.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

For Oil or for the New World Order?

UPDATINGs below-12-12-2010

Many people believe that the 2003 Iraq war was fought "for oil." No less a personage than Alan Greenspan, former head of the US central bank, the Federal Reserve Board, endorsed this claim. On the other hand, The administration claimed before the war that the Saddam Hussein regime was working on developing ABC weapons, atomic, biological, chemical. Other people justified the war on the fact that Saddam's regime was mass murderous, indeed genocidal, towards much of his own population.

Paolo Raffone took another view. He argued that the war was fought for the New World Order and globalization, in his book La Fredda guerra [= The Cold War; Adnkronos libri 2003].

Andrea Saronni, in a review for tgcom.it [30 April 2003], summarized Raffone's book:
Strange as it may seem, Bush is not at all interested in a "unipolar" system, as Raffone defines it. According to the author [Raffone], one aspect, that of "world order," weighed notably more than Iraqi petroleum, unanimously pointed to as the real American and British objective. In short, simplifying terms, Operation "Iraqi Freedom" might be read as one of the "hard" phases (and it will not be the last) of now inevitable globalization.
Per quanto possa sembrare strano, Bush non e` per nulla interessato all "unipolarita`," come la definisce Raffone. Un aspetto, quello dell' "ordine mondiale," che secondo l'autore ha pesato notevolmente di piu` rispetto al petrolio iracheno, indicato unanimemente come il reale obiettivo statunitense e britannico. Insomma, semplificando i termini, "Iraqi freedom" potrebbe essere letta come una delle tappe "dure" (e non sara` l'ultima) di una mondializzazione ormai inevitabile.
Note: A "unipolar" system refers to an international system in which the United States is the sole superpower.

Saronni recommends Raffone's book for those who believe that the war was all for "oil," as well as for those who
unconditionally applaud the American liberator [of Iraq] and think that everything was done only and exclusively to sweep away the dictator Saddam Hussein. Both groups [those who think that the war was for oil and those who think it was for liberation] should prepare to confront the next installment, because. . . the logic that unleashed all this has to do with other zones of the world, from the Middle East to the Persian Gulf to southeast Asia: the game has scarcely begun.
applaude incondizionatamente al liberatore stellestrisce e pensa che tutto sia stato fatto solo ed esclusivamente per spazzare via il dittatore Saddam Hussein. Entrambe le categorie si preparino affrontare la prossima puntata, perche` . . . la logica che ha scatenato tutto questo riguarda altre zone del mondo, dal Medio Oriente al Golfo Persico all'Asia sudorientale: la partita e` appena cominciata.
So Raffone does not see much relief from the phenomenon of war in the coming future.

As for ABC weapons [unconventional weapons] development by Saddam Hussein's regime, Prof Raphael Israeli believes that Saddam's regime was pursuing such R&D. Here are the reasons and evidence that Prof Israeli presents. If Israeli is right, then we are left with the troubling question of why the Bush Administration has been hushing up this matter or is allowing itself to be depicted as deceitful in its reasons for going to war in 2003, supposedly having falsified evidence about Saddam's ABC R&D.

UPDATING: Caroline Glick comments on US and Israeli neglect of the potential nuclear weapons threats from Syria and Iran.
- - - - - - -
Coming: Condi and the false analogy between Abu Mazen and Dr Martin Luther King [a Zionist, in fact], Jews in the Land of Israel, Jerusalem and Hebron, peace follies, propaganda, etc.
- - - - - - - - - -
12-12-2010 wikileaks documents show that "there were nuclear, chemical and biological materials in Iraq," as well as chemical weapons labs. Judith Klinghoffer asks: Why did W. remain silent? [here]. It was also reported: "In 2008, our military shipped out of Iraq -- on 37 flights in 3,500 barrels -- what even The Associated Press called 'the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program': 550 metric tons of the supposedly nonexistent yellowcake. The New York Sun editorialized: 'The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power. ... To leave this nuclear material sitting around the Middle East in the hands of Saddam ... would have been too big a risk.'" Why did Prez George Bush II remain silent as he was regularly accused of lying about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?
Also see Larry Elder here.
2-26-2017 Deroy Murdock on The National Review website (10-16-2014)   [here] agrees with Prof Raphael Israeli that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was working on producing WMDs and had an active R&D program going on, and possessed a large stock of chemical weapons of mass destruction. Murdock asks why President George W. Bush did not pay attention to the evidence of Iraqi possession of stocks of uranium and poison gas --such as sarin-- and so on, and let himself be slandered as a president who went to war for no good reason and as having lied about active WMD research going on in Saddam's Iraq.


Post a Comment

<< Home