“Problem is that Israel wanted war with Iran not Iraq in 2003″

Who the hell is buying this zionazi mendacious blather???…

You’re much more likely to find an alliance with the far right on this issue than with the left.

Thanks for the followup reference. I also noticed “Keith” comments in support his favorite left-wing Zionist. The point is that there is an ABUNDANCE of evidence (as well as commonsense) that the oil companies did not push any of the invasions — neither 1991 nor 2003 — as it was counterproductive to their overall economic interest. This has to be one of the greatest psy-op con jobs every perpetrated on the American people and it emanates from the “Left” and “alternative” media. What makes the con job so effective is their claim of “innocence” against the even more vile “mainstream” media.

Zionism has to be confronted because it is has extremely retarded and corrupted all aspects of the Left. Even Socialists are mum or look for other “economic” explanations that divert from confronting this racist ideology like for example the way WSWS blamed the mining interest for Rudd ouster and failed to examine Zionist influence in his downfall.

Jeffrey Blankfort November 23, 2010 at 7:34 pm

“Max, GHW Bush was far closer to the oil industry than Dubya or anyone else in Dubya’s administration and he pubicly opposed the war. What has been forgotten was that the very same neocons inside and outside of government and in the media were pushing for Bush Sr. to take out Saddam in 1991 and when he decided that keeping him in place was more in tune with US interests in the region, namely securing the oil supply and maintaining the stability to do so, the neocons and the other Zionist hawks turned on him and did so viciously (and they would keep up their efforts to oust Saddam through the Clinton years). All this is well documented and does require “circumstantial evidence” or speculation.

Why, it needs to be asked of Ajl and those embracing the same opinion, why, if the oil companies wanted regime change in Iraq and the MIC more profits did they not seize the opportunity that presented itself in 1991 and allow Saddam to hold onto power and his oil until 2003? You see, if the argument that 2003 was a war to take over Iraq’s oil, that reasoning should also have applied to 1991.

That the oil companies make profits in war and profited from this one is one of those statements that requires nothing more than a “duh?” response. If it had not been for pressure from the Zionist establishment, neocons plus, the American and other multi-national oil companies would have been dealing with Saddam all along as if it were not for the same folks who are dictating US Middle East policy, they would be dealing with Iran. In fact, some of them have been forced to back off because of the Zionist created and the Zionist enforced sanctions. That’s a matter of record, as well.

The real, unfortunate, upshot of this debate is that the leadership of the so-called anti-war movement before it vanished, ANSWER and UFPJ, both swallowed the same Kool-Aid as has Max, and for the same tribal reasons. Moreover, it is a lot easier to shout, “No Blood for Oil!” than face the reality and what that reality obliges us to do.”

[http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/unfair-to-chomsky.html#comment-251426]

BTW, the Max he addressed that to is Max Ajl, not DV’s max, just in case someone was thinking that. Ammusingly, our resident ‘expert” on this thread was also very active, similarly OTT, in that mondo thread. This is what he had to say to Blankfort:

“Have you lost your mind? Get some therapy!”

[http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/unfair-to-chomsky.html#comment-250859]

Some more info you might find interesting. These are some comments by Blankfort about the zionist push for the Iraq war, and also about oil company resistance to the war. First the zionist influence:

Jeffrey Blankfort November 23, 2010 at 12:06 pm

“Sean McBride raises an important point that not only Chomsky but what (barely) passes as an anti-war movement ignores. From the very moment that the US launched its war on Iraq, the main point on the agenda of the entire American Jewish political establishment (in short, The Lobby), has been to pressure the US government to launch another on Iran and they have been thwarted thus far in their efforts as Ray McGovern has pointed out, by those wiser heads in the Pentagon the Defense Department who are well aware of the catastrophic, unpredictable and uncontrollable results that are likely to ensue from such a foolhardy action.

They, meaning the major players in the AJE (American Jewish Establishment) have been able to get away with it because they were able to get away with pushing the US into the current war with Iraq as I first documented in 2005 (“A War for Israel.” [http://www.leftcurve.org/LC28WebPages/WarForIsrael.html]) and which Professors Mearsheimer and Walt later greatly amplified.

In their defense of the Lobby and of the tribe, our left critics argued that Israel and the Lobby wanted the US to attack Iran at the time, instead, ignoring the well known fact that overthrowing the Saddam Hussein government had long been a goal of the Jewish neocons and their right wing neanderthal non-Jewish Israelophallic allies such as James Woolsey and John Bolton. (See “Clean Break” [http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm]) Those who object that the neocons are not a part of the Israel Lobby, that their being Jewish is irrelevant (as some very well known leftists have done), and that Iraq was a war for oil, might be advised to take up hop skotch.”

[http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/unfair-to-chomsky.html#comment-251243]

The true fact that the “Left” deceived activists with the “War for Oil” canard goes to show that 1) the Left cannot be trusted and 2) the Left is completely CORRUPT. Head Zionist in Charge (HZIC) Chomsky came to the defense of AIPAC and the neo-cons as soon as Mersheimer and Walt blew the whistle.

As hayate posts and Shabnam constanly reminds us …

I go to great lengths in The Transparent Cabal to highlight the link between the neocons and the hardline Likudniks. In fact, I show that the neocons’ very plan to reconfigure the Middle East paralleled the Likudnik goal of destabilizing and fragmenting Israel’s enemies, which was best articulated by Oded Yinon in the early 1980s.

From the link you posted:

“Iraq has signed a series of deals with international oil firms to develop its vast oil reserves in a bid to boost output potential to 12 million bpd from around 2.7 million bpd now.”

When I wrote Iraq’s oil could have been double now of what it was before the 1st israeloamerican war on Iraq, I was giving a conservative estimate. Apparently it could have been on the order of closer to 3-4 times 1990 production.

“the value of the reserves has risen enormously in the meantime. They are laughing whilst the Iraqi blood and body parts lie under the sand.”

No doubt they are laughing, but the profit they might be making now pales to what they lost with 20 years of war and sanctions. Will they ever be able to make that lost opportunity up? The israeloamerican will not be able to occupy Iraq indefinitely, and when they get the boot, those current oil contracts will probably be one of the first things brought by the occupation to go.

From an oil company pov, that’s gotta hurt.

{http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE70D23J20110114}

Iraq: Oil and Economy
Sands of Iraq hold world’s 2nd largest oil reserve

[http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm]

Avi Shlaim on the Neoconservative Middle East War Agenda

by Stephen J. Sniegoski

(excerpts)

“The influence of the Likud and of its friends in Washington could be detected across the entire spectrum of American policy towards the Middle East,” writes Shlaim. “Particularly striking was the ideological convergence between some of the leading neoconservatives in the Bush Administration – such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith—and the hardliners in Ariel Sharon’s inner circle.” (p. 298)

I go to great lengths in The Transparent Cabal to highlight the link between the neocons and the hardline Likudniks. In fact, I show that the neocons’ very plan to reconfigure the Middle East paralleled the Likudnik goal of destabilizing and fragmenting Israel’s enemies, which was best articulated by Oded Yinon in the early 1980s.

Shlaim refers to Israeli support for the broader neocon Middle East war agenda, which would also primarily benefit that country, not the United States: “Washington’s policy of confrontation and regime change was fervently supported in Tel Aviv. Here too the benefit to Israel is much more evident than the benefit to America. And here too, the US agenda towards the region appears to incorporate a right-wing Likud agenda.” (p. 300)

In contrast to Shlaim’s view of Israel’s security, the neocons explicitly sought regional instability to allegedly achieve democracy, as I show in The Transparent Cabal. And the hardline Likudnik position was to destabilize and fragment Israel’s enemies to enhance Israeli security. The neocons similarly advocated such an approach in their “Clean Break” agenda, which did not emphasize democratization. In short, from the perspective of the neocons and the hardline Likudniks, the instability and the “shadow of civil war” resulting from the US invasion of Iraq were neither surprising nor unwelcome. Thus the neocons’ plans failed only to the extent that the US has not, or at least not yet, moved on to attack and destabilize Iran and other enemies of Israel.”

[http://pulsemedia.org/2011/01/18/avi-shlaim-on-the-neoconservative-middle-east-war-agenda]

In 2003, Iraq was a weaken country due to Zionist policy in the Clinton’s administration designed by Martin Indyke “dual containment’ against Iraq and Iran, where let to more than 650,000 deaths, many younger than 5 years of age. Today, we have another Israel-firster, Dennis Ross, a fifth column, where is pushing war against Iran.
The war against Iraq started during the Clinton administration in 1992 and continued. In 2003, Israel wanted a war against Iran because ISRAEL KNEW IRAQ WAS ALREADY A divided and defeated country which did not require that many efforts to be taken down since the Zionist terrorist pawns, the Kurds, were established in the north due to illegal sanctions and NO FLY ZONE. Thus, Israel Pushed for a war against Iran, but Bush wanted a victory in Iraq to sell a greater war against Iran which was not achieved. The neocon were not implemented as they expected.
Israel, like in Iraq, played a MAJOR ROLE in partition of the Sudan

{http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/iraq_partition.html}

according to ODED YINON PLAN. Israel is trying to establish “greater Israel”, from Mauritania to Afghanistan, through destabilization and

{http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2007/09/an_old_zionist.html}
partition of the regional countries in the region.

