Chapter 31

US Conquest of Iraq is Petro-Colonialism

Rise of Petro-Colonialism in Iraq

“Global Clash of Races-Diplomacy of Civilizations” © (2006) Kalki Gaur

31(0) Purport

(1) Great Powers Write International Law

The United States, the sole super power of the world, has unrestricted right under Intenational Law to invade Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran. America by Right of Unilateralism has right to amend International Law, to empower civilizations and world powers greater freedom to use unrestricted excessive force against terrorists.

One. The Great Powers have the right and power, under International Law, to declare by an International Treaty that tyrannies or terrorist nations may lose their right of independence and sovereignty, and terrorist societies may lose their Human Rights and Freedom.

Two. Civilizations and world powers cannot permit barbarians and terrorists misuse the internation law to disturb peace in the world. The Unilateralist policies of President Bush and American invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan and North Korea are legally valid under International Law.

Two.The White House if it so decides, can legitimize Great Powers right to invade Oil-producing country to establish Colonial Empire, and if accepted by other world powers, automatically amends the International Law to make Colonial Empires as principal actors of the International System in the 21st Century, as it had been during 18th and 19th Century.

Three. International Law is whatever Great Powers agree by means of Treaty. International Law is whatever President Bush determines should be part of International Law, and if other great powers or the United Nations implicitly or explicitly accept it. The International Law is not revealed by a Prophet or descends from heaven. The International Law is what great powers of the world agree what International Law is, by agreement. The United Nations legitimized American invasion of Iraq and recognized America as the Occupying Power, and this act of the United Nations heralded a new age of Colonial Empires in the 21st Century.

 

(2) Oil Price Rise justifies Iraqi Colonization

Thesis: President Bush created history and unleashed a new age of Oil-Colonialism in the 21st Century, with 2003 invasions of Iraq. In the 21st Century, the new international law shall grant world powers, a right to invade and establish oil colonies to promote their energy security, so long as these powers do not carry out any hidden religious agenda.

One. Dr. Henry Kissinger in “Diplomacy” argues that the 21st Century would be similar to the colonial 18th and 19th Century and Colonial Empires rather than nation states shall be major actors of the international system. Any crude oil price above $25-a-barrel makes imperialistic invasions of thinly populated oil-producing countries an economic necessity for oil-importing industrial economies.

Two. Post-2001 Petro-Imperialism and Oil-seeking Colonial Empires took birth in 2003, just as post-1500 European Colonialism took birth because of the greed of the Middle Eastern powers. President Bush invaded Iraq to find secured route for oil. The post-1500 European Colonialism was the direct result of European powers to escape from Ottoman price gauging for Indian spices essential for European meat preservation during winter months. The post-2003 new Age of Oil Colonialism is the direct result of the price gauging of the Middle Eastern OPEC that artificially manipulated the price for a barrel of crude oil to triple in three years, from $25 in April 2003, to over $72 in April 2006.

Three. The Anglo-Saxon invasion of Iraq in 2003 is a secular foreign policy business as usual. In 1920s American and British secret services had mobilized Bedouin Wahhabi clergy to engineer the secession of Saudi Arabia and Iraq from Ottoman Caliphate. Iraq and Saudi Arabia declared secessioin from Ottoman Caliphate, within a month of each other. The CIA implanted Saddam Hussein as a ruler of Iraq to overthrow pro-Soviet Marxist regimes that had taken over Iraq. The OPEC Oil-cartel created by conspiring American Big Oil to profit by artificial price rise by production manipulation by OPEC oil producers, when Britain gave independence to its colonies in the Arabian Gulf in 1971.

Four. The civilized world powers, believe that ever rising oil price rise justifies the return of new age of Oil Colonial Empires in terrorism prone Middle East, especially in Iraq and Iran. Colonization of thinly populated oil-producing countries in the Middle East, Iraq and Iran by leading oil-consuming nations and industrial powers shall provide for energy security in the populous civilized world.

Five. Unchecked oil-price rise can cripple the economies of the industrialized world. It would be cheaper for the United States to invade Iraq and Iran and to occupy and administer as colonies rather than paying for the imported oil bill. Middle Eastern Thinly populated wealthy oil producing countries signed their death warrants by hiking up the oil prices.

Six. The power-hungry Iraq and Iran have signed their death warrants by seeking nuclear weapons by cladenstine means. The terrorism promoting oil-producing nations has signed their own death warrants failing to stop the terrorist attacks on the United States, Russia, India and China.

Seven. Like the 1885 Partition of Africa, the great powers should negotiate and arrive at Partition of Oil Producing Middle East, Central Asia and Africa among major oil importing industrial powers, namely, United States, China, India, Japan, Germany, France, Britain and South Korea. The colonial occupation of thinly populated oil-producing nations by populous industrialized nations is lesser an evil than the disruption of the industrialized economies that would result, if the oil-producing nations continued to manipulate oil prices. Partition of Oil-Producing Nations into colonies of world powers is a moral imperative otherwise the civilized world shall face the specter of $100-a-barrel oil prices, which could translate into a $6-a-gallon gasoline and heating oil and worldwide Depression and end of the Industrial Civilization as we know it.

Eight. American public will endorse albeit demand American imperialism and oil colonialism provided it brings back the retail price of gasoline and heating oil to below $1-a-gallon for American consumers. American BigOil raping America, American economy and American public to enrich themselves and their OPEC masters, just as Black agents of White slave traders captured blacks in Africa and delivered them to Slave ships. Profits of American BigOil do not promote the national interests of America rather harms it. It is high time that American State should directly own the oil and gas reserves of the Middle East, as then only it would reduce taxes, public debt and trade imbalances.

Nine. Indian Empire controlled 100% of Iranian oil and 48% of Iraqi oil before 1947. Iraq is an artificial state and partitioning Iraq along ethnic and religious lines would peace and prosperity in Iraq. American occupation and colonization of Iraq is good for Iraqi people and American troops should maintain permanent presence in Iraq. These are the arguments author makes in this Chapter.

 

31(0) Talk Points

Bigger UN Role in Iraq

With terrorism on the rise in Iraq and American forces stretched to the limit, the Bush administration in Sept 2003, stepped back from its stubborn resistance to greater United Nations involvement in Peacekeeping Operations in Iraq. The Bush administration’s sudden embrace of a broader UM role should not be limited to security issues. United States wanted the United Nations to work with American-appointed Iraqi Governing Council to develop a timetable for constitutional rule and return to Iraqi sovereignty. But for that the UNO will have to have to be given broader political authority and the World Bank And International Monetary Fund must also have the right to rule on policy decisions affecting the long-term disposition of Iraq’s economic resources, mainly oil. Bringing security, democracy and prosperity to postwar Iraq was too big a challenge for the Washington to have taken on alone. Perhaps the looming presidential Election due in November 2004 influenced the decision of President Bush. The Catholics and Jews of the Neo-conservatives might have decided to support the democratic nominee in the elections 2004.

 

Decline of Russia Fueled American Empire

American could attack Iraq with impunity and forced the UN Security Council to approve its illegal occupation as legal Occupying Power of Iraq, because weakened and partitioned Russia realized that Russia would lose rather than gain by opposing American oil colonialism. Besides Iraq hadn’t offered any great rewards to Russia for opposing American oil colonialism. Without the declared support of Russia, the oil-rich Non-Aligned Iraq had no chance. The international system had been tri-polar world from 1947 to 1990, where the Capitalist First World, Socialist Second World and the Non Aligned Third World maintained their respective turfs. Non Aligned Nations leveraged their relationship with the Soviet Union to keep American imperialism at bay. The Soviet Union leveraged its better relationship with Non Aligned World to attain parity with the United States, in spite of vast differences in economic power. The demise of the Soviet Union and the submissiveness of Russian President Boris Yeltsin and weakened Russia allowed President Bill Clinton to invade and subjugate Non Aligned Yugoslavia. Russia under president Putin regained part of the Russia’s former stature, but Putin’s determined drive to define Russia’s national interests as European power apparently jettisoned Soviet-era pro Non-Alignment foreign policy posture. The weakness of Germany, France and Russia to oppose American invasion of Iraq allowed America to establish colony in Iraq. United Nations Security Council approved the Occupying Power status for United States and Britain and gave United States the control over Iraqi oil.

 

Return of Colonialism

A new Age of Colonial Empires began in May 2003. The diplomacy of the 21st Century would be similar to the 18th and 19th Century, where European Powers, Russia included would conduct diplomacy based on the principles of Concert of Europe, Congress system of Diplomacy and Great Powers right to establish colonial Empires to secure supplies of strategic raw materials crucial for the survival of their national economies. Non Aligned Movement lost its friend in Russia and Russia would formulate its foreign policy as a traditional European power jockeying for influence all over the world.

 

Coming Scramble for Oil Colonies

President Bush acknowledged that America is the Occupying Power in Iraq and that it invaded Iraq to loot its oil wealth, when America’s Resolution to the UN Security Council in May ’03 requested UNO to transfer the control over Iraqi oil to America for one year as Occupying Power. America invaded Afghanistan to control the Turkmenistan-Pakistan oil and gas pipeline and camouflaged it in name of America’s War on Islamic terrorism. America invaded Iraq to establish American oil colony over Iraq. Now, the Yankee imperialist cannibalistic colonial cat is out of the bag for the world to see. Russia is in a bind and if Russia failed to exercise its Veto, then it would lose its world power status and join the ranks of 2nd rate world powers, like France and Britain. Failure of Russia to Veto American proposal would catapult India and China into the exclusive club of top three world powers headed by United States. If Russia and France failed to Veto the America’s proposal to recognize America as the Occupying Power in Iraq then India should mend its fences with United States and deploy Indian Army to promote American imperialist agenda in the Middle East in exchange for Co-Occupying Power status in any future colonial occupation in the Middle East. India can no longer afford to sit on the fences. Rather than become the target of the future aggression, India should join the aggressors and share in the spoils of the war.

 

USA China India Top 3 World Powers

The top three A+ grade world powers are, namely, United States, India and China. The next three A- grade world powers are, namely, Russia, France, and Britain. The next B+ grade medium powers are, namely, Germany, Japan and Canada. No Muslim nation and no Jewish nation would ever join the ranks of world powers in 21st Century and beyond. The defeat of Iraq represented the downfall of Islam and foretold the colonial occupation of the Arab oil-producing nations in the first quarter of the 21st Century. Hindu India should cast its lot with the Protestant Crusaders seeking to colonize and conquer Islamic oil-producing nations, in exchange for India’s special privileges in the Christian oil colonial empires.

 

First, the America’s war on Iraqi is the continuation of the wars that United States waged on the leading Non Aligned Nations, namely, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Panama, Somalia, Ethiopia, Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola, and Zimbabwe. Almost all traditional Muslim states have supported America’s war on Iraq. India led the Non Aligned World to condemn America’s War on Iraq. India led the world in the post-victory condemnation of American invasion of Non Aligned Iraq. Second, The ancient civilizations India, Iran, Turkey and Iraq would come together to challenge predator Mecca Caliphate’s religious intolerance and bring the Caspian and Arabia oil-wealth under the control of Civilization States rather than corrupt rulers of the artificial states that American oil colonialism created. Third, American Oil companies and large multinational enterprises should get the legal authority to establish colonial administrations in the oil-producing countries, similar to the authority granted to the East India Company by British Monarch during Colonial age. Fourth, America conceptualized, legitimized and popularized the concept of Semite Wahhabi Sunni fundamentalism as the basis of new State and gave birth to the new age of American Caliphate. Just as Ottoman Turks the descendants of the Arab conquerors that destroyed Baghdad in 1258 and Tamer Lane, who destroyed Baghdad in 1401, the American conquest of Iraq, could result in the establishment of American Caliphate and as New Caliph United States would own all the rights to the Arab lands and oil and gas resources. Israel and Saudi Arabia should enter into a Confederation or Federation, and Israel-Saudi Arabia Semite Empire could rival Austro-Hungarian Empire, if Semite Saudi Arabia adopts fellow Semite Israel’s political system and laws and modernizes Saudi Arabia.

 

Fifth, America has the right to establish American colonies according to the New Middle East doctrine. American after conquering Iraq would impose America laws and American culture and customs over Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab lands, and replace Wahhabi laws. Sixth, the Zionist Lobby joined forces with Republican Neo-conservatives, Pro-segregation whites and Religious right conservative conspiracy and Semite Wahhabi cult to wage war on secular, liberal modern Iraq to impose Semite Wahhabi cult over Iraq. Seventh, France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, China and India opposed American oil colonialism over Iraq, primarily to demand fair share of the Iraqi oil loot. Rival great powers would not create obstacles in American oil colonial empire provided America agreed to share the oil loot with other great powers.

 

Eight, American would not bomb Iraq into economic disaster, as it bombed Vietnam with chemical weapons and Yellow Orange, because of the oil wealth of Iraq. American wanted to conquer and loot Iraqi oil, not to destroy Iraq. American wants to make profits by looting Iraqi oil. The continued occupation of Iraq would not make any sense if it did not generate cash or oil profits for American oil colonialism. Ninth, American has no desire to establish democracy in Iraq, and Americans would hate any patriotic Iraqi leader that Iraqi public would vote into power. America wants install puppet regime in Iraq who would agree to rape Iraq in the interest of American colonialism. Historically America had been the enemy of democracies in the Third World.

 

Tenth, Oil is the God for President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. President Bush has no Christian religious right conservative agenda in Iraq or elsewhere in the oil-rich Arabia. President Bush willing to impose the rule of barbarian Semite Wahhabi cult and Mecca Caliphate to honestly serve his god Oil in the Middle East. President Bush would sell his Christian God to serve his Wahhabi Allah if it gave America the Goddess of Oil buried deep under ground in the desert lands of Allah. President Bush’s war on Iraq is not a camouflage of Pope’s War. The Iraq war is not the apocalyptic war, however hard Pope John Paul II may like to become the End of Time. Eleventh, President Bush might overextend America, if Pentagon invaded either Syria, or Yemen or Iran after establishing oil colony in Iraq. India, Russia, China, France and Germany might join the war against United States on the side of the victim of American aggression, if America invaded Syria, Yemen, or Iraq to gain military control over the entire Arabian Peninsula.

