truth is that both party establishments want The Doubleduh-Cheney Gang gone because they've fucked everything up, not because they got us into a "bad war."

. . . to be continued . . .

.........................
Before you leave, please visit the P! Amazon Store and vote in the lastest P!oll