Suthiano you argue a STRAWMAN FALLACY. Your premise is a NON-EXISTENT SUPPOSITION wherby you formulate a conclusion based on an NON-EXISTENT SUPPOSITION. Zionism was develop long before there was an “entity” known as “Big Oil”. So therefore your argument is in severe contradiction.

Where have I heard this rhetoric… unlike the way you through around labels which seems to put everyone into camps

This is an ad hominem that doesn’t address my argument that the issue is the LEFT’s willingness to obfuscate up to the DENYING of Zionism being influential upon U.S. Foreign Policy and analyzing and addressing THAT BEHAVIOR and its consequenes (like the diffusion of the anti-war movement) upon activists and upon solidarity.

Palestine is given to Jewish colonists who have no connections with either Palestine or the region because of Rothschild family’s control over the British Empire to bring the resources of the region under the Jewish aristocracy’s control (Zionists) over long period of time. Please read the link I have provided earlier under this article. Nathan Rothschild told the world in 1815: {The British Empire is controlled by Rothschild family through supply of money.} Do you think he was lying?
Today, however, many including Gore Vidal , believe that the 5th column, Jewish Lobby , runs foreign policy of the United States not to mention Walt and his co author, many from military elite who believe Israel exerts too much influence over US foreign policy. Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes:
[Gates is a servant of Gen. David Petraeus’s “long war” mafia, a cabal that includes Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, senior Iraq commander Gen. Ray Odierno and Gen. Stan McChrystal, our man in the Bananastans. That makes Gates a servant of the American neocons, whose objective since the ‘90s has been permanent U.S. occupation of the Middle East. It also makes him a tool of the Israeli right, whose objective is to sucker us into bullying their neighbors for them. During a recent trip to Israel, Gates said that U.S. overtures to Iran are not “open ended.” He gave the impression that he wheedled and begged enough during the visit to stay Israel’s hand for a little while longer. “Our hope still remains that Iran will respond to the president’s outstretched hand in a positive and constructive way,” Gates said, “but we’ll see.”]
Jeff Huber believes US is putting Israeli’s interest ahead of American’s interest and paints Gates, the secretary of defense, as a puppet of Israel, “He gave the impression that he wheedled and begged enough during the visit to stay Israel’s hand for a LITTLE WHILE LONGER.”

Why a retired Commander write these lines?
On the other hand the Zionist racists and terrorist such as Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says the following with great confidence:
[Believe me; America accepts all our decisions,] Lieberman told the Russian daily Moskovskiy Komosolets.
or
[The Obama Administration will put forth new peace initiatives only if Israel wants it to, said Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in his first comprehensive interview on foreign policy since taking office.
Have you ever heart Canada or France repeats these kind of rubbish? Forget about Saudi Arabia where has injected billions of dollars into the US economy yet does not have the same power as Israel has over the US goverment or close to it where ables SA to repeat the same rubbish as Lieberman or Sharon’s spread.

People do not espy an astounding fact of utmost import: we are much more a symbolic class of life than any other animal; thus, it matters much what we call any living being or thing.
E.g., spade is not an instrument. The label “jew” does not stand as a symbol for a human, national, nor ethnic; it stands for a connection/conversion to hebraic cultisheness.

The word “jew” derives from the word “judean” or “yehud”. And khazaro-europeans have no connection {or a connection hadn’t yet been established} whatsoever with any hebrew tribe.
Hundreds of different nationals and ethnics have accepted hebraic ‘faith’ [please read: cult].

Mizrahic ‘jews’ are definitely shemitic but not necessarily of hebraic origin.
If one wants to call them “jews” it is OK with me. I prefer to call them “shemites” of arabic descent. Or call them “arabs”.
A pole or italian does not call self “catholic”. A pole or an irishperson is first a pole and irish and only thereafter a catholic, but also cultish to me.