 

Twelfth, India would military support the legitimate American dream to establish pax Americana, the global American empire and might even provide one million troops to create pax Americana as Indian Army did in the past to create pax Britannia, provided India gets the right to exploit the resources of one-fifth (20%) of the American colonial Empire. India would serve the interests of American Empire in exchange for a piece of the action as full partner in the Empire. Thirteenth, the 1966 Jason Study denounced the Pentagon’s desire to use of tactical nuclear weapons in the Vietnam War. Fourteenth, India should sign Anti Terror Alliance Treaty Organizations (ATATO) with other great powers, namely, United States, Russia, France and Germany and many Non Aligned Nations to destroy the global networks of the terrorists.

 

Fifteenth, President Chirac emerged as the nemesis of President Bush and catapulted France into the top status as the world’s second leading political power, and eclipsed Britain, Russia, China, and Japan as leading diplomatic super power of the world and humiliated Yankee America in the eyes of the world. Sixteenth, German concept of lebensraum justified President Bush’s invasions of Iraq to secure America’s need for secured supplies of oil and gas resources, essential for the very survival of American industrial economy. Seventeenth, the New Age of Oil Colonial Empire staged a comeback in the early 21st Century, because the oil colonies became highly profitable for the colonial rulers. European colonial Empires disintegrated after the Second World War because the increase in the cost of colonial administration and loss of tax revenue generated by colonies, made colonies net financial drain on the colonial rulers. In 2002, the entire Agricultural sector generated only 2% or $167 billion toward the $8.4 trillion GNP of the United States. If the entire farmlands of United States seceded from United States would leave behind 98% or $8.2 trillion GNP of the USA. Eighteenth, the Non Aligned Nations led by India proved the relevance of the Non Aligned Movement and rescued the United Nations from becoming irrelevant, when President Bush failed to buy, bribe, coerce or threaten to get Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Pakistan and Chile vote for British Resolution on Iraq. Lilliputians showed they have the power to chain Gulliver Bully America into chains in the corridors of the United Nations. All the kings horses and all ht kings men failed to buy the votes of five poor Non Aligned non-Permanent Members of the UN Security Council in 2003. Nineteenth, the entire Arab world, and the entire Muslim world humbly bowed in deference to President Bush and failed to utter a single world in opposition to American invasion of Muslim Iraq. Twentieth, America invaded Iraq to save American economy from total collapse, as without the infusion of free Iraqi oil, American economy would have collapsed as Big Frauds had drained the capital from Wall Street Firms and stashed that ill-gotten wealth in foreign tax heavens. The Unmighty dollar might have started its steep decline had not America established oil colony in Iraq. President Bush legitimized the great powers new right of economic self defense, which allowed them to undertake preemptive strikes to secure oil supplies necessary for their economic survival. Twenty-first, Iraqis fought valiantly but were defeated by the MOAB Big Bomb that killed by asphyxia after sucking the breathable oxygen from the Stadium size area. The MOAB and its predecessor Daisy Cutter should be banned like the poisonous gases.

 

War On Non Aligned Nation

White Western Christendom except France, Germany and Belgium, and East and Central Europe united behind United States and Britain in the rape of Iraq. There was no opposition to the conquest of Iraq in the ruling elite of United States, even when everyone agreed that it was a wrong war and wrong way to dismantle Iraq. The consent of the White Christian world and the Islamic world for the American conquest and rape of Iraq is an eye opener for India and Iran. No body sheds any tear for Non Aligned Yugoslavia and even the State of Yugoslavia ceased to exist. The seven largest economies of the world, namely, United States, China, Japan, Germany, France and Britain and tenth largest economy Russia, should pause and reflect about the nature of the new world order and the legitimacy of the Oil Colonial Empires. America targeted Non Aligned nations and systematically neutralized the leaders of the Non Aligned Nations, namely, Sukarno of Indonesia, Anwar Sadat of Egypt, Post-Tito Yugoslavia and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. America targeted Iran and Syria. What should be India’s response to the American invasions of Iraq? Should India sign defense pact with Iran to check eastward expansion of American oil colonialism?

 

Nature of War On Iraq

The ancient civilizations of Eurasia, India, Iran, Turkey and Iraq might come together to challenge predator Mecca Caliphate’s religious intolerance and bring the Caspian and Arabia oil-wealth under the control of larger populated nations rather than corrupt rulers of the artificial states that American oil colonialism created after Ottoman Empire, Indian Empire and Soviet Empire broke up, after the World War I, world War II and the Cold War respectively. The geopolitical national interests of Islamist Turkey, Islamist Iran and secular Iraq, coincide with the interests of Hindu India, and violently conflicts with the interests of Christian American oil colonialism as well as with the religious interests of Saudi Wahhabi terrorism. The 2003 War on Iraq, primarily war for Iraqi oil, to establish American colonial rule over Iraq and to eliminate Iraq’s challenge to Saudi Arabia, and to legitimize the new age of colonial empires in the 21st Century. Is America’s war on Iraq, the West’s war on a Non Aligned Nation? America neutralized leading Non Aligned Nations, and leaders of Non Alignment Movement, namely, President Sukarno or Indonesia, dismembered post-Tito Yugoslavia, brought Husni Murabak’s Egypt into American Camp and gave visa support to murderers of the post-Nasser President of Egypt. Iraq had been a leading member of the Non Alignment Movement. Is America’s war on Iraq, a war on secular, liberal, multi-ethnic countries? America promoted Islamic terrorism, Wahhabi fundamentalism, Osama Bin Laden, Taliban and even Al Qaeda to promote destabilize secular, liberal Islamic regimes in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia. Is America’s war on Iraq, a war waged to impose the tyranny of Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate over Baghdad, the historical adversary of Mecca?

 

Wahhabi Caliphate of Mecca

British and American oil colonialism had created the artificial states of Saudi Arabia and Iraq to promote Islamic Wahhabi Mecca as new Caliphate of Arab states in the oil-rich Arabia. In 1921 after the World War I, Ottoman Empire is broken, and under British protectorate Iraq is created as a monarchy, with Mecca-origin Hashemite King Faisal ibn Husayn (King Faisal I) on the throne, which gave Wahhabi Clergy monopoly over religious affairs, and British colonialism monopoly over economic, military and foreign affairs. In 1958, the Iraqi army seizes power in a coup, perhaps inspired by the CIA, and machine-gunned King Faisal II in the courtyard of the palace and a decade of military rule follows. In 1968, Baath Party seizes control of Iraq. In 1979, Saddam Hussein becomes president of Iraq. Saddam Hussein had been a CIA agent. The 2003 British American invasions of Iraq attempted to reestablish Wahhabi Mecca’s religious rule over Baghdad, and American Oil Colonialism’s monopoly over economic, military, political and foreign affairs in post-Saddam Iraq. India, Iran, Iraq and Turkey became natural military allies in their common opposition to the Saudi Wahhabi fundamentalism.

 

Let Christian Woman Rule Saudi Arabia

Muslim conquerors of Christian Egypt, Libya and Syria in 7th Century, enslaved the entire populations and massacred the men and imposed Islam, so they should not mind if Americans imposed Christian rule over Christian lands that were military converted into Islam in 7th Century. America and the Vatican trying to impose white, Italy-born Catholic Sonia Gandhi as prime minister of Hindu India, then it should be OK, if American oil colonialism imposed the rule of white Europe-born Christian women, married to Saudi Arabian or Arabs as the ruler of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen and Qatar etc. American oil administration in OPEC nations should make English language the official language of the Arab nations and replace Shariah laws with American laws and guarantee full freedom and rights to Arab women. Islam and Christianity should be declared the two official religions and Arabic and English as two official languages throughout American oil colonies in the OPEC nations and the Arab world. North Africa and Mediterranean Arabia was Christian land before Muslims imposed Islam by sword. It is high time that Christian governments take control over Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Christianity and women can no longer be suppressed in the New Middle East.

 

Israel-Saudi Arabia Confederation

Like the proverbial Austro-Hungarian Empire, the new confederation Judeo-Saudi Arabia should replace the states of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Jewish State of Israel, so that the Semite Al Saud Family may jointly rule the Arabian Peninsula with their Semite brethren Jews of Israel. American and British colonialism promoted secular Kemalism in Turkey to erase the influence of Ottoman Caliphate. However United States may harness the military power of Turkey to reestablish Turkey’s control over OPEC nations so that American colonialism may jointly exploit the oil incomes of OPEC nations. Only way Arab nations may remain independent could be when Saudi Arabia federates with nuclear Pakistan, so that as the part of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait may retain their Islamic character and freedom. In the age of colonial empires, no OPEC nations could possibly remain independent, just as Shariah prohibits Muslim women to venture outside home, unless unaccompanied by a male member of the family. It would be advisable that every oil-producing country should negotiate a term of confederation with one of the great powers, so that as part of the colonial empires, they may not become booty in the scramble for oil colonies. No OPEC nations would remain independent in the new age of colonial empires that began with the America’s invasions of Iraq. To promote stability in the world, great powers should accept America’s right to establish oil colony in Iraq and to exploit Iraq’s oil resources at will to promote the prosperity of America. The world order became bipolar world order again in 2003, and United States and France emerged as the two poles of the new world order. This is the argument author makes in this chapter.

 

31(i Halliburton Muslim Caliphate

BigOil as Colonial Administrators

Just as Ottoman Turks established Ottoman Caliphate over Islamic world following 1258 Mongol invasions of Baghdad and 1401 Tamerlane invasions of Baghdad, similarly American Big Oil can establish American Caliphate after the President Bush’s invasions of Iraq. The white House should allow leading American oil companies to establish colonial rule over oil-producing countries, just as the CIA arranged covert operations to engineer the regime change. The Big Oil in 21st Century would establish colonial administration on behalf of colonial powers, just as the CIA encouraged coups to bring about regime changes for American government. Given the change and legal authority the Big Oil Multinational enterprises are better equipped to engineer the regime change in the hostile states, without causing too much opposition in the United Nations. In 1953, the CIA established its credentials as better equipped than even Pentagon to arrange regime changes in the Non Aligned world, without risking Soviet deterrence. Iranian Prime Minister Mosadegh nationalized Iran’s oil industry in 1951 and demanded the withdrawal of British troops protecting the oil complex at Abadan. Great Britain no longer felt strong enough to undertake military action so close to the Soviet border without American support, which was not forthcoming, and Britain withdrew to Suez Canal, which it thought was a fallback position in its major base along the Suez Canal. The challenge posed by Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh ended two yeas later in 1953, when the CIA with the full backing of the United States encouraged and mobilized the military coup to overthrow and kill Mossadegh and install the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as Emperor of Iran. In those days, and even now, White House considered the CIA-led covert operations more legitimate and less risky than military intervention in the Cold War. Great Britain’s preeminence was never restored.

 

Yankee Gazi warriors raised the banner of Mecca Caliphate to impose Wahhabi rule over secular liberal Baghdad and established Yankee Oil colony over world’s second largest oil reserves in March ’03. Saudi Wahhabi clergy should honor President Bush with the tile of Great Gazi for eliminating the greatest threat new Mecca Caliphate faced from secular Baghdad Caliphate. President Bush could be doing the dirty job for the Wahhabi clergy in secular Iraq. President Bush’s war on Iraq definitely not the war of Christian Crusades on Islam’s citadel Baghdad. President Bush’s war on Iraq could turn out to be the war of Wahhabi fundamentalism over secular Islam, fought by hired Christian American soldiers, hoodwinked by American oil colonialism.

 

President Bush served the religious interests of Wahhabi Mecca by conquering secular Baghdad in 2003. Pentagon’s war on Iraq is the war fought by American soldiers to promote the economic interests of American Big Oil and religious interests of Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate. President Bush’s war on Iraq is not the war of Christian Crusades against Islam. President Bush waged war on Iraq to eliminate Iraqi threats to the rising Mecca Caliphate. American President Bill Clinton put Saudi Wahhabi fundamentalist Osama Bin Laden in 1995 into power in Afghanistan, in alliance with Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Pakistan to protect the interests of American Oil colonialism in Afghanistan and over Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India oil and gas pipelines and to provide safe passage to Wahhabi terrorists who faced sure death at hands of Northern Alliance troops. President Bill Clinton ordered military coup against democratically elected Nawaj Sharief because he threatened to arrest Osama Bin Laden and challenged American Big Oil in the oil pipeline project. President Bush invaded Iraq to establish American oil colony over Iraq, and to eliminate Iraqi threat to Saudi Arabia and New Mecca Caliphate. President Jimmy Carter organized public unrest against Shah of Iran and overthrew the democratically elected government of prime minister Bani Sadr to install arch fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini into power, to eliminate the threat of Imperial Iran to Saudi Arabia and Mecca Caliphate. Just as Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda became rulers of Afghanistan, the Wahhabi clergy and Halliburton Big Oil would become de facto if not de jure rulers of Iraq and other Arab OPEC nations in the first few decades of the 21st Century as the result of American wars of Oil colonialism in Iraq. American oil colonialism and Wahhabi Islamic fundamentalism are the two sides of the same coin of American Diplomacy that America pursued in the Middle East to eliminate the threat French and British oil colonialism posed to the American Big Oil in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Yemen and Oman after the First World War that ended in 1919.

 

Just as Sunni Caliph murdered Prophet Ali to ward off the challenge of Shiites, pretenders to 2nd Mecca Caliphate, the Wahhabi Saudi Arabia harnessed the power of American oil colonialism, to goad and cajole President Bus to invade secular, liberal Iraq to impose the rule of Wahhabi Shariah and to establish American oil colonialism in Iraq, to eliminate any future challenges or threats of potential Baghdad Caliphate to Mecca Caliphate. President Bush did a great service to Mecca by invading Baghdad to eliminate the pretender Caliph of Islam, the Saddam Hussein. The year 2003 is the history’s turning point and it would herald the rise of American Caliphate of Islam, or Halliburton Islamic Caliphate, and represented the victory of Wahhabi Sunni fundamentalism and American oil colonialism. American oil colonialism would nurture, protect and propagate the fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam in exchange for the transfer of property rights over all Arab oil and gas resources in perpetuity to American oil colonialism.

