The U.S.-installed and propped-up puppet government in Iraq is now selling off Iraq's oil to various western oil companies. All according to plan. And President Obama has just announced that he is escalating the war in Afghanistan by sending in an additional 30,000 troops, then slipped into his speech the fact that he has secretly started a war against Pakistan even though the President has no lawful authority to start wars. Only Congress can declare war. Congress has never declared war against Pakistan, nor could they without themselves sanctioning yet another war of aggression and international war crimes. So Obama decided to ignore the constitution, and declare war on his own. Like an Emperor or King. Or like Bush and Cheney would have done.
I hear lots of people arguing that Obama is a sincere person, kind, compassionate, he does not want or seek war, he wants peace. That's why he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize -- because he secretly, in his heart, wants peace, but is forced to escalate the U.S. wars in the middle east against his will. No other choice, so his defenders say. I'm not buying it.
We cannot argue that anyone who pursues war in modern times is doing so out of a moral conviction that war is the best way to serve humanity, or that the world will be better from the prosecution of war against some group of people. There is simply too much evidence available for any of us to believe that there is any legitimate reason to start a war against another country.
To defend ones own country against war started by another country is a different question altogether. We all believe in the right to defend ourselves when a war is started against us.
It does not help our analysis of wars conducted by our country to confuse (1) the need to defend against war with (2) the intentional decision to unilaterally start a war against another country. The middle east wars are wars of aggression started by the U.S.
We have gangs of drug-runners from Mexico who are killing people inside the U.S., but our government does not use those incidents as an excuse to bomb the villages in Mexico, to blow up their children, to send in tanks and overthrow their government, occupy their lands, steal their resources. But that is exactly what the U.S. is doing in the middle east.
Let’s not forget that Cheney met the major oil corporation leaders in secret in March of 2001, and they went over the maps of Iraq’s oil fields in that meeting. The purpose of the meeting (Cheney fought to keep the notes secret) may reasonably be inferred from the attendees and the materials reviewed. They were agreeing in advance how they would divvy up the oil among themselves after Bush and Cheney started a war against Iraq based upon manufactured claims. The U.S. is militarily occupying Iraq for the sole purpose of supporting the western oil corporations in stealing Iraq’s oil.
Should we believe there is some different, higher, purer, God-directed motive for the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan? There was no war declared against the U.S. on 9/11, no troops marched in, no tanks crossed our borders. There were 4 hijackings by men mostly from Saudi Arabia, a terrible crime, but more like the Mexican gang violence and criminal enterprise than like Pearl Harbor. The U.S. had no legitimate reason to invade Afghanistan. But assuming we did, and the purpose was to drive out al Queda, that has now been accomplished.
The only reasonable conclusion is that the U.S. is planning to stay in Afghanistan to support the oil corporations in building and operating the piplines they have wanted to run across that nation for decades.
Obama’s secret thoughts or historical viewpoint are irrelevant. He is following the same course set by Bush and Cheney, escalating their wars. We should oppose him in doing so. The fact that he seems like a nice guy is irrelevant to the continued murder and war crimes being committed in Afghanistan by this country. I see no reason to assume Obama’s motives are pure. He’s not so stupid that he does not understand this is all about oil. It always has been.
I also don’t even believe Obama is really in charge. The leadership of the Democratic party are the people who control the bribes paid to the Democratic politicians, the people with the connections to the big donors. Both political parties are essentially criminal enterprises in which Ken and Barbie politicians are elected, then sell their votes to the highest bidder, betraying the public and destroying democracy. Who controls the big money that flows into the Democratic Party? Bill and Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emanuel, I'm sure a few others. Joe Lieberman, who isn't even a Democratic, has more of a voice in the Democratic Party than I do, as all the Democrats bow down and kiss his corrupt ass because he is protected by the criminal money-laundering from the U.S. to Israel back to Congress. The people who control the money run the party. I don’t think Obama does anything without getting their approval.
Maybe we should just refer to President Rahm, and be done with it. Every single act done by Obama is consistent with Emanuel’s love of Wall Street, love of middle east wars, and desire to become president in 7 years. Why do you think they called him Wall Street’s favorite politician? He represents Wall Street, the big money boys, and was well compensated for his services.
Emanuel was a Clinton insider and did not even support Obama, so how did he get his job? How about Hillary? Somebody else selected these people. Obama is just another pretty face. And these wars are international war crimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment