Few things amaze me. I’m one of those people
who are rarely ever really impressed, seldom laugh out
loud, or react in surprise. I don’t consider myself
a skeptic, just unemotional. President Bush (a.k.a.
“el Presidente Boosh”) does, however, occasionally
impress me. Not with his competence, but rather his
extreme lack thereof.
The “el Presidente” has a genuine talent
for making the most absurd statements while maintaining
a serious composure. There’s something that always
amazes me about the fact that a guy who has obtained
his position can stand in front of international media,
say incredibly stupid things, and behave as if he had
just said something smart. On November 28th several
news agencies published a statement that was classic
“GW” – “One thing Iraq would
like to see is for the Iranians to leave them alone.”
He said this while talking to reporters about the meetings
which were taking place between the president of Iraq
and the president of Iran.
Alright, from a standpoint of common sense everyone
should be utterly astounded by the words that came out
of that guy’s mouth. Here we have the Commander
in Chief who ordered the U.S. military to attack, invade,
and occupy Iraq without any legitimate reason telling
Iran to leave Iraq alone. Let’s just imagine a
comparable situation for a moment. Imagine a counselor
for Alcoholics Anonymous walking into a room full of
recovering drunks, with bottle of bourbon in hand. He
stands behind the podium, whips the bottle back taking
a swift, hearty slug of the good stuff, and then addresses
the group. He tells them how great it is to be sober,
takes a few more gulps, screams out how great it is
to be sober, and then proceeds to empty the bottle.
I normally avoid writing about well-worn subjects,
and the war in Iraq is as well-worn as they come. However,
in all the discussions I have heard or read, from both
establishment media and more honest alternative media,
the analysis has been so intense that some of the basic
motivating aspects of this conflict have been left unspoken.
Bush considers Iran as some kind of evil nemesis. If
they are, it’s only because they have been forced
into that position by Bush’s own insanely foolish
stunts.
What is Iran’s position in all of this? I don’t
mean their official foreign policy or their U.N. ambassador’s
latest speech, I mean from the basic level of motivation.
What circumstances are causing them to take the actions
they have and what options do they really have? Look
at this from Iran’s point of view. An ultra-Zionist
regime, otherwise known as the Republican and Democratic
parties, orders the U.S. military to invade their neighbor
to the west. The occupation that follows devolves into
a situation closely resembling hell. So there the Iranian
people sit – with a ring-side seat to a bloody,
chaotic guerilla war.
Something “GW” probably doesn’t know
is Iran has fought a long and terrible war with Iraq,
and after losing a generation of young men, they most
likely have little desire to get involved in another
major war. What “GW” also probably doesn’t
know is Iran shares a long border with Iraq, therefore
the chaos in Iraq is a direct threat to Iranian security.
Unlike “GW,” the Iranians have a legitimate
reason to be very concerned with the political affairs
of Iraq.
As if one war wasn’t enough, ultra-Zionists began
making threatening gestures toward Iran and are now
pushing for an attack. Fortunately, for both the Iranians
and working/middle class Americans, the Iranian government
is not stupid. They know Zionists control major sectors
of American political, financial, and media institutions,
a fact even stated by the president of Iran in a recent
letter. This benefits everyone, since Iran has been
skillfully using political and diplomatic maneuvers
to avoid a war which would kill tens of thousands of
Americans and probably hundreds of thousands of Iranians.
Simply put, it is in Iran’s best interest to
keep the guerilla war in Iraq intense and to draw it
out as long as possible. Again, look at it from their
perspective. A large, heavily armed, heavily funded,
highly mobile military invades and occupies their neighbor
to the west. The invading military’s forces are
now bound and tied by the occupation, with the ongoing
war consuming the majority of its combat forces and
equipment. As long as the U.S. military is tied down
in Iraq they will not be able to launch an attack on
Iran. Also, the longer the U.S. military is held in
Iraq the better for Iran, since a bitter defeat after
a long, senseless war will have a “Vietnam effect”
on the American public – the effect of leaving
them with a strong revulsion for another long war of
occupation. Iran’s leaders are smart enough to
see this, and though they may publicly deny supplying
Iraqi militants with weapons, they’d be fools
not to.
This may be working out alright for Iran, but in some
aspects it is not so good for middle and working class
Americans, especially White Americans, since we’ll
be the ones who fill the body bags created by the prolonged
Iraqi guerilla war. While non-Whites make up a large
percentage of the military as a whole, they only comprise
about 22% of the combat regiments and only a tiny percentage
special operations groups. White Americans accounted
for 71% of the Iraq war fatalities. This invariably
forces the questions: How did we get there in the first
place and how do we get out? I’ll answer the last
question first – to get out all we have to do
is pack up and leave. Too simple you say? Let’s
see if it is.
Eventually the U.S. military will do just that –
pack up and ride out. Whether it happens tomorrow or
five years from now, it will still happen. When it does
happen, the puppet government being propped up by American
Zionists will be overrun by militant Muslims. Think
that’s all crazy speculation?
U.S. Marines have been occupying the Anbar province
for almost four years. Every once in a while their leaders
give them enough support to actually launch an offensive
and gain some basic level of control. It doesn’t
take long, however, before al-Qaeda forces move back
in and retake Anbar. A report made in September 2006
to Washington from USMC officers had the following to
say: "the prospects for securing that country's
western Anbar province are dim and. . . there is almost
nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political
and social situation there. reporting that there are
no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar,
leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent
group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's
most significant political force,. . . Another person
familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as
beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United
States has lost in Anbar." The problem the Marines
face is one of time and money. Both are against them.