 

President Pervez Musharraf in his televised speech in Pakistan defended his decision to allow United States direct access to military bases in Pakistan for waging war on Afghanistan to overthrow pro-Pakistan Wahhabi Taliban regime of Afghanistan. Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh had offered United States the use of Indian space and military bases for conducting America’s war on Islamic terrorism in Afghanistan. President Pervez Musharraf argued that Prophet Mohammed would have done the same and offered military bases to Pakistan so that United States would not align with India to invade Afghanistan. Prophet Mohammed after he took over Medina learnt that Mecca open negotiations with Jews to ward of the threat of Medina. Jews had the option to either join the war on the side of Mecca or Medina. In exchange for circumcision and Jewish dietary habits Jews agreed to militarily and financially support Medina to capture Mecca. Had prophet Mohammed not sought the alliance of Jews and accepted circumcision and Jewish dietary habits the Jews would have lent support to Mecca to destroy Medina. Mecca was goddess worshippers city and it Mecca worshipped Hindu goddesses. Jews realized that iconoclast Islam would become ally of Jews and Jews would realize immense wealth by financing Muslim raiding parties. Medina realized that without the support of Jews Mecca would overtake Medina and the Islam would die a premature death. As a result of the pact of Prophet-led Medina with Jews, the Damascus Jews financed Muslim armies to conquer the Arab challengers to the domination of Medina and brought Mecca under the control of Prophet.

 

Zionist Cabal would profit by looting Iraqi oil and make fair rewards for its role in the emerging Mecca-Washington-Tel Aviv Axis. Mecca entered into pact with Washington and Tel Aviv to loot the riches of Baghdad in 2003, just as ruler of Medina Prophet Mohammed had signed pact with Jews to invade and conquer Mecca in the 7th Century. With the help of Zionist Cabal and Yankees Wahhabi Mecca would conquer infidel secular Baghdad and loot the riches of Iraq. During 1920’s Wahhabi King Abdul Aziz al Saud argued that Wahhabi Mecca could challenge the might of Ottoman Caliphate only after entering into an alliance with American Empire and American Oil Colonialism, as latter would enforce the domination of Mecca to secure their oil interests in Arabia. During 2003, present King Fahd argued that Wahhabi Mecca and Al Saud Monarchy should align with American oil colonialism and Zionist Cabal to harness the power of Yankee soldiers to destroy secular Baghdad’s challenge to Mecca, just as Prophet Mohammed had secured Medina’s alliance with Jews to destroy the might of pagan Mecca. Semite House of Al Saud is brother to the Zionist Cabal elite.

 

Numerous fancy conspiracy theory making rounds among journalists and scholars who might be giving more credit to the leaders they actually deserve in terms of their ability or propensity to conspire, plan and implement long-range conspiracies. Israeli Jews and American Jews learnt the profits that could be made by joining forces with their fellow Semite brethren in Saudi Arabia. World’s largest financial powerhouse Citigroup is the partnership of Jews and Saudi prince Talal, and Jews alliance with Semite prince allowed Sandy Weill expel the Protestant Co-chairman of the Citigroup the former in charge of the Citibank. It is no accident that the principal beneficiary of the Saudi Wahhabi terrorist hijackers attack on Twin towers had been a Jew that had only a month ago signed the long term net lease with the Port Authority and pocketed more than $3 billion in profits by a single insurance claims, and suing the insurance carrier for another $ 3 billion claims. American Ambassador had goaded Saddam Hussein in 1990 to invade Kuwait by suggesting that United States would remain neutral if Iraq invaded Kuwait. However, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, United States established permanent military presence in the Arabian Gulf States. Some black leaders suspect that Jews could have been part of the conspiracy that led to the 9/11 attacks, hoping that such an attack would result in the America’s invasions of the oil-producing Arab world. Whatever sort of conspiracy be true, it is certain that would have the direct involvement of all three principal predator players, namely, Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Jewish Israel and Protestant American oil colonialism. Who would find fault with America’s rape of Iraqi oil, if the custodian of Mecca declared the conquest of Iraq in the interest of Islam and Wahhabi Mecca.

 

Semite Jews joined forces with Semite Saudi Arabia to loot the oil-riches of non-Semite Iraq, just as Jews had supported Mecca-led invasions of Christian-Hindu Egypt, Syria and Libya to loot the riches of Egypt. The Washington-Mecca-Tel Aviv alliance would loot Iraq and promote Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate and bring Semite OPEC nations under the colonial occupation of Jews. Hindu India might not mind Jewish occupation of Saudi Arabia. However, India would militarily oppose the emerging Mecca-Tel Aviv-Washington Axis if after establishing colonial rule over secular oil-producing Islamic nations, Judaic-Islam axis deny India a fair share of the oil loot. Wahhabi King Fahd and House of Al Saud understood that only by serving the interests of Yankee Oil and Jews could Mecca Caliphate ward off the challenge of secular civilized Islamic nations, namely, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Pakistan. To enrich the House of Al Saud the Riyadh would join forces with Washington and Tel Aviv to rape the oil riches of Baghdad, Tehran, Tripoli, Algiers, Baku, Aschabad and, Dusanbe. America’s alliance with Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and Israel would provide Wahhabi legitimacy to the rape of Islamic oil-rich nations by Jews and America as Wahhabi wars in defense of Mecca Caliphate. Just as Pope sold indulgences for gold, Wahhabi Saudi Arabia would provide the Wahhabi fundamentalist support for the American conquest of other oil-rich Islamic nations, in exchange for share of the oil-loot payable to the Wahhabi House of Al Saud. It is no accident that no Wahhabi Muslim country gave even lip sympathy to Iraq. Jews conceptualized Islam, Communism and Wahhabi fundamentalism to loot the riches of ancient Egypt, Russian Empire and oil-riches of Arabia, respectively. Jews and Americans would propagate the virtues of Wahhabi dogmas to lead Islamic Civilization for self-destruction and bondage to Jews and Christians.

 

Just as Jews devised the concoction of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism simply to loot the riches of Orthodox imperial Russia, the Damascus Jews devised the Wahhabi dogma to promote Mecca as the center of Islamic fundamentalism to undermine Ottoman Caliphate, so that Jews and Christian Empires could loot the riches of the Islamic world. Wahhabi doctrine would make Jews the de facto rulers of the Arab world and destroy civilized, liberal, modern Islamic world and impose barbarian uncivilized fundamentalist Islam over civilized Islam, so that American oil colonialism and Jews could loot the oil riches of Arab lands and subjugate Muslim women to the bondage of Wahhabi Mecca. The 20th Century Wahhabi Mecca realized that Jews had played important role in the formulation of Islamic theology to make Islam the useful for joint Judeo-Islamic conquest and loot of Christian Egypt and Syria. American oil colonialism explained to the Mecca clergy that America playing same role that Jews played in the Medina’s conquest of Mecca during the time of Prophet. Wahhabi dogmas the theological concoction devised by Jews and American colonialism to destroy the power of multi-ethnic Islamic Caliphate. Jews developed the doctrine of Wahhabi to bring Arab Muslim nations under the colonial occupation of America and Jews. Wahhabi fundamentalism is not the jewel of Islam but a Zionist conspiracy to destroy Islam and make Muslims slaves of Jews and Christians.

 

President Bush’s invasion of Iraq would permanently destroy the power of Baghdad and Iraq would never again become a center of Islamic power for centuries to come. President Bush established the American Caliphate of Islam in the process of the ouster of Saddam Hussein and by the fact that almost every OPEC nation and most of Muslim nations supported the America’s invasions of Iraq. Just as Ottoman Caliphate replaced the Mongol Caliphate the Halliburton Caliphate would rule the Arab world and oil-producing OPEC world for at least a Century. Like the Habsburg Holy Roman Empire that promoted the interests of the Papacy as well as the dominant power of the Europe, Halliburton Wahhabi Islamic Caliphate would promote the religious interests of the Wahhabi clergy of Mecca as well as the political, military and economic interests of American Oil colonialism.

 

American Army would do to Baghdad and Iraq in 2003, what Mongol Army did in 1258 to Baghdad Caliphate. Mongol Empire in 1258 invaded Baghdad and sewed alive the Caliph of Baghdad Caliphate, the supreme head of the Muslim Ummah into a leather sack and pulped him under horse hoofs and destroyed the Baghdad Caliphate, and established Mongol Caliphate and Baghdad never again became the seat of Islamic power except during Saddam Hussein, seven centuries later. The descendants of Mongols, the Ottomans conquered the Byzantine and established the Ottoman Caliphate that survived till after the First World War. During the rule of Halliburton Caliphate of Islam, fundamentalist Wahhabi clergy and religious police would continue to beat Muslim women forcing them into servitude and American oil colonialism would pay less than $2 per barrel to the Arab leaders as colonial royalty for extracting crude oil in Arab oil fields. American Empire would not impose the rule of Christianity or Papacy anywhere in the American oil colonialism. American army would become the standard bearers of fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam so long as American’s get all the oil they need at the discounted price they want. Wahhabi clergy of Mecca grateful for American Caliphate for undertaking Jihad against infidel, secular, liberal, anti-fundamentalist wine-drinker Saddam Hussein.

 

The March 20th 2003 is the day for rejoice and celebration throughout the Wahhabi fundamentalist world as on this day was launched the war against anti-Wahhabi, anti-fundamentalist, secular, liberal modern Iraqi Islam that refused to put women into bondage and veil and allowed Iraqi people to drink openly and flaunt Shariah codes. Halliburton Caliphate of Islam would herald centuries of prosperity and righteous government throughout the Islamic Ummah, where American would guarantee to impose Wahhabi fundamentalism in exchange for total control over oil and gas resources and other exploitable mineral resources of the nation.

 

So long as Muslim countries consent to become part of the American colonial Empire, America would empower Wahhabi clergy to impose strictest Shariah laws to subjugate their women and men. Led by fundamentalist Wahhabi clergy Muslim nations would divest their worldly possessions to Halliburton Caliphate of Islam and gain unfettered right to beat their women into bondage and servitude. America’s war on Iraq is a counter reformation war of Islamic Jihad to propagate the Wahhabi sect over secular, liberal Islamic world, and has the full support and backing of Wahhabi Ulema and Saudi Grand Mufti, because it is good for Wahhabi sect. In line with the Bush administration’s goal of transforming secular, liberal Iraq into a Wahhabi theocracy, those who have seen the American war plans forecast that American officials will be appointed as shadow ministers in the American Colonial Administration or American Caliphate or Halliburton Islamic Caliphate, overseeing Wahhabi clergy in government ministries to safeguard the American colonial interests, while promoting Wahhabi religious interests in Iraq and other targeted Islamic nations.

 

Protestant neo-conservatism and Saudi Wahhabi fundamentalism are two sides of the same coin of American oil colonialism. Osama Bin Laden and Wahhabi fundamentalists continued to be the agents of the CIA. Mecca’s Wahhabi clergy could pressure the White House to support Wahhabi overthrow of the House of Al Saud Monarchy in Saudi Arabia, in exchange for America’s confiscation of the entire royal family assets and property worldwide. To secure unfettered control and access over Arab oil, America would continue to support Wahhabi fundamentalist terrorism in the name to establish Second Mecca Caliphate of Islam. President Bush would go down in Wahhabi history as great Jihadi that imposed the rule of fundamentalist Wahhabism over secular liberal apostate Baghdad, bringing it under the control of Second Mecca Caliphate. Just as Sunni army murdered the Prophet Ali and his family, Wahhabi supporters of America want secular, liberal Iraq to die and give birth to Wahhabi Iraq, to destroy any pretensions of the Second Baghdad Caliphate, as it would destroy the chances of the Second Mecca Caliphate. No wonder Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE loved and respected President Bush for invading secular Iraq, and would some day honor him with the title of Savior of Wahhabi Islam. As member of Halliburton Islamic Caliphate the Wahhabi Saudi Arabia would implore, goad and petition America to continue Pentagon’s noble mission to destroy more secular, liberal, wine-drinking, pro-feminist Islamic nations, namely, Syria, Algeria, Egypt and Pakistan and to bring them under the rule of Wahhabi Shariah laws and American Oil Colonialism.

 

New Age of Oil Colonial Empires

President Bush changed history. The 2003 America’s war on Iraq is as prophetic and a turning point in history as 1501 Vasca da Gama naval invasion of India. The year 1501 heralded the new age of European maritime colonial Empires, in search of spices and gold. The year 2003 heralded the new age of Colonial oil Empires, and before 2010 all OPEC nations and most mineral-rich nations would come under the colonial occupation of great powers. After 1945, European colonial powers gave independence to colonies, because colonies no longer made net incomes for the colonial powers. Oil colonies would be highly profitable. American Oil Colonialism would not pay more than $2 per barrel for oil it would extract in Iraq and other oil-producing American oil colonies. American oil colonial administration in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and UAE would make United States very wealthy and shoot up Dow Jones indices over 30,000 from 8,000 in Feb. 2003. Colonial Empires have come to stay and American oil colonialism would be forced by the world powers to accept that other world powers, namely, France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Japan and Italy also have the unfettered rights to establish their oil colonies to safeguard their supplies of oil and gas. The scramble for oil colonies has begun in 2003, which would be much more ruthless than the proverbial gold rush of the past. Just as Britain looted the riches of India and Spain looted the gold of Incas and Mayas, the American oil colonies would be free to take home all the oil and gas they could extract from oil colonies by paying token royalty less than $2 per barrel. Oil colonialism would be a good business. India supports the rights of the Oil colonial powers to properly harvest the oil resources to promote prosperity of the colonial powers, in exchange for India’s right to establish oil colonies of its own. France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, China, Japan, and India would support American Oil colonialism, provided America accepts the rights of other world powers, to establish oil colonies of their own. The Colonial Empires not the plethora of independent states would be the players and units of the International system.

