#49006
Profile photo of GeorgiaSaint
GeorgiaSaint
Veteran
member9

Brulen, I don’t think (as far as I can tell at least), that there’s any fundamental disagreement between how you see the overall picture, and how I see it. My only point there was that I just don’t see any “death” having occurred with respect to the NWO. I associate ‘R.I.P.” as applying only after someone’s (or something’s) death, thus I just don’t think that term even applies at present. In my lifetime I don’t expect it to, either. It is, unfortunately, alive and all too well. Oh, that it WOULD R.I.P….

The following article, despite the inclusion of the original URL at the top of it, is no longer available. But over the years, I’ve learned to “save stuff.” This is one of those items that I decided was worth saving for future reference. It’s been very reassuring over the years as I’ve occasionally “found” some of those old saved articles and re-read them after years of having forgotten I even had them, and being further confirmed in my own mind that I wasn’t some sort of whacked out, tin-foil-hat-wearing paranoid. Time has an interesting way of either showing us our errors, or further confirming our understandings. In my mind at least, the only thing missed by the author is the other obvious fact – that it’s not so much the U.S. government doing all this on its own, it’s people that “just happen” to be placed within the structure and power of the U.S. government, but who represent what I’ve come to appreciate as what Casey calls the “Dark State.” The U.S. just happened to be supremely powerful enough at the time, that it was the most useful to “their” purposes. Other than that one lack of insight by the author, have a look at some excellent 20/20 foresight from well over a decade ago (roughly on the eve of the invasion of Iraq).

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=23806

US Motives Behind the Invasion of Iraq
17/03/2003

Hasan Tahsin

Whether the Security Council issues a new resolution allowing the invasion of Iraq or not, is irrelevant – the war is coming.

The European-American struggle witnessed by the Security Council indicates that the EU, despite internal divisions, aims to curtail American global aspirations that threaten European interests.

This belligerent American stand is the fulfillment of an American strategy laid out more than ten years ago and whose political and economic interests completely disregard those of others. Washington was waiting for the opportunity to carry out that plan; September 11, 2001 gave them that chance.

This analysis leads us to believe that Washington is bound and determined to invade Iraq; it is driven not only by the abundant oil reserves which to world opinion are the most visible strategic interest, but also by political and economic motives more dangerous than the nations opposed to war realize.

The political motives can be summarized as follows:

” Completing the arch of American presence in Asia and thus encircling China, a country that has recently become of great interest to America since its phenomenal economic growth could make it a contender for the position of superpower.

” Keeping a close watch on India and Pakistan, which recently became nuclear states, and Iran, which is on its way – all of which negatively affects the military balance in Asia.

” The presence in Iraq consolidates the American relations with Muslim Central Asian states, now independent of the former USSR, serving its appetite for the huge oil reserves in the Caspian Sea.

” Sending a warning to the EU following slogans such as ‘clash of interests’ and the like, thereby confirming that the European opposition to the American stand will not accomplish European desire to challenge American dominance over the world.

” Dividing Iraq into three petty states, a Sunni state, a Shiite state and a Kurdish state and drawing up new shared borders with Iran, Turkey and Syria.

” Sending a warning to the Arab leadership and Arab people of the necessity of bowing to American political, economic and religious demands and directions lest they meet the same fate as Iraq.

” Sending a warning to Muslim states and demanding they rein in extremist religious factions that oppose American presence and the American cultural invasion.

The economic motives they can be summarized as follows:

” Control of Iraqi oil will allow Washington to curtail the strength of OPEC and weaken its power in the international oil market and terminate its ability to determine global prices. This will in turn strengthen the American oil lobby and provide the country with cheap fuel.

” Control of Iraqi oil means the return of American oil companies to Iraq after French Total, Russian Luk Awel and Italian Ini benefited from oil wells in Iraq whose reserves are estimated to be around 44 billion barrels (second only to Saudi Arabia.)

” Control of Iraqi oil allows American companies to take control of the global crude oil price, which will consequently affect the oil in the Caspian Sea in Washington’s eyes a strategic reserve that it must preserve for its future interests.

” It also gives Washington control of economic growth in China, which is heavily reliant (80 percent) on Gulf oil. This would hold back China’s growth, thus delaying its rise as a potential world superpower capable of competing with the US.

America’s scheme was put into place after the war to liberate Kuwait in the days of Bush Senior. It was supported by the neo-republicans who came back into power with Bush Junior and who are now called the hawks of the White House.

What Washington wants is for the world to understand that the principle of balance of power as a basis for international relations is over and that American military mastery must continue along with the availability of guaranteed cheap oil.

This new principle imposed by the US is the basis for the new world order – personal gain through absolute power.

GS
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."