For sanity, natural order of evaluation is first of all to be human; then wife, mother, friend, social being and only thereafter a jew, catholic, protestant, muslim, etc.
Unfortunately both muslims and ‘jews’ reverse the natural order in which jewishness/mosheism or mohammedanism comes ahead in importance of being human, etc.
Because of that and being small in numbers, Hebrews have undergone two shoahs and kazhars one.
Is another shoah that far behind? Nobody likes cults. “Jewish’ cult wld be hated forever or until its evanescence.
And world plutos are least likely to tolerate “jewishness” – a sense of ‘quality’ of being supranatural.
I believe, this is what chomsky and other ‘ziontsts’ fear. Still, they are “jews”; thus are married to mosheism/zionism as well. tnx

However, when you tell me that I’m “obfuscating” this debate, I strongly disagree. My goal is to define/describe what is happening so that less time is spent on ego clashes (debates). I must say you are constantly “muddying the waters” through your careless labeling. Maybe I know what you’re saying, but how do you expect most to take you seriously?

When you say Iraq war was not about big oil it was about zionism, you’re using what is obscure language to most. I met a zionist two days ago who is a university student (undergrad) Canadian… what possible role did this person play in the Iraq war?

zionism is a pyramid ideology as any other. It is driven by few elites at top, and bought into by millions below them for VARIOUS reasons.

Deadbeat, you think my argument was a strawman, and yet you do fall into the trap I described:

if zionism was the cause of the Iraq war, what is the “cause” of zionism? Is it the Rothschilds or is it money, or is it judaism, or is it the holocaust? Who are the individual actors at the very top? who are the prime movers of zionism? Deadbeat, do you know who these people are? Do you ACTUALLY KNOW what they BELIEVE?

You and I know zionism existed long before the holocaust, and yet I guarantee I could find you some “zionist” who thinks that Israel was awarded to the Jews because of WW2. Well isn’t this partially true? Wasn’t the “holocaust” a cause for immigration to Palestine? Wasn’t the holocaust a cause of zionism? Why can’t I make this observation (which is USEFUL because now we can address such ignorant zionists on their paradigm and expose the inaccuracies in their outlook)? You say I am obscuring something, yet i will openly name names of the global elite, while you continue to through around labels that mean different things to the elite than they do to the herd.

It’s like wmd argument. YOu can say war in Iraq wasn’t caused by WMD (obviously true on some level as their were no WMDs), and yet, how would the war have been fought without U.S. soldiers, U.S. public buying into this reason for the war? If public opinion isn’t important then why have zionists, elitists been using “public relations” (propaganda) for over a century? practicing it as a science?

But please deadbeat, don’t take this as a challenge and start calling me names. I think it would be wonderful if you started calling out the most powerful “zionists” by name and describing exactly what it is that these people believe…. if you have footage of them practicing human sacrifice that would be an added bonus.

The Iraq war wasn’t fought beCAUSE (prime cause) of Big Oil. The Iraq war could be fought in part cause of “Big Oil,” ie, because there were corporations eager to move in and start building and pumping. If “big oil” didn’t exist, and our energy needs were controlled by vegan pacifists, then the “big energy” faction of the pyramid would not have bought into “zionist” war… that’s it. It’s not that confusing, but it allows us to debate on multiple levels… unlike the way you through around labels which seems to put everyone into camps, which is not a good way to build solidarity, and is actually a lot closer to the “divide and conquer” scheme practiced by those who you spend so much time criticizing.

cheers,

suthiano

So why have all that econo-military-diplomatic-educational power only to be a follower of a much, much weaker side.
And Israel receives money, arms, and technology from a side that may be at least 1K times stronger.
Go figure! tnx

You raise faux issues and turn them into an “argument”. I’ve asked you a question, “Why is the Middle East important to the US Empire?”

You say the “left” said it was “Big Oil”. Since no one person speaks for the nebulous, you’re already basing an “argument” on vapor. Then there’s the “Big Oil” contention for invading Iraq. Well since I haven’t read anything on this site about Big Oil being the reason for the US invading and occupying Iraq, you seem to be arguing with yourself.

As far as oil, you have finally conceded (somewhere) that you never said oil was not important. But you march on with that limp acknowledgement to continue to rant about Zionism/Chomsky/American Left and “Big Oil”.

It’s very hard to argue with such baseless frivilousness.

If you were serious, you’d pick some “leftist” who claims “Big Oil” and say you disagree with this and that. Then you may actually find me agreeing. But you are not serious, you just want to kick the can down the road and so will never deal with the core issue because calling it Zionism just feels to good to you and your limited worldview.

Don let’s stop with the conjectures and offer some evidence that the U.S. went to war in Iraq for Coal, Oil and other nasty stuff put in the Earth. I raising serious question about the veracity of the Left. Questions of RACE and CLASS.