 

Arab Oil belonged to America

Just as American Indians sold the Island of Manhattan to white Europeans for few trinkets, the Wahhabi tribes sold for perpetuity all rights over Arab oil to Americans in exchange for Wahhabi control over Mecca & Medina after the First World War, then only American and British colonialism secured their independence from Ottoman Empire. In 1920, Wahhabi Clergy and tribes entered into a Faustian pact with American and British Oil Colonialism to transfer in perpetuity all property rights over Arabian oil resources to American Big Oil in Exchange for American and British support for promoting New Mecca Caliphate and Wahhabi Clergy’s totalitarian rule over religious matters and rule of Al Saud Family in Saudi Arabia. Armed with that pact Wahhabi tribes of Mecca signed with America the white Protestant Christian America acquired in perpetuity as much rights over all Arab oil and gas resources, as White Americans have over Island of Manhattan that they bought for few trinkets from native American Indian tribes in Manhattan. President Bush’s war on Iraq is not a war of Christianity over Islam, as the net outcome of the American invasions on Iraq would be imposition of fundamentalist Wahhabi Sunni Shariah over secular, liberal modern Iraq. Technically, America’s victory over Iraq would be victory of Wahhabi fundamentalism over secular, liberal modern Islam. President Bush’s war on Iraq is not Christian Crusades on Islam, because Protestant Bush may support Protestant Religious Right conservative Conspiracy, which is engaged in the mortal combat with Catholic Religious Right conservative conspiracy and no wonder conservative Pope John Paul II, vehemently opposed to the military adventurism of Protestant Empire, without consulting Vatican. President Bush can never be insulted as Pope’s lieutenant. Zionist Cabal did not fool, cajole, of bribe President Bush and Dick Cheney to invade Iraq to serve the national interests of Israel, because the Bush oil presidency and Bush oil administration would establish American Oil Colonial Empire, not to become the servants of fiefdoms of Jews and Israel, and would like to buy Jews rather than be bought by Jews. President Bush no impressionable kid that the shrewd Zionist Cabal would bribe, threaten or blackmail to invade Iraq. The decision to invade Iraq is President Bush’s personal decision and he alone responsible for its rewards and retributions. The New Middle East (NME) could take two routes. America could either support Wahhabi clergy to overthrow the corrupt regimes, and allow Osama Bin laden confiscate the assets of Saudi Royal family members, just as the CIA spy Ayatollah Khomeini did in Iran. American oil colonialism might find it cheaper to satisfy the financial needs of the Wahhabi clergy than Saudi princes. American could overthrow the Al Saud monarchy in partnership with Osama Bin laden or Mecca’s Wahhabi clergy. Otherwise America could impose Kemalist, secular European laws, and abolish the rule of Wahhabi clergy and transform Wahhabi monarchies or sheikdoms into European style monarchies.

 

American oil colonies may not find it convenient to pay two rival centers of power in Saudi Arabia, the greedy princes as well as Wahhabi clergy. American oil colonialism could jettison either one of them or both, once they directly establish American colonial administration in OPEC nations. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Iraq never existed as nations in human history and they were artificial nations created by American and British colonialism, so the latter have every right to end their existence as independent nations, whenever they so please.

 

31(ii) Age of Oil Colonialism

Wahhabi Yankee Oil Colonialism

President Bush’s war on Iraq represented the joint invasions of Iraq by forces of Wahhabi fundamentalism and American Oil Colonialism. Christian President Bush waging war on apostate, secular, liberal Iraqi Islam to eliminate the challenge the Second Baghdad Caliphate might present to the rise of Second Mecca Caliphate. American Oil Colonialism sealed the Faustian Pact with the Wahhabi clergy that sought to reestablish Second Mecca Caliphate after the downfall of the secular Ottoman Caliphate. President Bush’s war on Iraq is not the war of Christian Crusades against Islam, but the war on behalf of Wahhabi Jihad against secular, liberal Iraqi Islam. Iraqi secularism, liberalism and feminism presented greater threat to the 2nd rise of Mecca Caliphate or Wahhabi fundamentalism than Protestant American Oil Colonialism. Wahhabi fundamentalism and American war on Iraq are the two sides of the same coin of American oil colonialism.

 

It is no accident the former CENTO pact members, namely, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan have fundamentalist Muslim governments in place at the outset of hostilities to secular, liberal Iraq and the American victory over Iraq would bring the all Islamic nations from Europe to India under the fundamentalist Islamic governments. American conquest and subjugation of secular Iraq if resulted in the establishment of Wahhabi regime in Iraq would seriously undermine India’s security. American conquest of Iraq if resulted in the establishment of Halliburton colonies in Saudi Arabia to establish American oil colonialism in Saudi Arabia would greatly strengthen the security of India. Indian business welcomed the onward march of American oil colonialism in Iraq hoping it would bring Wahhabi Saudi Arabia under colonial occupation of American Big Oil. India is ardent supporter of American Oil Colonialism but vehement opponent of Saudi Wahhabi fundamentalism. Whether India would go to war in support of American oil colonialism or go to war against American imperialism, depended upon whether American conquest of Iraq resulted in the establishment of secular American colonial administration or Wahhabi fundamentalist government in Iraq. India would define its position on America’s war on Iraq, in terms of whether it enhanced the power of Mecca Caliphate or weakened it making it subservient to American Caliphate of Halliburton Islamic Caliphate. India would prefer that the outcome of the America’s Iraq invasions resulted in the establishment of American Oil Colonial administrations throughout OPEC nations, governed by American laws and English language. India would go to war against United States on the side of Iraq, Syria and Algeria if American invasions of Iraq resulted in the repeal of Iraqi secular laws to replace them with Saudi Wahhabi Shariah laws. India and United States would become adversaries if in the aftermath of the American invasions of Iraq, Shariah laws replaced Iraqi secular laws, as had happened in Iran, when President Jimmy Carter implanted the CIA spy Ayatollah Khomeini over Iran, who replaced secular, modern Iranian society and laws by arch-fundamentalist Islamic society and imposed Shariah laws. India would support America’s secular oil colonialism and neo-imperialist wars but would go war against United States, if United States lent its military might to impose Wahhabi fundamentalism over other modern, liberal secular Islamic societies, namely, Syria, Libya and Algeria. Under no circumstance would India support the America’s invasions of Ayatollah run Iran, except for the imposition of the Pahlavi monarchy led by son of former Shah of Iran.

 

Clash of Religions or Clash of Powers

The world order became bipolar world order again in 2003, and United States and France emerged as the two poles of the new world order. President Bush’s war on Iraq split world powers into two hostile camps, the imperial group led by United States and the counter-group led by France and Germany, Russia and China. The world became Bipolar again by America’s war on Iraq. The absence of media opposition to President Bush’s war on Iraq, reminded the non-white world about the mass support wars of colonial expansion enjoyed in the Western World from 16th to 19th Century. Every white Christian applauded the Belgium King’s massacre and tortures of blacks in Congo as correct acts for promoting Christianity. The adamant French opposition to the American invasions ruled out the general conspiracy of the white races to occupy Iraqi oil fields. America’s war on Iraq is not the wars of White race on brown Arab race. The Wahhabi regimes of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and Kuwait rejoiced over America’s war on Iraq. The Ruler of Abu Dhabi advised Saddam Hussein to abdicate and allow the armed forces of Arab League nations to enter Iraq and rule and govern Iraq for some years before the political power in Iraq could be transferred to the democratically elected leaders of Iraqi people. The Wahhabi Saudi Arabia hoped that American military occupation of Iraq might result in the Wahhabi government in Iraq, after the gap of four decades, after Wahhabi King Faisal II murdered in military coup in 1958. America’s war on Iraq is not Christianity’s war on Muslim Iraq. America’s war on Iraq could turn out to be the war on behalf of fundamentalist Wahhabi theocracy over liberal, secular, modern Iraq. America invading Iraq to promote the Second Mecca Caliphate and to undermine the threat Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran represented to the Mecca Caliphate for the coveted post of the new Islamic Caliphate after the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate after the First World War. Protestant Christian America helping Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate crush the rival centers of Islamic powers in Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran. America’s war on Iraq could be termed as war for Mecca Caliphate and Wahhabi Islam. By no stretch of imagination, the war against Iraq, waged by Protestant religious right conservative conspiracy, Neo-conservatism and American Oil colonialism, could be denounced as Catholic Christian Crusades against Islam. American oil colonialism would conquer, colonize and occupy Islamic Arab world and establish American oil colonies by virtue of the pact Wahhabi clergy signed with the American colonialism, to transfer all Arab oil resources to America in exchange for Wahhabi clergy’s totalitarian rule over Mecca and Medina. Wahhabi Mecca would rejoice over the downfall, subjugation and colonization of secular, liberal and modern Iraq. So long as America would allow Wahhabi clergy totalitarian religious powers and power to subjugate women, Wahhabi clergy would consent for the subjugation of the Arab nation states to American colonialism.

 

Victory of Oil Capitalism & Americanism

America’s victory over Iraq geopolitically represented the victory of Capitalist Oil Colonialism and Protestant Americanism and the defeat of Islam and Papacy. God is on the side of Protestant Emperor president George W. Bush of America in 2003 and history might write that the victory of America represented the victory of Protestant Christianity. It is no wonder that neither Catholic nations, namely, France, Germany and Italy nor Roman Catholic Church led by Pope John Paul II liked the victory of the Protestant American Empire and Oil Capitalism. The Washington-Mecca Axis, the Oil-Wahhabi Axis undermined the Vatican-Mecca axis as well as Catholicism-Wahhabi axis of fundamentalist Monotheism. Throughout history the dominant ideologies and values of the leaders of the dominant powers of the world defined the nature of the world Civilization. Mecca’s Bedouin tribes during 7th century conquered and raped the Christian and Hindu Civilizations of Syria, Egypt, Libya, to loot their wealth and took over their women and forced civilized men and women into slavery, and justified the brutal victory of Bedouin warriors as the victory of Islam and will of God. Victors have always claimed that it was God’s will that they emerged as victors and their acts were moral. Arab Muslims conquered and destroyed the religion and civilization of Zoroastrian Persia. Mecca would side with America, because New Mecca Caliphate fears the threats of rival centers of Islamic Caliphates, namely, Damascus, Baghdad and Ottoman, more than the threat of American oil colonialism, because of the time tested Washington-Mecca Axis that accepted American oil colonialism in exchange of Wahhabi control over Mecca, Medina and Muslim women. The laws of contracts protects the right of American oil colonialism to invade, conquer and colonize Arab oil and gas resources at will, so long America agreed to honor the commitments it made to the Wahhabi Sunni terrorist fundamentalism. America has as much right to occupy Arabian oil & gas fields as the rights over Manhattan Island it bought from American Indians for few trinkets. Just as Muslim proclaimed that the Muslim conquest of Egypt and Syria proved the superiority of Islam over religion of Egypt, the America’s victory over Iraq represents the victory of Protestant Christianity over Arabian Islam.

 

From Sumeria to Gulf War II

Protestant President Bush would do to Baghdad in 2003, what Buddhist Mongols did to Baghdad in 1258. America’s ruthless conquest of Iraq in 2003 would destroy the power of Iraq, just as the 1259 Mongol conquest of Baghdad destroyed permanently the Baghdad Caliphate. After the end of the Cold War in 1990, United States periodically attempted to establish oil colony over Iraq, just as British Empire in 1921, installed King Faisal I, as the puppet ruler of Iraq, and exercised economic, military and foreign policy control over Iraq. From 5000-3500 BC the story of Hindu goddess worshipping Sumerians, Babylonians and pre-Vedic Asura god worshipping Assyrians, developed phonetic writing, schools, libraries, medicine, glass, bridges, chariots, code of law and algebra. In 7th Century the magnificent Baghdad Caliphate arose with Baghdad as capital, which was founded in 762 AD, and remained capital of Islam for 500 years. In 1258 Buddhist Mongols from Asia conquered most of the Europe and Islamic world and executed Caliph and destroyed the power of Baghdad Caliphate, from which it could never recover. Iran’s Tamerlane attacked and sacked Baghdad in 1400’s. In 1535 Baghdad fell to the Ottoman Turks and thus began the four-century period of Ottoman rule in Iraq. In 1921, Iraq became a British colony under the nominal rule of King Faisal I. In 1932, Iraq became an independent kingdom. Iraq developed closer ties with Hitler’ Germany and after the War, Iraq became British Protectorate. Iraq would become American Protectorate in the event America won the 2003 Iraq war. However, if Iraq survived the American invasions, would doom the Wahhabi rule in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE and imperil American oil colonies in the Middle East.   