The Muslim militants only have to leave their homes
every so often to fight for a while before going back
on break. Compare this to the Marines who need to maintain
an occupation over a large land area, giving them a
full-time battle which costs billions.
This is where we run into the most serious flaw in
the Zionists’ great master plan. Let’s say,
for sake of argument, that a country is supplying an
Iraqi resistance fighter. That country will not be paying
for food, transportation, medical care, or any other
extraneous items. The “sponsor” will be
providing there bare-bones basics of warfare: weapons,
ammunition, and combat gear such as night vision goggles.
A realistic estimate of providing an Iraqi with an AK-47
and 500 rounds of ammunition would be about $1,500.
You can’t put one Kevlar helmet on one Marine’s
head for $1,500. You can’t put body armor on his
chest, grenades in his pack, or a rifle in his hands
for $1,500. Nor can you feed him, transport him, or
maintain his Humvee.
It costs us billions to maintain the occupation, while
it costs thousands to fight it. This may not matter
to the American Zionists in the short term since they
have unrestricted access to our tax money, but as a
4-year war turns into a 12-year war, it will matter
sooner or later. Zionists, with their mega-billions,
may be spending whatever it takes now, but countries
like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria can spend thousands
a lot longer than American tax payers can shoulder the
burden of spending billions. It is a matter of rate
of depletion – the American treasury is being
depleted at a far faster rate than those who are opposing
the Zionists. At some point in time, inevitably, we
will be bankrupted.
So we are left with the choices of leaving now or leaving
after we are financially drained to the point of economic
disaster. I prefer leaving now. Unfortunately I don’t
get to decide when the U.S. military leaves Iraq –
that’s a decision that will be made by our gratuitously
corrupt political parties. Already, however, some members
of congress are pushing for a concrete troop withdraw
plan.
And what of the previous question: “How did we
get there in the first place?” A question that
has an answer, if given in detail, could fill a full-length
book. To sum everything up into a single sentence, Zionists
in our already-corrupt government wanted to go to war
with Iraq because they thought it would make Israel
safer. Think that’s crazy conspiracy stuff? Do
some web searching on a paper written by Richard Pearl,
Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feif called “Clean
Break”. After you read a document which spells
out the invasion of Iraq, written ten years ago by three
Zionist Jews who now sit in high positions of power,
look into to AIPAC. The AIPAC (American Israeli Public
Affairs Committee) is the most powerful lobby on capital
hill – it’s the Israeli lobby, which pumps
about $500 million a year into U.S. congress members.
Take all of that and add two and two together. How
do you think $500 million a year effects congressional
decision making? If $500 million a year wasn’t
having one hell of an effect do you think AIPAC would
keep spending that much money on lobbying? Sometimes
it’s not about strange, mysterious conspiracies
– it’s just a matter of examining who’s
who and who pays who.
From a Jewish standpoint the whole situation is throwing
a very undesirable spotlight on them. There’s
an odd quirk with Jewish culture – Jews strive
endlessly to achieve power and control over a host nation
and then they’ll deny vehemently that they have
any power or control. It shouldn’t take much to
notice the ethnic composition of the “neocon”
regime. If around 90% of the U.S. population were comprised
of ultra-Zionist Jews then the current administration
would be a fine example of representative government.
Do Zionist Jews like Wolfowitz and Pearl represent America?
Hardly. They do represent their fellow Zionist Jews
very well, though.
The supreme irony of it all is the fact that the plan
failed. The grand-master-scheme to use the U.S. military
to knock over the Saddam government and replace it with
a puppet regime controlled by Tel Aviv via Washington
D.C. turned out to be a huge disaster. In the end, Iraq
will be controlled by militant Muslims who hate Israel
intensely. Iran will be in a better position strategically
because Iraq will be in the hands of religious Shiites
and the American public will be very wary of engaging
in another Middle Eastern military misadventure. It
took the Zionists decades of planning and scheming and
billions of dollars in bribes to pull the invasion off
– which killed hundreds of thousands of people.
When the dust finally settles, they’ll fail.
There is of course a “plan B”, which would
be instigating a large war between Sunni Arabs in gulf
states such as Saudi Arabia and Shiites in Iraq and
Iran. Given the knowledge on both sides of the extremely
bloody and unpredictable consequences of such a war,
it may be difficult to light a large enough spark to
set it off. Both the gulf state Sunnis and the Iranians
are in no way hesitant in allowing opposing Muslim factions
to battle it out endlessly in Iraq, though. As long
as the war doesn’t cross the border they seem
quite content with it.
On a final note: despite rather favorable coverage
on some nationalistic web sites, Iran and its President,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are in no way allies of White people
anywhere. Iran, as well as many other Muslim nations,
has a substantial colonial interest in Europe. I use
the term “colonial interest” with direct
intention because there are somewhere around 30 million
Muslims in Europe who live in violent isolation from
the indigenous peoples. For many Islamic countries,
including Iran, this is a source of great political
leverage, as well as a strong long-term strategy. As
Muslims become the majority in European countries, they
will gain very valuable territories and resources. The
epidemic of violent sexual assaults against Scandinavian
women by Muslim men is a grim preview of what life will
be like in Europe under Islamic rule.
Yes, I am very aware of who pushed and bribed for changes
in the immigration policies that allowed for the current
Muslim invasion. Organizations such as the Hebrew Immigrant
Aid Society have been lobbying governments in White
countries to open the flood gates to the third world
since the 1920s. It is groups like those who are responsible
for the horrendously destructive immigration policies
in both Europe and North America. Knowing who did that
is important, but the fact remains that Islam now has
a real colonial presence in several European countries
– and Iran is a key part of that invasion.