I disagree. Your premise is totally based on a strawman argument. If the level of the debate was based on your premise there would be NO DEBATE. You present the debate as if there is already an agreement between the counter-parties that there is an equivalence of influence among Zionism and “Big Oil” upon U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East. If that was the case then you would see organizing against BOTH Big Oil AND Zionism with ACKNOWLEDGMENT on the Left that BOTH needs to be equally challenged.

Unfortunately Suthiano, the Left refuses to acknowledged the influence of Zionism upon the body politics of the United States. In fact Suthiano the “Left” has used its power of persuasion to obfuscate and to OUTRIGHT DENY any influence of Zionism upon U.S. policy DESPITE the obvious evidence.

The “Big Oil” thesis that PREDOMINATES and PROMOTED by the “Left” crumbles under the weight of not only evidence but of COMMON SENSE. In order to ACCEPT the “Big Oil” explanation means NOT TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS but to ACCEPT the premise AS IS.

What you are doing Suthiano is setting up a strawman that essentially obfuscates the main problem. WHY IS THE LEFT SO DETERMINED TO SELL A PREMISE THAT HAS OBVIOUS CONTRADICTIONS. It opens the door that questions the MOTIVES of so-called Left in the United States and questions the VERACITY of the Left.

This means that the real focus of activist is to take a good look at its own ranks and to question why the Left has drifted away from organizing around race and class issues. Is one of the reason to protect Zionism? If so why? If not then why did the anti-war movement fall apart when challenging Zionism was raised among anti-war activists? Why did the Left promote the War on Iraq as a “War for Oil” when evidence indicate otherwise? Why did Noam Chomsky dismiss Miershiemer and Walt? These are serious questions that calls into question whether or not the Left can be trusted. Why should people, especially people of color, put their trust in the Left? This lack of trust will only wind up in betrayal and the retarding of solidarity.

Unfortunately Suthiano you are not adding to the discussion here and you are only poisoning the well with your strawman. It only muddies the water rather than offer any clarification to the main premise which deeply examines the behavior of the Left.

Then DEBATE me Mr. Shields otherwise you offer no arguments to defend your “War for Oil” conjectures.

You seek “cause” as if the world was composed of a series of chains of cause and effect.

This is the same view held by many theologians. They argue that God must exist because of “prime mover” (aka first cause, ie something must have put everything else into motion). You have all fallen into using this erroneous metaphor of cause and effect as “chain”. In reality causes and “effects” are web like.

example:

ball B goes into corner pocket.
what caused this?
ball a hit ball b.
what caused this?
cue striking ball a.
what caused this?
-muscle of character holding cue
what “caused” this?
-will of character?
-brain of character?
what “caused” this?
-rules of the game
-any number of “atmospheric” conditions (What caused these),
-location (what caused this)
-stars?
-god?

etc…

What we learn from every case study is that the more we try to pin point the “prime cause” the more we shackle ourselves to meaningless language.

How is prime cause (prime mover) anything but a trickery of language?

It’s nothing but a combination of two ideas that we never see converge in reality: primacy and “cause”. Once we bite the hook on the end of the “chain of causation” we are snared. It is a false metaphor.

When “elites” go to “sub-elites” who (though lacking same “drivers” as elites) to propose a war, they structure reasoning around paradigm of those being addressed. If “zionists” want war in Iraq to further “zionist cause”, how is it unreasonable to consider that convincing “big oil” of profits in Iraq is essential to manipulating the herd towards the war? That is assuming that all decision makers are not zionists… even if the most important ones all are. We have more than an ideology to proclaim here, and in order to follow it we have a herd to control and direct.

Likewise, how is it unreasonable to consider that “zionists” recognize irrelevance of controlling Iraq’s oil to “big oil’s” profits, but seek to use the argument to gain support anyway?

We on this site, with people who are so intelligent (I’m talking about you guys, who always amaze me with the depth of your knowledge, even if I don’t agree with conclusions), must always recognize the multiplicity of causes, while at the same time seeking to pinpoint most “useful” connections within the web.

I turn to a historical example to finish.

When Vatican funded exploration of “new world” was it because of gold, or was it because of desire to “spread word of christ”, or hegemonic desire?