 

President Bush’s New World Order

The new age of colonial empires got the first contractions during president Bush’s speech and world anxiously watched, whether the delivery would be normal birth or still born, and whether the infant would be a monster or a normal child. In nutshell, America proclaimed its right to inherit Ottoman Empire and herald a new era of American Caliphate and American Oil Colonialism, and American Empire, as the part fulfillment of the pact Mecca’s Wahhabi leaders had signed with America and British Empire transferring the ownership of all Arab oil and gas rights in exchange for the Wahhabi control over Mecca. American Indians had done the same transaction when the sold the Island of Manhattan for few trinkets at the onset of European colonialism. President Bush’s 15 minutes speech on March 17, 2003 that gave 48 hours ultimatum to Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave Baghdad or face war, might create a new world order. President Bush launched the America’s war on terrorism in his speech on the joint session of the Congress a week after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. America’s invasion of Afghanistan as part of the war on Islamic terrorism, turned out to be the war for Caspian Central Asian oil and gas and American provided safe heaven to Osama Bin Laden and not even a single top Al Qaeda leader was ever arrested. Wahhabi Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan knew all the time that America’s war on Islamic terrorism camouflages the war for American oil colonialism. Similarly, America’s war on Saddam Hussein could be the war to loot the $27 billion assets of Saddam Hussein deposited in the Swiss banks and billions of dollars of Iraqi oil that would be looted and confiscated to pay for the American invasions of Iraq. America rewarded Pakistan for its support in favor of America’s war on Afghanistan. America would handsomely reward Britain and Spain for their support to America’s wars on Iraq. America rewarded Saudi Arabia and UAE for their support to America’s war on Afghanistan by sparing the lives of Wahhabi Taliban and Wahhabi Al Qaeda fundamentalists in Afghanistan. America would handsomely reward Wahhabi Saudi Arabia and UAE by imposing the Wahhabi rule to stabilize post-occupation Iraq. Washington Mecca Axis developed during First World War promoted the Mecca as the new Caliph of Islam and subsequent American presidents sought to eliminate or undermine the threat Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and Tripoli presented to Mecca. The tribes of Mecca never enjoyed any period of glory, power and influence in human history, except the brief 100-year period during Mecca Caliphate and Damascus Caliphate. British Spy Colonel Lawrence of Arabia signed a pact with Wahhabi Bedouin leaders that the Christian West would support the rise of Wahhabi Mecca as new center of Islamic Caliphate, in exchange for American oil colonial control over Arab oil and gas resources. Just as White colonists bought the island of Manhattan for few trinkets from Indian tribal leaders in the New World, the Wahhabi Bedouin leaders of Mecca sold all the rights over oil and gas reserves in the Arab lands to the American oil colonialism, and Americas are reasserting their rights to the oil and gas resources of Iraq as fulfillment of the agreement the Wahhabi Bedouin leaders had arrived with British and American oil colonialism for their support to gain independence from Ottoman Empire.

 

Oil Colonialism & Wahhabism Clash

British and American oil colonialism and Jews convinced the barbarian Bedouin nomads that historically the principal enemies of Mecca had been Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran and Istanbul. Wahhabi nomad Bedouin Clergy agreed to hand over entire oil reserves of Arabia to Americans in exchange for Wahhabi rule over Mecca and Medina and Al Saud family rule over Saudi Arabia. Big Oil colonialism created Washington-Mecca-Israel Axis to establish American oil colonialism in Saudi Arabia. The London-Mecca-Baghdad Axis established British Oil Colonialism in Iraq and Iran. Wahhabi fundamentalism albeit terrorism owe its origin to Jewish lobby and British and American oil colonialism, as the latter sought to carve out a new artificial state in the former territories of Ottoman Empire. British spy Colonel Lawrence of Arabia and Jews came up with the idea that Wahhabi Bedouin tribes of Mecca and Medina could be weaved into a form of Islamic nationalism to carve out separate Muslim kingdoms and sheikhdoms in Arabian Peninsula the former territories of the Ottoman Empire, which would be under the control of Western Oil colonialism. Britain imposed the rule of Hashemite Kings, who traced their origin from Mecca, in Jordan and Iraq. America imposed the rule of Abdul Aziz Al Saud over Saudi Arabia and named the country after his family and gave control over Mecca and Medina to Wahhabi Bedouin clergy. The oil colonial forces that created Israel also created Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. American Big Oil clashed with British Big Oil to undermine British oil colonialism in Iraq, Iran and Suez Canal during 1950s. Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran and Istanbul had been traditional rivals to Mecca for the leadership of the Islamic Ummah. Tribes of Mecca had no role in the Islamic Empire from 640 to 1920, during Damascus Caliphate, Baghdad Caliphate and Ottoman Caliphate, after the Islamic Caliphate shifted from Mecca and lost all semblances of influence and power after it shifted to Baghdad after 750 AD. Hashemite Kings of Jordan and Iraq and House of Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, agreed to hand over the control of oil resources in their kingdoms to American and British colonial interests because Bedouin tribes of Mecca and Medina had lost all wealth and influence in the Islamic Caliphates after 750 AD. Without the support of Britain and America Ottomans or Turks would have retained or regained colonial control over Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. From 1920 to 2000 it had been in the interest of American and British oil colonialism to keep fundamentalist Wahhabi rule in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen. The military situation changed in 2000, when Jewish state of Israel became vulnerable to the Islamic terrorist attacks, and thereafter Israeli Jews began to fear the possibility of general massacre of Jews at the hands of fundamentalist Muslims.

 

American Big Oil To Rule OAPEC Nations

Rather than to rely on the CIA to stage military coups, the White House should allow American Big Oil establish colonial administrations in the OAPEC countries. Big Oil would prove more efficient in establishing American oil colonies in the OPEC nations than the CIA and the Pentagon. American Ambassador had goaded Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait, suggesting that United States would not care if Iraq invaded Kuwait, because Kuwait had spurned American offer to establish military bases in Kuwait. However, United States exploited the Iraqi invasions of Kuwait to establish permanent military bases in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman and UAE. Just as President Jimmy Carter supported pro-Ayatollah Khomeini regime change in Iran that overturned the monarchy of Shah of Iran and the government of democratically elected prime minister Bani Sadr. United States might encourage Osama Bin Laden become Ayatollah Khomeini of Saudi Arabia, and over throw the House of Al Saud monarchy and hang male members of the royal family. Then American troops would move in to disarm Osama bin Laden and establish direct American colony over Saudi Arabia. Similarly, American may also form American oil colonies over Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman. Why should American companies pay for the oil in the Arabian Gulf, when American can establish the direct rule over OPEC nations, and get all the oil they want for less than $1 per barrel? If American oil company Halliburton could become the rulers of Saudi Arabia then DOW JONES Index would cross 20,000 overnight and race towards 30,000. Halliburton could rule, manage and administer Saudi Arabia and other OAPEC nations more efficiently than either Pentagon or the CIA. Like the East Indian Company that ruled Bengal Empire from 1787 to 1857, the American Big Oil would takeover and rule a number of oil-producing countries in the 21st Century and herald a new age of Colonial Empire. European colonial powers gave up colonies because colonies no longer made profits for the colonial powers. Colonial Empires staged a comeback in the 21st Century, because like Gold the black gold the crude oil and gas made oil colonies cash cows. Oil Colonial Empires would replace nations states as the principal actors in the International system. United States, France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, China, Japan and India would establish oil colonial empires throughout oil-rich and mineral-rich world, to secure oil, gas and minerals for their industrial economies. Regional groupings like European union and colonial empires would be the principal actors in the new world order. Smaller countries would play international role through their membership of the colonial empires headed by one of the eight world powers, namely, United States, France, Germany, Britain, Russia, China, India, and Japan. The great powers would not violate the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the multi-national Colonial empires, headed by one of the world powers, and respect the rights of colonial powers to exercise unrestricted political control over its colonies.

 

Scramble for Colonial Oil Empires

Great powers would have freedom to invade other countries, subjugate and colonize them that are not part of any recognized Colonial Empire. President Bush colonial invasions of Iraq started the end of the age of smaller independent nations. President Bush became history-maker by establishing the practice recognized by customary International law that world powers have the right to undertake preemptive strikes to establish colonies under the Right of Economic Self-Defense to secure oil, gas and mineral supplies to their industrialized economies. President George W. Bush left an indelible mark on world history, and became the greatest president in American history and gave birth to the New Age of Colonial Empires at the start of the 21st Century. The people of every great power loved President Bush for this great contribution to the World Civilization of Colonial Powers. Finally the dream of Republican Neo-Conservatives and Christian Religious right Conservatives came true and the forces of barbarian terrorism were firmly routed and their breeding grounds permanently destroyed and brought under the control of Civilizations. Perhaps American Big Oil should deposit few billion dollars into the retirement account trust of the president Bush as a token of their appreciation, for allowing American Big Oil become the de facto rulers of the OAPEC countries. Colonial Empires would become the de jure rulers of the OPEC countries. Women of the Wahhabi OAPEC countries would worship President Bush for liberating them from Wahhabi tyranny and bondage. Arab population would be much happier under American colonial occupation. Oil Colonialism would live long. India, China, Russia, Japan, France, Germany and Belgium would support American oil colonialism provided United States the rights of other great powers to establish the colonial empires of their own. United States must learn to share colonies with other rival great powers, if it wanted to establish American oil colonies in Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

 

New Middle East (NME) Doctrine

President Bush’s NME Doctrine would establish American Ottoman Empire in the Middle East, and it may be nicknamed American Caliphate. United States and Britain reinventing CENTO and led by Muslim Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan the New CENTO would reestablish American Oil colonies throughout Arab world, the former territories of the Ottoman Empire. New Ottoman Empire shall be American Ottoman Empire, governed by the Turkish and Pakistani bureaucracy. American Oil Colonialism would directly control oil-producing OAPEC nations in the New Middle East. The Oil President of Bush, and Bush-Cheney Oil Administration took over Oval Office in 2001, and American Big Oil developed a geopolitical plan, for New Middle East (NME). The core principle of the New Middle East is that American Big Oil need not pay for the oil they produce in the Middle East, if American Oil Colonies take over oil-producing countries, and establish American political, military and administrative control, first in Iraq, then Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE. American and British oil colonialism and secret services created the artificial states of Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, and Qatar to establish economic monopoly of American Oil Colonialism. However, after the 9/11 Wahhabi terrorist’s attacks on United States and spate of terrorist attacks on Israel, the American Oil Colonialism decided that in the 2000’s the political power in the oil-producing Arab world should be directly exercised by the American Colonial Administration, to secure the long term supply of oil and gas resources to America and to secure the survival of Israel. Wahhabi Saudi Arabia would support the Israeli and American invasions of Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran, as these Islamic nations historically presented greatest threat to power of Mecca. Saudi Arabia realized that only when Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran remained under American control, could Mecca exercise leadership over Islamic Ummah. The interests of Mecca, Washington and Jerusalem coincide in supporting American-British invasions of Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran. Arab countries owe their independence from Ottoman Empire to the Oil colonialism. The Arab OAPEC nations would lose their independence, because American Oil colonialism would profit more, if American Oil Colonies gets established in the OAPEC nations, and Americans acquire direct political control over Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE. After Americans acquire political control over OAPEC then American oil companies need to pay less than $1 per barrel to Arab regimes and keep all the profits for their shareholders. American Oil companies, like Halliburton could become the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE as East India Company ruled India from 1787 to 1857. France, Germany, Russia, China, India, and Japan would agree that neo-colonial empires should takeover oil-producing nations, provided Untied States agreed that other great powers also have the right to establish oil colonies in other parts of the world. Great Powers opposed America’s imperialism in Iraq only to secure the general rights for all great power to establish their own oil colonies elsewhere. President Bush’ invasion of Iraq heralded the new Age of Colonialism, where great powers would have the unfettered right to establish colonies throughout the oil producing world and mineral rich nations.

 

Artificial Muslim Nations

Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Iraq, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are artificial nations and they never existed as a nation throughout 2,000 years of human history, and these artificial states created by British and American secret services to establish American oil colonialism in Saudi Arabia, and British colonialism, by carving out multi-ethnic multi-religious Ottoman Empire and Indian Empire. Indian Empire ruled over Persian Gulf now knows as Arabian Gulf throughout 18th and 19th Century and pre-1947 20th Century. Indian Rupee continued to be the official reserve currency of Arabian Gulf States for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Oman and Trucial States, throughout 19th Century and in 20th Century as late as 1965. Bedouins of present day Saudi Arabia and Mecca & Medina played important role in the Islamic world only during Mecca Caliphate during the time of Prophet Mohammed until 639 AD. Bedouin of Arabia had limited role during Damascus Caliphate. Bedouins of Arabia lost all semblance of influence after 750 AD, when Islamic Caliphate shifted to Baghdad, and only after the inauguration of the Al Saud Wahhabi Monarchy in Saudi Arabia Arab Bedouin could regain any significant role in the Islamic world.

 

New CENTO and New Middle East (NME)

Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan shall form the anchor of the New CENTO to establish American Oil colonies in the Arab world. American and British colonialism used the political weapon of secularism to destroy the homeland of Islamic Caliphate in Turkey, and simultaneously used the political weapon of extreme Wahhabi Sunni fundamentalism to expedite the secession of oil-rich Muslim territories from the control of Islamic Caliphate. However, United States employed the card of Islamic fundamentalism to install Recep Tayyip Erdogan as the prime minister of Turkey, hoping Turkey would reassert its Ottoman legacy to control and occupy Islamic oil-producing territories to establish American oil colonies in the Middle East. United States and Britain had imposed the secular rule of Kemal Pasha Ataturk and secular military dictatorship to undermine Islamic heritage of Ottoman Caliphate, while promoting the ultra-conservative Mecca-based terrorist Wahhabi fundamentalism to encourage the secession of the oil-producing Arab territories from Islamic Caliphate. British colonialism promoted secular Nehru and arch fundamentalist Jinnah to carve out Pakistan so that India may not have direct borders with oil-rich Iran. Like secular military regimes in Turkey and Pakistan were systematically replaced by the arch-fundamentalist Islamic regimes, because American oil colonialism felt more comfortable with the Islamic governments, arguing that Islamist clergy would be more amenable for American oil colonialism than secular military or democratically elected popular regimes in Turkey, Pakistan and Iran.

 

Turkey, Pakistan and Iran, the three Islamic members of the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) have given up their secular character and led by fundamentalist Islamic leadership. Fundamentalist Ayatollah’s rule Iran, instead of secular Shah of Iran. Islamic fundamentalist prime minister and General Pervez Musharraf rules Pakistan, instead of democratically elected secular Nawaj Sharief. Islamic fundamentalist Recep Tayyip Erdogan rules secular Turkey now. The Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) was a mutual defense alliance founded in 1959 by Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and the United Kingdom, with the United States as a de facto member. Iran and Pakistan went their separate ways in 1979, and CENTO disbanded after it no longer could be effective. The U.N. security Council was formed by anti-Axis allies in the 1940s as a way of ensuring that era's threat never reappeared: fascism. As the 1950s dawned, it was obvious to some nations that this Security Council (with the USSR as a permanent member) would be ineffective in countering that era's new threat: communist encroachment into Western Europe so these nations formed a new alliance, NATO.