{http://afpakwar.com/blog/archives/2131}

A NEW MAP OF THE MIDDLE EAST ACCORDING TO ODED YINON STRATEGY is shown below:

{http://www.oilempire.us/new-map.html#neocon}

In my initial reply to Deadbeat on 1/15 @ 5:33 pm, I quoted Stephen Walt saying: “We also pointed out that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and other Israeli officials were initially skeptical of this scheme, because they wanted the U.S. to focus on Iran, not Iraq. However, they became enthusiastic supporters of the idea of invading Iraq once the Bush administration made it clear to them that Iraq was just the first step in a broader campaign of “regional transformation” that would eventually include Iran.” (Stephen Walt)

In my next comment at 10:34 pm, I said: “Israel was reluctant to pursue an attack on Iraq in 2003 because it didn’t benefit them, and had to be talked into it.”

On 1/16 at 3:46 pm, I commented that “in 2003 Iraq had been effectively destroyed, which is why Israel was initially cool to the idea and had to be talked into it.”

Finally, today, 1/17 at 10:58 am I said: “Once Israel became convinced that the occupation of Iraq would lead to military action against Iran, they then enthusiastically supported the war and the Lobby actively lobbied for it.”

Now at 1:12 pm Hayate says: “Before you claimed israel didn’t want the war, now when shown you were lying, you change your tune. That’s called changing the goal posts, a common tactic of the pro-israeli “hasbara corps”.”

My comments on this have been quite clear and consistent. This is an example of your characteristic, unprincipled misrepresentation of the facts which you rely on in addition to name calling in your ongoing attempt to demean those who differ from your extremist views.

“Once Israel became convinced that the occupation of Iraq would lead to military action against Iran, they then enthusiastically supported the war and the Lobby actively lobbied for it.”

Before you claimed israel didn’t want the war, now when shown you were lying, you change your tune. That’s called changing the goal posts, a common tactic of the pro-israeli “hasbara corps”.

“This enabled members of the liberal intelligentsia such as Bill and Kathleen Christison, Mearsheimer and Walt, etc, to point their fingers and crow “see, the Lobby made us do it!”

What makes you lie to defend israeli and ziofascists?

Go to this web site and you must sign up it’s free and read the rules. You will see physics and at the bottom of that category you will see Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics; well click on that then the big one at the top of the page you should see; Evidence for super-exponentially accelerating atmospheric carbon dioxide growth. It’s a big one and has much on population growth as well. I’ll bet many of you with find this amazing to read. DB I will ask questions. Here’s the direct web page and I don’t know if you can sign up from that page maybe.

{http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2832}

Read it in PDF and happy reading although happy is probably the wrong word. Oh and all you global elite’s out there don’t read this it will only confuse you all.

Once Israel became convinced that the occupation of Iraq would lead to military action against Iran, they then enthusiastically supported the war and the Lobby actively lobbied for it. This enabled members of the liberal intelligentsia such as Bill and Kathleen Christison, Mearsheimer and Walt, etc, to point their fingers and crow “see, the Lobby made us do it!”, seemingly unaware that the activities of the Lobby are mostly congruent with the interests of the military/industrial complex which profits greatly from “aid” to Israel and from America’s never ending wars against the Third World. Unable to respond logically to my initial point that Iraq in 2003 was a mostly destroyed country which posed no threat whatsoever to Israeli Middle East ambitions, hence, the Lobby facilitated imperial geo-strategy, you have resorted to name calling, “boi”, “sayanim”, “ziofascist”, etc, in your characteristic fashion of relying upon ad hominem insults to distract attention for the facts, and to try to squelch any discussion which deviates from your rigid point of view, an activity which you disingenuously project unto others who you claim are “stealth zionist-promoting fake leftists”, a preposterous claim.

I remembered the big W and heck now we could call [The Golden Globes]t the big C the wondrous land of the Corporation.

We could also call it the big Z the wondrous land of Zionism. It was like being a voyeur in a country club it was extremely White, Gay and Zionist. You’d be hard pressed to find any people of color.

But Brown still believes civilizational collapse can be averted, if there is a mass effort to confront threats such as global warming, soil erosion and falling water tables, not military superpowers.

And here in the States the greatest minds in human history repeal and replace is it.