Do you claim to be the sure eyed scientist who can amputate along such lines? Would you be as ignorant as the pope, drawing a line of demarcation, and then sending your minions to fight for inches in the trenches?

my apologies if i’ve misrepresented anyone’s ideas…

In this one sentence we clearly understand Max Shields relationship with Zionism. Mr. Shields is essentially supportive of the Chomskyite narrative of the obfuscation the influence of Zionism upon U.S. policy.

I would argue that Mr. Shields needs to answer the contradictions that are raised by framing the issue as a war for “Big Oil”. It was the “Left” that has presented the wars in the Middle East as “War for Oil” ignoring as well as obfuscating any evidence of the influence that Zionism has on U.S. policy making. Thus the question is WHY HAS THE LEFT acted in this manner to outright mislead and obfuscate Zionism’s INFLUENCE upon U.S. policy. This behaviour runs counter to what the Left should stand for.

The dominate line (conventional wisdom) is that the War in Iraq is a “War FOR Oil”. I didn’t make that up. That IS the dominate line. Mr. Shields now want to convince onlookers here that the world is running out of oil. He states…
What geologists and major oil companies and now US reports indicate, is that we oil is peaking and the fields in the Middle East are depleting their reserves. Ironically some of the largest reserves are in Iraq, BECAUSE, oil HAS NOT flowed out as desired

The fallacy that Mr. Shields engages is called a red herring. Here is what a red herring fallacy looks like:
* Topic A is under discussion.
* Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
* Topic A is abandoned.

The topic of discussion is why is the “Left” engaged in promoting “Big Oil” as the “raison d’etre” of war in the Middle East (especially Iraq and potentially Iran) when there are serious contradiction to that explanation and why is the Left engaging in the obfuscation of Zionism — an ideology whose influence upon U.S. policy making has grown enormously over the past 10 years.

Mr. Shield ASSUMES only through conjecture that the U.S. is fighting in the Middle East for oil. Let examine some of the contradiction Mr. Shields ignores and offers no reasonable explanation:

[1] oil is peaking and the fields in the Middle East are depleting their reserves
The contradiction here is that this assumes the price spike was related to supply. However the Saudi’s INCREASED production during the Bush years and therefore there was sufficient supply in order to maintain price. The cause of the increase was SPECULATION in the commodity market caused huge spikes in oil prices. In addition Hugo Chavez has stated that Venezuela has a 200 year supply and so long as oil prices remain about $50.00/barrel, the heavy oil that Venezuela supplies will be profitable.

[2] Suthiano indicates there was a blend of reasons but while these were confluent with the US policy they are NOT the policy. Zionism is NOT US policy while it may be confluent with Middle Eastern hegemony.
This is total bait-and-switch by Mr. Shields. The ones with the mono-thesis are Chomskyites like Antonia Juhasz who only offer “War for Oil” explanation. Naomi Klein offered a clever approach by throwing “neo-liberalism” in the mix. The big contradiction with here premise however was that she faulted Milton Freedman, who she attributes as being the father of neo-liberalism, was AGAINST the War on Iraq.

[3] Never once has Deadbeat, for instance, made a case for why oil is not central to US interests in the Middle East.

The argument is NOT — why oil is not central to U.S. policy in the Middle East. The argument is why Mr. Shields and his ilk desire to obfuscate Zionism. Is Mr. Shields a racist in whose interest it is to see the continued subjectation of the Palestian people and the growth of power and influence of this racist ideology in the United States? This has been the result of Chomskyism on the Left and is the main reason why the anti-war movement crumbled. It is why the “Z-Mag” left supported the “anybody but Bush” (acquiese to John Kerry’s run) notion and created the vacuum on the Left that opened the door for the 2008 Obama campaign.

The question that is being ignored is why are these people who claim to want to fight the empire deliberately misleading activists with fallacioius, dubious, contradictory explanations.

In order to accepted the “Big Oil” explanation means NOT asking serious questions. I have also presented links to other critics such as Jeffery Blankfort and most recently Bill & Kathleen Christison. Needless to say thank goodness the editors of DV have printed Dr. James Petras who articles are fully footnoted has raised serious questions about the “Big Oil” explanation of all things.

Max Shields unfortunately respresents the DOMINATE strain on the “Left” in the United States and unless this strain is confronted it will most definately RETARD solidary and will only lead to kinds of betrayals we have already witnessed in the anti-war movement and the Green Party.