 

With the connivance of the United States and the CIA the secular governments of Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan were replaced by Islamic regimes. The rise of Islamist Prime Minister Erdogan is a victory of United States as well as Wahhabi fundamentalism, as it resulted in the departure of former deputy Prime Minister Ertugrul Yalcinbavir, the most prominent opponent of the American troop deployment. Recep Tayyip Erdogan formed a new Turkish government on March 14, 03, Friday and assumed the post of prime minister, a shift that comes as the United States pressed Turkey to authorize the use of its airspace for a war against Saddam Hussein. Erdogan made the announcement after President Ahmet Necdet Sezer approved his Cabinet list in a brief meeting at the presidential palace. Parliament's confidence vote for the new government expected early next week. The newly named Cabinet did not include Ertugrul Yalcinbayir, a deputy prime minister and one of the most prominent opponents of the US troop deployment. The president Sezer fully accepted the list Erdogan delivered to him. When asked why Yalcinbayir was not in the Cabinet, Erdogan said that he had reduced the number of ministers to 22 from 24. There were few other changes in the Cabinet. Abdullah Gul, who had served as premier before Erdogan, was named deputy prime minister and replaced Yakis as foreign minister. Erdogan was appointed to form a new government after winning a seat in parliament in bye-election. Erdogan was constitutionally barred from running in November elections because he was jailed in 1999 for anti-secular activities. The party's legislators amended the constitution to allow Erdogan to contest the elections and to hold office of the prime minister. Under the pressure of the secular military that ruled Turkey after the fall of Ottoman Caliphate, the Kemalist military had banned the Islamist parties from contesting elections. 

 

Nexus of Oil Colonialism & Wahhabi

Would Protestant America’s invasion of Iraq result in the defeat or victory of fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam over liberal modern secular Islam? America’s conquest of Iraq might become the victory of the Islamic fundamentalism and Wahhabi Islam. Would American Oil colonialism succeed in imposing the fundamentalist Islamic regimes in Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan, to secure American oil colonies over Wahhabi fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Qatar? Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Iraq represent non-Semite leaders of Islamic world guarding the oil-wealth of the Arabian Gulf. American and British Oil interests imposed secular Kemalist regime in post-Ottoman Turkey to gain control over oil-rich Arab territories of Ottoman Empire. The oil interests of Bush Administration, forced America to support the Islamic Party in Turkey, and Islamic prime minister in Turkey, directly opposed by the secular Turkey’s military. United States used its time-tested alliance with fundamentalist Islam to support the replacement of secular liberal regimes in Pakistan and Turkey with Islamic governments, believing that Islamic governments would be more pro-American oil colonialism than secular Islamic regimes. American and British oil colonialism carved out fundamentalist Islamic Pakistan from Indian Empire in 1947, to disrupt India’s direct land borders with the oil-rich Iran, and overthrew the democratically government of Prime Minister Nawaj Sharief in Pakistan, when he developed closer ties with Hindu India. President Jimmy Carter had overthrown the secular liberal monarchy of Shah Mohammed Riza Pahlevi to impose the fundamentalist regime of Ayatollah Khomeini in liberal modern Iran. It is very likely that America would impose Wahhabi fundamentalist regime in Iraq. American Oil colonialism might destroy the secular liberal societies in Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and Iran to make the entire Islamic world clone of Wahhabi fundamentalist Islam, as American Oil colonialism did sign a Faustian Pact with Wahhabi Clergy and House of Al Saud of Mecca and Medina. To promote American oil interests, President Bush’s war on Iraq would result in the rise of Sunni Wahhabi fundamentalism in Iraq, Turkey, and Pakistan. Hindu India and Shiite Iran should forge military ties to challenge the unholy nexus of American Oil colonialism and Sunni Wahhabi fundamentalism. Shiite fundamentalist Iran would join forces with Hindu India and Catholic France, Germany and Orthodox Russia to challenge the nexus of Sunni Wahhabi Arabs with Protestant American Oil Colonialism. Washington-Mecca Axis cemented ties with Islamic forces in secular Turkey and Pakistan to install the Islamic prime ministers in Turkey and Pakistan respectively. It is very likely that American oil colonialism would impose Sunni Wahhabi regime in Iraq after the America’s conquest of Iraq, in exchange for establishing American Oil Colony over Iraqi oil fields. President Bush’s invasion of Iraq to promote interests of Oil Colonialism would also promote the interests of Sunni Wahhabi fundamentalism in Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and expose that Islamic terrorism continued to be the political instrument of the CIA, even after 9/11 attacks. America harnessed the power of Islamic fundamentalism to undermine secular Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Pakistan, and now Iraq. Under influence of Jewish lobby and Oil lobby United States intends to impose the fundamentalist Wahhabi rule over secular liberal Iraq.

 

Predator Jewish Cabal

Jewish Cabal lobbied to propagate President Bush’s obsession to attack Iraq. Iraq was doomed the day George W. Bush got elected in the 2004 elections. It is stupid to argue that Jews Cabal decided the war on Iraq more than the American Big Oil. President Bush and Dick Cheny and not Jewish Cabal are responsible for America’s war on Iraq. President Bush and Dick Cheney are oil veteran and not impressionable kids or politicians for hire that Jewish Cabal could buy and fool to lead America to war on Iraq. Just as Bolshevik Jew Spymaster Lavrenti Beria profited by murdering 30 million Orthodox Russians on behalf of butcher Joseph Stalin, Jewish media whole heartedly supported war on Iraq, simply because supporting Administration’s imperial policies would help Jews increase their stronghold over America media. The Jewish philosophy of Communism influenced most of the 20th Century. The Jewish innovation of the Oil Colonialism would influence most of the 21st Century and herald the new age of colonial empires. President Bush is no puppet of Jewish Cabal, though he might have found it expedient to accept their wisdom that America, facing unprecedented economic downturn could enter the era of unprecedented prosperity by allowing American Big Oil establish direct colonial administrations over oil-producing OPEC nations in the Middle East, Africa and South America. Jewish lobby and Republican neo-conservatives have realized that War means profits and America’s colonial occupation of oil-rich Iraq to establish American Oil Colony over Iraq, would push Wall Street stock indices to unprecedented heights. Jerusalem Jews got Jesus Christ crucified and stoned to death Apostle James the elder brother of Jesus I 64 AD and other Christian Apostles and leaders. Hellenic Jews forced their entry into the early Christian churches and hijacked its leadership and imposed Oil Testament as part of the Christian Bible, even when Jesus, and Apostles had rejected the Jewish Law and Jewish scriptures. Hellenic Jews numbered 6 million people within Roman Empire and they joined forces with iconoclast Christian forces unleashed by Christian Roman Emperor (d. 395 AD) that rampaged and looted the gold and wealth of the pagan Hindu, Mazdaic, Zoroastrian temples in Greece, Rome, Egypt and Syria, in the fourth century, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Damascus Jews financed the Muslim raiding parties that conquered and looted the riches of the Christian Civilization of Egypt, Libya and Syria during Mecca and Damascus Caliphate. Prophet Mohammed had earlier confiscated the assets of the Jews. Damascus Jews made the pact with Muslims and Muslims accepted the Jewish dietary practices and circumcision and Jews agreed to finance the Muslim raiding parties that would loot the wealth of the Christian Egypt and Syria in exchange for the share of the loot. Jews developed the doctrine of Communism and Bolshevik Jews use it to rape and loot the wealth of Czarist Russia and Central Europe. American Jews were second-class citizens in the United States as late as 1950s. However, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rise of Secretary Dr. Henry J. Kissinger gave great impetus to Jewish control over media and the Wall Street, when Jews signed the pact with the pro-segregation, anti-affirmative action, white American conservatives. The alliance of Jews with white conservatives made Jews the mainstream Americans as White conservatives realized that they are more conservatives than they are. Orthodox Jews cemented ties with Protestant fundamentalism to evolve Protestantism-Judaic orthodoxy axis to challenge the threat of Vatican-Mecca axis of Fundamentalist Monotheism. Jews cemented ties with Protestant fundamentalism to develop political ties of financial capitalism with oil colonialism. Wall Street Jews aggressively promoted the concept of American Oil colonialism to prove that America no longer needed to promote the interests of Wahhabi Arabs to secure oil. American oil colonialism realized that American economy would profit more if America directly established colonial control over oil-producing Arab world. Why should American Big Oil pay to the corrupt Arab rulers $20 or more per barrel, when they could take it for $ 2 per barrel if America exercised political and military control over OPEC nations. European colonial powers, namely, Britain, France, Portugal, Belgium had given independence to colonies, simply because colonies no longer produced net cash incomes to the ruling elite of the colonial powers. The colonies in the oil-producing nations would be cash cows for the colonial rulers, and colonialism became economically viable in the 21st Century. Jewish Karl Marx showed the way to confiscate the property rich Russians, which Bolshevik Jews took with gusto. Jews showed to the American Protestant capitalists the unheard of incomes that could be made by American Big Oil capitalism, through the route of American Oil Colonialism to maintain America’s economic and military hegemony in the 21st Century. Wall Street Jews taught America’s Big Oil that wars on OPEC members to establish American oil colonies would push Dow Jones Index to more than 30,000 in few years, from its present 8,000 range. 

 

Jewish Lobby’s Role in US’s Iraq War Policy

Colonization of the OPEC nations could provide permanent security to Israel and unprecedented growth to the American economy. Israel lost its military edge over Palestinian terrorist attacks and fear of Iraqi gas attacks. Israel found a common cause with the greed of America Big Oil, arguing that if American Big Oil acquired political control over the governments of OPEC nations, Wahhabi terrorists would lose the support of OPEC nations. The alliance of Israeli Orthodox Jews, Saudi Wahhabi Sunni Muslims and American oil colonialism, intend to impose the Wahhabi rule after the American conquest of Iraq, as they brought down the secular governments of Iran’s Shah of Iran, Bangladesh’s Mujibur Rahman, Pakistan’s Nawaj Sharief, and recent induction of Islamic prime minister of Turkey. Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait do not present any threat to Israel. Wahhabi Prince Talal instrumental in arranging Wahhabi Saudi Capital for Jewish-owned Citigroup. Orthodox Jews have excellent relationship with arch-fundamentalist Wahhabi Sunni Muslims. Jerusalem-Riyadh Axis supported the downfall of secular liberal Muslim regimes of Shah of Iran, secular Nawaj Sharief of Pakistan, secular Mujibur Rahman of Bangladesh, and secular Turkey. Damascus Jews harnessed the power of fundamentalist Saudi Bedouin to loot the riches of Christian Hindu Egypt, Syria and Libya in 7th century AD, the first century of Islam. Jewish media lobby that came to control US media during reign of Secretary Henry Kissinger, determined to lead protestant America wage war on Iraq to establish American Oil Colonies, seeks to enhance the survival of Israel with the destruction of Iraq and imposition of Wahhabi type regime in Iraq. American Oil Colonialism would convince the Wahhabi clergy in Mecca and Medina that Wahhabi control over Islamic society would continue, when Saudi Arabia came under the colonial occupation of American Oil Colonialism. American Colonialism while in control of the government in Riyadh could safeguard total religious control over Mecca and Arab women to Wahhabi clergy. So long as Arabia governed by Wahhabi Shariah, the American oil colonialism could buy the allegiance of the Wahhabi clergy for one-tenth the amount Arab rulers make currently.

 

Rep. Jim Moran on Jewish Lobby

Rep. Jim Moran and Pat Buchanan should be complimented for their courage and dedication when they pointed out the harm the Zionist Cabal doing to United States. Jews have no right to shut them up. It is insane to hurl the charge of anti-Semitism at them. If Jews start calling patriots like Re. Jim Moran and pat Buchanan as modern day Hitler, then they are doing great service to Hitler, by making him praiseworthy in the United States. It is very true that if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, United States would not be doing this war on Iraq. One simple glance at any Jews-owned newspaper in United States would prove the argument Jim Moran and Pat Buchanan made against Zionist Cabal. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough in the United States that they could change the direction of where this war on Iraq is going and US lawmakers think that influencing Jewish community has every right to influence the policy making of the White House over Iraq, and they should exercise their right.

 

Secretary of State Colin Powell told a US House Appropriations Subcommittee that the drive to compel Iraq to disarm stretches back over two administrations and 12 years of United Nations resolutions. It is driven by our own national interest. US policy "is not driven by any small cabal that is buried away somewhere, nor by a small group of individuals. Among the US goals are helping the U.N. to "do its job" and concern for the Iraqi people. The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jim Kolbe wanted to clear up media suggestions that American supporters of Israel and Israel itself were driving US strategy. Rep. Jim Moran apologized for making comments asserting that influential leaders of the Jewish community were pushing the country toward war with Iraq. The northern Virginia Democrat Rep. Jim Moran remarked at a March 3 ’03 forum at a local church that Jewish support for war with Iraq was helping the administration move toward an attack. Moran, 57, told a crowd of about 120 people: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I (Moran) think they (Jews) should." It is true that Jews control the foreign policy of the United States. United States could become a real danger to the world, if a Jewish President gets elected as the president of the predominantly Protestant United States, in the 21st Century.

 

Can Zionist Cabal Rule Oval Office?

An immensely wealthy and powerful American Republic hijacked by a small cabal of individuals. Wherever you look in the Congress there are the telltale signs either of the Zionist lobby, or the right-wing Christian Conspiracy, or the military–industrial complex, three inordinately influential minority groups who share hostility to the pagan world, unbridled support for American Oil Colonialism, Military coup leaders, and an insensate conviction that they are on the side of the angels at war against forces of evil. President Bill Clinton once described the Zionist lobby as stunningly effective and better than anyone else lobbying this town Washington DC. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker labeled Zionists the most effective general interest group across the entire planet. If the Zionist lobby did not exist, America would have to invent it. Rep. Richard Gephardt believed that if it weren’t for the Zionist lobby fighting on a daily basis, the close relationship between America and Israel would not be. Senator McCain argued that Zionist lobby has long played an instrumental and absolutely vital role in protecting the interests of Israel with the American government. Zionist lobby is like most political conspiracies, a set of concentric circles within circles. The two innermost circles are known as the President’s Cabinet and the Chairman’s Council, whose members take part in special events with members of Congress in elegant Washington locations. President Jacques Chirac agreed that the American Jewish Committee is the most important and powerful Jewish organization in the United States.

 

Congressman Moran argued on March 3, ’03 that the Jewish lobby is encouraging America to seek war with Iraq. Pat Buchanan believed that a cabal of polemicists and American public officials are colluding with Israel to ensure that our country (United States) in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. It is wrong for Jewish lobby to unite and deny the rights of Rep. Jim Moran to expose the threats Jews pose to the security of the United States, by calling for Jim Moran’s removal from Congress and forcing DNC to marginalize and condemn him. What if Rep. Jim Moran is right, as were many detractors of Secretary Henry Kissinger who suspected the role of certain secret cabal in the genocide of 2 million Buddhists in Cambodia, camouflaged under the name of Khmer Rouge? The Protocols of the Meetings of the elders of Zion outlined the existence of such a Cabal, which may no in final analysis by Jewish, but some other group that used the name of Jews. In the interest of the security of the United States one should study the possible conspiracy, involving small cabal of individuals, representing the inter-mingling and conflicting interests of Zionist lobby, Christian religious right conservatism, Neo-conservatism, Military-industrial complex, Big Oil Colonialism, Diamond & Oil Cartel, and the Papacy. It is morally wrong and undemocratic to condemn Congressman Moran, or Pat Buchanan with anti-Semitism i.e. a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a passionate attachment to Israel a nation different from United States and they act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America. Why should one believe that somehow there is a confluence of national interests between Protestant-majority secular America and Jewish theocratic Israel? Zionist Cabal might have conspired the President Bush’s war on oil-rich Iraq, and the liberation of Iraq would be the first of a series of wars in the Middle East that could ignite the Clash of Civilizations, a war many believe would be a tragedy for Protestant American Republic, and undermine the Axis of Monotheism developed between Vatican and Mecca. Who amongst the following enjoyed greater influence over those that rule United States: Jews, Big Oil, Military-industrial complex, Neo-conservatives, Pope and the CIA or the Hidden Hand of the real ruler of the world?

 

Counter Measures of Great Powers

Should secular Hindu India oppose imperial America’s war on Iraq, because of the closer ties of the American Oil colonialism with Sunni Wahhabi fundamentalism and Islamic militancy? India’s national interests conflict with the national interests of Sunni Wahhabi fundamentalist nations worldwide. Rather than imposing Turkey’s secular liberal Islamic system over Saudi Arabia, American oil colonialism would impose Wahhabi fundamentalism over Iraq, Turkey and Pakistan. United States might prepare Islamic Turkey to rule over oil-producing Arab nations to permanently secure the economic interests of American Oil Colonialism in the Middle East. Secular India must not allow America to impose Wahhabi fundamentalist regime in secular, liberal Iraq, even if it meant going to future wars in the Middle East on the side of Shiite Aryan Iran, in the post-Saddam era. American oil colonialism might consent to support the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist attacks on India, in exchange for establishing American oil colonies in Iraq, and rest of the Middle East. Persian Gulf or Arabian Gulf had been an Indian Lake dominated by the Navy of Indian Empire in 18th and 19th century. The Indian Rupee had been the reserve currency of the central banks of Arabian Gulf nations as late as 1964. Nuclear India, representing one-sixth of the world population, would emerge as the economic super power whenever it gains control over the oil and gas resources of couple of Arab oil-producing nations in the Arabian Gulf. America’s establishment of the oil colony over Iraq created right under customary international law, allowing great powers to exercise control over the oil and gas reserves of the oil-producing nations. The rights under International Law that allowed United States to invade and establish oil colony over Iraq also allowed other great powers, namely, France, Germany, China, Russia, Japan and India to establish sphere of influences over selected oil-producing countries, to safeguard their energy supplies, under right of self-preservation of oil-dependent industrial economies.

 

31(iii) Zionism & War on Iraq

President Bush solely responsible for war on Iraq. George W. Bush no body’s agent that could be bought, bribed or cajoled to wage a war on Iraq. Jews loved the America’s war on Iraq, because Israel lost the military advantage over Arabs and Jewish financial cabal became weaker than OPEC financial cabal. Protestant neo-conservatives control the policy making of the Bush administration. From the times of Secretary Henry Kissinger the Christian Religious right conservatives and Neo-conservatives joined forces with the American Oil Colonialism to conspire new American Empire in the aftermath of the 1975 defeat in the Vietnam War and 1964 Bill of Rights. Jewish Orthodoxy convinced the pro-segregation and Christian religious right conservative conspiracy that they are more royalists than the king and would promote the interests of American empire and American oil colonialism more effectively than their Protestant counterparts, because of their control of the financial markets and the media. Neo-conservatives are the political forces in America and Israel that demand the Iron Fist as the answer to all problems. The Neocons are at the highest levels of the American government. No body can argue that US State Department filled with "Arabists" who hated Israel. The top officials and advisors in the Bush Administration are all Neocons. Some like Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser actually worked for Israeli think tanks, writing papers on how the U.S. and Israel should take apart and reconstruct the Middle East. Extreme Christian religious right wing forces and extreme Jewish right wing forces and their powerful American financial backers and American Big Oil pushing President Bush to invade Iraq and other oil-producing countries to establish American oil colonies. Disarming Iraq is only a start in Middle East. The Arab and Iranian cultures were irrational and that nothing could be done to “improve the collective mental health of Arab societies," to wean them from terrorism. Wahhabi Arab countries should be given a stark choice: they can have sovereignty or jihad in its secular or religious forms, but not both. To tame and neutralize Islamic terrorism, United States can legitimately invoke the right for preemptive strikes on terrorist targets in the Islamic world. President Bush justified in invading the Middle East's most hostile and deranged regimes, Wahhabi fundamentalist regimes, whose citizens launched 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, namely, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen and UAE. Preemptive strikes to establish American Oil Colony in Iraq not justified, because not one Iraqi citizen participated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. Preemptive strikes to establish Oil Colonies not justified, unless United States seeks to set new norms of International law, by allowing all great powers the right to establish oil colonies to guarantee the secured supplies of oil, necessary for their economic and industrial survival. The U.S. ruling class is overwhelmingly Protestant Christian and the Protestant fundamentalism that inspires it is Pat Robertson's evangelism, and Papal fundamentalism not Jewish Orthodoxy. Our argument is angry but precise. When the Left denounces Sharon we mean Sharon. When Congressman Moran assailed an obvious foreign influence he didn’t allege some all-powerful secret plot, as described in the Meetings of the Protocols of the elders of Zion. Neither Protestant neo-conservatives nor American oil colonialism would undermine the economic interests of Big Oil to promote the geopolitical interests of Israel, however it may express its oil interests defined in terms of the survival of Israel.

 

Jews as Predators in History

Jewish lobby supported President Bush’s war on Iraq just like many million patriotic Americans, but they were not powerful enough to influence the oil colonial policies of President Bush and Dick Cheney. Obviously, Jews loved the America’s war on Iraq, because it would allow Jews to rape the Arab oil. Jews were at the forefront of the Christian marauding army of looters to loot and steal the riches of pagan temples of Greece, Rome, Syria, Libya and Egypt when fanatic Christian Roman Emperor Theodosius I (d. 295 AD) issued the edict to ban the pagan religions throughout Roman Empire. Jews were at the forefront of the traders that bought the loot of the Muslim raiding parties that invaded Christian Egypt, Syria and Libya during Mecca Caliphate and Baghdad Caliphate. Bolshevik Jews were the top looters of the Russian wealth and property after the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia and subsequent communist takeovers in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Russia Jews led the Russia Mafia and the predator Russian Capitalism during Gorbachev era and during Boris Yeltsin that stripped Soviet Union and Russia of its cash and riches and stashed them in Swiss banks. American Jews were at the top of the marauding Wall Street Firms that looted billions of the investors hard earned money in United States and raised the specter that Mafia moved into Wall Street after taking over global drug trade. As was expected Jews are ready, eager and willing to move into Arabia to loot the riches of the OPEC nations. Well it is the destiny of the predator Jews to loot and hunt the wealth created by others for the benefit of Jews, and there is nothing wrong in it. Every other ethnic group would do that if only they could.

 

When Congressman Moran and like condemned Israeli apartheid and Jewish domination of American media and financial markets, they denounce the Jewish superiority in controlling the campaign donations to influence the electoral outcomes in Federal and state elections, not the idea of Zionism or that Jews should only live in Israel and should not enjoy every human right, including the right to become the President of the country they settled in, even when they represent only 2 percent of the population of America. Congressman Moran with that owed it to Americans to tell them the whole truth, that part of the President Bush’ war drive against is being fueled by a wacko militarist clique from Jewish Israel and its interlocking bands of American Jewish and Christian supporters. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is not delirious for the war on Iraq, as only after Iraq leveled the Palestinians will give up hope for independent Palestine State. Zionist lobby wants Untied States to destroy the secular liberal regimes of Lebanon, Syria and to destroy the principal challenger to Wahhabi Saudi Arabia the Ayatollah-run Iran. Ariel Sharon forgets that terrorist attacks in Israel won’t stop unless Wahhabi clergy lost their power base in Mecca & Medina and Wahhabi Al Saud monarchy overthrown in Saudi Arabia.

 

31(iv) Oil Lured Anti-Bush Camp

All great powers are naked and ruthlessly colonialists and imperialists in the showers of oil colonialism. Great powers fought with America not to protect the sovereignty and independence of victim nation of oil colonialism, but to secure their fair share of the oil loot. All nations that supported President Bush’s imperialist war on Iraq, namely, Britain, Spain, Japan, South Korea and others did it with an eye on the loot of the Iraqi oil and the lucrative contracts in power war Iraq. All nations that opposed President Bush, namely, France, Germany, Belgium Russia, China and India did it with an eye to secure their fair share of the oil loot and to get recognition of their right to establish oil colonies of their own. The America’s war on Iraq, Britain and Spain’s support to America on the war, as well as France, Germany, Russia and China’s opposition to American invasion of Iraq, all stem from the same basic premises of the economic effects of America’s threatened control over Iraqi oil resources. America’s War on Iraq is the war for oil colonialism as well as French opposition to the war on Iraq.

 

The lure of Iraqi oil riches determined the support or opposition to the America’s invasions of Iraq. The economic considerations influenced President Putin’s diplomacy more than the diplomacy of president Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. China and Russia adjusting their policies towards President Bush’s war on Iraq by economic consequences of American colony over Iraq, more than France and Germany. Key to France, Russia Position on Iraq is Cash. Opposition to US invasions of Iraq, which is led by France and Russia to U.S. military action in Iraq motivated materialist considerations of American control over Iraqi oil resources, less by love of peace? Love for oil money, explained Russia, China, France and Germany’s opposition to President Bush’s oil imperialism in Iraq. Whenever United Nations sanctions against Iraq be lifted, Russian and French companies stand to profit from billions of dollars' worth of contracts to generate 5 million barrels a day of new oil capacity. Iraq’s oil agreements with Russia and France negotiated on extremely favorable terms" by the Iraqis "with an eye to gaining Security Council vetoes" in return.

 

Money, of course, isn't the only thing driving Russia and France. Geopolitical influence is also an important factor; both nations regard the Middle East as firmly within their sphere of influence. But the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. Iraq owed to Russia more than $9 billion for weapons Soviet Union supplied to Iraq years ago. Moscow waits to pump Iraqi oil to repay itself that debt. President Bush’s invasions of Iraq threatens Russia and French oil contracts in the post-Saddam Iraq, at least it does in the minds of French and Russian officials. Under the scenarios being discussed, a Pentagon-controlled Iraqi government could conceivably run Iraq for as long as two years after the bombing stops with the American victory and American oil colony in place. France and Russia fear and loathe the prospect of American Big Oil and Pentagon such decision-making power in postwar Iraq because Russians and French companies could be cut out of the business opportunities that rise from the ruins of Baghdad. Besides the fate of their oil contracts, inked as they were with Saddam Hussein's regime, would be in doubt.

 

"Guiding Principles for U.S. Post-Conflict Policy in Iraq," by the Baker Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations. The Baker Institute at Rice University estimated as much as $100 billion of work in the next three to five years in post-war Iraq. Large contracts would be issued because basic water, electric power and other services have been devastated over two decades by the war with Iran and the Persian Gulf War. A fresh round of missile attacks by U.S. and British forces obviously would devastate the country's infrastructure all the more. The size of the reconstruction contracts to be tackled after Saddam Hussein is ousted and American oil colony established over Iraq, is so large, even United States companies can't do it alone.

 

Deals for putting in roads and bridges, hospitals and schools could go immediately to U.S. engineering companies Fluor Corp., Parsons Corp. and AECom Inc. Those American companies already are in the area, maintaining U.S. military camps and other facilities in Kuwait. But there also is an urgent need for $20 billion worth of electrical power plants to be erected across Iraq. Siemens of Germany and ABB Group of Switzerland will be among the leading bidders for such projects.

 

War Disrupted Legislation in the West

It is all guns and little butter in France, Germany, Britain and America in this winter of anticipatory Iraq war. Only Putin and Jiang seem to be watching the shop and succeeded in promoting their economic interests and economic reform policies, while engaged in diplomatic maneuvering. The deep diplomatic rifts over Iraqi war disrupted the economic reforms legislative process in France, Germany, Britain and United States, but not in Russia and China. Russia and China would stick by America’s side in the aftermath of America’s successful colonial occupation of oil-rich Iraq, because they feel they stand to gain more by cooperating with American Oil colonialism than with anti-imperialist forces. Defeat of American would not make Iraq more amenable to increased Russian and Chinese influence. China’s Jiang Zemin as well as Russia’s Vladimir Putin find their diplomacy restrained by the economic repercussions, these policies may have on Chinese and Russian trade with United States. Neither Russia nor China could be certain that they would be able to stop determined American colonial occupation of Iraq. Neither China nor Russia willing to risk trade relations with Untied States, hoping to profit by future trade with Iraq. Meanwhile, the leaders of the wealthy countries being chased by Russia and China stubbornly pursue big-power politics to the neglect of big-power economics. President Bush's drive to bring down Iraq's Saddam Hussein has disrupted political and economic patterns around the world without a shot being fired. To find leaders who put market forces and profit above all else, you have to look to Moscow and Beijing today. Russia's Vladimir Putin and China's Jiang Zemin navigate through the fog of almost-war with their eyes firmly fixed on favorable economic outcomes. Russia and China periodically shifted their positions on Iraq as need arose. Russia, China, France and Germany placed that Arab nation's fate, or the future incomes form Iraqi oil trade, lower on a list of priorities dominated by long-term access to Western markets, technology and financing. French and German opposition to America’s Iraq war, gave rise to the talk of America’s trade boycotts, currency upheaval and financial retaliation as the political elites of Britain, France, Germany and the United States argued bitterly over strategy and tactics in the Middle East. France and Germany.

 

The economic interests suffered due to Iraq war, namely, Britain’s proposed referendum on joining Euro, France’s expected Tax Reforms, Germany’s reforms of the Social Security system have become the victim of President Bush’s colonial war on Iraq. Britain would no longer hold the referendum to join the Euro zone. France wouldn’t undertake Tax reforms because of the Iraq war. The France-British and German-British animosity generated by their opposition to the British support of the president Bush’s oil colonialism may permanently sour Britain’s relationship with the European Union. Germany and France realized that Britain is the Trojan Horse of America in the European Union, and would work to destabilize and weaken the European Union, by employing traditional British policy of Divide & Rule. Deep divisions in Western Europe over British-American policy on Iraq War encouraged Prime Minister Blair to abandon his hopes to hold a referendum on entering the euro zone this year, reliable sources report.

 

President Chirac's pitched battles with Washington have exposed French exporters to threats of retaliation in the U.S. market and distracted his government from badly needed tax reform. It is all guns and little butter in this winter of anticipatory Iraqi war for American oil colonialism. Only Putin and Jiang seem to be watching the shop. German executives say they are thinking of moving firms abroad rather than risk being pulled down by a plunging economy. "Schroeder won reelection with the votes of the unemployed and the poor, who will resist the welfare and labor reforms we need.  Schroeder combined the antiwar vote with the anti-American vote of the ex-communist east. The votes of the unemployed and the poor are Schroeder’s constituencies and he will not fight them, by legislating reforms of the Social Security system, which dragged down the German economy.

 

President Bush has set aside detailed discussion of the costs involved in disarming Iraq until he has accomplished his goal. Nothing would distract from getting this dangerous job of establishing American oil colony over Iraq, as rapidly and as thoroughly as possible. This single-minded pursuit of regime change has brought a new tone and focus to Washington. Obstructing Bush's policy could now impede or destroy a career in government, at least for the life of this administration. "Don't mess up Iraq" became the watchword of Washington’s policymakers, budget-writers and bureaucrats, and the entire economic agenda gets neglected on the side burner. The Iraqi war chatter underlined the failure of Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and George W. Bush to offer convincing economic policies to underpin, parallel or offset their conflicting political programs that they outlined during their election campaign. They failed to handle Iraq without losing sight of the needs of their own and others' economies, as they display a troubling tunnel vision, though some dislocations understandable. However neither Russia nor China neglected their economic perspective, while undertaking diplomatic maneuvers on Iraq crisis. Bush emphasized electorate-pleasing tax cuts as the only arrow in his policy quiver during his first term. That undermined consumer confidence in America and abroad. President Bush failed to address the costs of war in Iraq and the galloping budget and current-account deficits.

 

31(v) Oil Colony or Vietnam

Iraq would become the permanent oil colony of America and American Colonial Administration would continue to exploit the oil riches of Iraq for decades to come and may other OPEC nations may meet the similar fate in very near future. There is no doubt that ultimately United States would emerge victorious in Iraq. It would be very fatal for the world order, if Saddam Hussein surrendered without giving a tough fight. If Iraq surrendered without giving a valiant defiance of United States, then all Islamic countries would become either America’s colony or colonies of the other world powers within first two decades of the 21st Century. If president Bush failed to decisively win the war on Iraq, then the Iraq war could result in the Vietnam-type defeat for America. However, a swift victory over Iraq would establish American oil colony over Iraq. United States did not have the option to call of the war on Iraq, because it would have lowered the image of the United States and made America one of the equals among world powers.

 

President Bush has outlined two strikingly different plans to run oil-rich but volatile Iraq if President Saddam Hussein's regime is toppled, the first being that Pentagon would invade Iraq, even without the support of Britain. The preferred postwar scenario involves collaboration, but going solo is an option. United States may invite the other countries to share the loot of Iraq and dole them lucrative contracts, if they acted sensibly and accepted the colonial leadership of the American Big Oil in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq alone, because the victory over Iraq represented the conquest of Fort Knox. Unilateral Plan. Donald Rumsfeld warned that if Britain wavered, United States would invade Iraq all alone. One plan is a go-it-alone strategy that would force the United States to remain longer in Iraq to ensure that its stated goals of disarmament and democracy are fulfilled. American Big Oil prefers that Pentagon should go alone, so that after the occupation of Iraq, American Big Oil need not split the profits of the Oil colony with Britain. Why should America share its spoils of victory, it Pentagon could succeed in colonizing Iraq, with its own forces, without depending upon foreign troops.

 

Multilateral Plan. The Multilateral Plan would share the burden of rebuilding Iraq, from purging police and army units to helping write a new constitution, with other great powers. Under this plan the United States would transfer much of the authority and other responsibilities to the international community after an initial U.S.-run administration lasting as briefly as three or four months. Washington has no constitution model in mind, although the choices include the type of arrangements in the ongoing political transitions in Kosovo and East Timor. While Unilateral plan would give Washington more control over what happens, it would almost certainly cost far more and make a larger Pentagon’s military and diplomatic presence more vulnerable to backlash, and more body bags. Untied States would have to split the loot with China and Russia if it wanted to avoid the protracted civil war in Iraq, on the lines of Angolan civil war, where Russia and China supported the rivals in the Civil War.

 

Like the gold of Fort Knox, the oil wealth the proverbial black gold of Iraq, is too tempting for President Bush to let go. President Bush believes that once Iraq brought under control of American Oil colonialism, the greed of oil would force France and Germany and other members of the European Union, and China to queue up for America’s dole of lucrative contracts. The Bush administration strongly prefers the international burden-sharing option. President Bush outlined the broader stakes in dealing with Iraq. Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations. The United States is in the early stages of probing world interest. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell approached Japan about contributing to postwar reconstruction and the Japanese response had been positive. The administration has held similar discussions with other nations, hoping to defray the steep costs. However, Japan’s prime minister declared that Japan would not contribute funds towards Iraq War. Iraqi oil is the cash cow and would pay for annual deficits of United States and revitalize American economy and bring to an end its economic slump.

 

Bush Administration believes that incomes of Iraqi oil would pay for the entire cost of Iraqi war and the subsequent cost of administering Iraq as oil colony of American Big Oil. Once, United States established a profitable oil colony in Iraq, and loot of Iraqi oil paid for the budgets of the Pentagon and the CIA then American lawmakers would clamor for establishing more American oil colonies in other oil-producing countries. The go-it-alone strategy, which envisions a prolonged first stage run by a American civilian administrator, backed by hundreds of thousands of American troops to provide security and to keep Iraq's rival ethnic, religious and tribal factions from destabilizing the Iraq would be significantly more difficult, and cost more American lives. There's going to be greater domestic and international pressure to ensure America achieved its declared objectives in post-Saddam Iraq. The list of U.S. objectives is long, and achieving each will be a time-consuming process. Reconstructing Iraq after the war and rebuilding the long-troubled oil sector to generate new income.

 

The length of the military operations in Iraqi war is one of the wild cards. The shorter and neater the Iraqi war is, the more latitude and time President Bush would have to organize the immediate postwar period without facing backlash, from Russia, China and Iran. The shorter war in Iraq is the scenario that would also trigger French, German and European interest in participating, in lucrative Iraqi building and construction contracts in the post-Saddam American oil colony in Iraq. America would dangle the carrot of oil and gold and every former colonial power would wag their tail and salute the neo-colonial power, to share the loot of the Iraqi oil and riches. Perhaps leading European power may follow America’s example and carve out new European oil colonies throughout oil-rich Islamic world. If Untied States succeeded in conquering and colonizing Iraq and established American Oil colony over Iraq, then why should Europeans allow any other oil-producing nation remain independent. The colonization of Iraq, under control of American Big Oil would tempt rest of the colonial powers to carve out new oil colonies in the Arab world and Africa, resulting in the return of the Age of New Colonial empires in the 21st Century, and more than 100 countries might lose their independence and sovereignty in the first half of the new Century.

 

It is possible that arrogant president Bush might find Iraq to be the new Vietnam and result in the humiliating defeat for pentagon and the CIA. It is also possible that Russia might replay the CIA’s tactics of Afghanistan fame to transform the initial American victory in Iraq, the nightmare, if Russia decided to arm Kurds in alliance with Iran, to carve out the Aryan Kurdistan state by engineering the secession of Kurd-majority areas in Turkey, Iraq and Syria. Turks cannot match the military prowess of Kurds. If the Iraqi war becomes messy and lasts longer, with high civilian casualties and widespread destruction, as happened to invaders in the Vietnam War and Afghanistan wars, America would have a "smaller political space" and a shorter time span "before the lid comes off and American public revolts and American Big Oil failed to tempt other nations from wanting to be associated with the America’s colonial war on Iraq. The decision about which of the two broad alternatives ends up as the model for postwar Iraq may well wait until just that moment, as an awful lot can happen, between now and start of the hostilities, and the situation on the ground in Iraq.

 

Could Bush Call of Iraq War in 2003?

George W. Bush lobbied for the permanent occupation of Iraq during 1991 Gulf War. George W. Bush raised campaign donation promising donors that America would invade and establish permanent oil colony in Iraq, during Bush Administration and he delivered the goods he promised to campaign donors by invading Iraq, on the face of determined world wide opposition to American invasions of Iraq. The America’s war on Iraq became a fait accompli on the inauguration day in January 2001.

 

Had Bush called of the war against Iraq, would have made United States look damn stupid. After having dispatched troops to Gulf there was no way the war could have been averted. Had Bush called off the war against Iraq, it would have damaged the concept of oil colonialism and sabotaged the return of the new age of Colonial Empires. Saddam also wisely decided to fight to give American troops run for their money. It would be in the long-term interest of India to escalate the Iraq war to world war so that Indian troops could hope to establish colonies in the world during the turmoil of the world war.

 

Saddam Hussein behaved as though he felt he is winning the international public opinion battle. Why should Iraq have stopped a campaign that the United States and President Bush were losing? On the other hand, Bush's one-dimensional strategy of American Oil colonialism had created a situation in which Bush had only one remaining option - war. Backing off from war without achieving his goals of establishing oil colony in Iraq, President Bush feared would have been considered an American defeat. Besides causing material damage and the undermining of U.S. prestige, this would have dealt a mortal blow to the president Bush himself and destroyed all his chances of being reelected as president in the elections 2004.

 

United States would have been perceived as weak nation had it backed down in his confrontation with Iraq, and Arab race would have become more arrogant. If America had backed down in Iraq, and ordered American pullback without achieving the goals that had been set in Iraq war, would have extended far beyond the borders of the United States and Iraq, and destroyed the super power status of the United States. America faced the specter of the Vietnam in Iraq, if Saddam Hussein had not abdicated to go into voluntary exile. Fearing American would invade Iran after occupying Iraq, Iran had no option but to militarily support Kurds in their war of independence against Turkey, Iraq and Syria. Iran would have no option but to join forces with Russia to militarily harm American occupation troops in Iraq, just as the CIA had harmed Soviet occupation troops in Afghanistan, through its bases in Pakistan. The role Pakistan played in the defeat of the Soviet occupation troops in Afghanistan, by supplying arms to the Afghan Mujahideens, Iran would do in alliance with Russia in American oil colony in Iraq. It would lengthen the war in Iraq and make it messy. Russian SAM shoulder launched missiles could damage many American airplanes and helicopters, especially in high mountains in Kurd-majority areas, to repeat the menace US Stringer missiles posed to the Soviet airplanes.

 

How Iran will react if America turned tail and American invasion of Iraq averted? Tehran suspected that Saddam Hussein continued to develop weapons of mass destruction throughout 1990s. Iran has not forgotten how Iraq used poison gas against Iran in the eight-year war between the two countries during the 1980s. If Iraq is not disarmed, Tehran will have a genuine reason to continue developing its own nuclear weapons. That will set in motion a nuclear domino effect in the Middle East, turning the region into a truly dangerous place. If president Bush had backed down on Iraq, would have brought down the corrupt monarchy of Saudi Arabia. An American about-face without achieving the announced goals would also send shockwaves through the Arab and Muslim world. Friends of the United States would be more exposed to attacks by Islamic fundamentalist extremists, who would step up terrorist efforts, including those in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

Should one of these scenarios come to pass, it is doubtful whether American public opinion, not to mention world opinion, would support an all-out, highly destructive war against Iraq, especially if body bags continue to arrive unabated. France would have been the greatest beneficiary, if President Bush had called of the war against Iraq. Untied States would have lost its super power status and France would have emerged as the world’s 2nd super power. France would regain its past glory if France could succeed in stopping American troops in their tracks and averted the war. If the deterrent capability of the United States as a superpower is adversely affected, the countries of the West, including America's rival, France, will be great beneficiary. Even if France heightened great power policy Vs the Arab and Muslim world, it will be able to secure greater share of the Arab contracts in the Arab world.

 

The effect of America's backing down would have demoralized Israel and expedited the Palestinian uprising and carved out the sovereign state of Palestine. Much of Israel's deterrent capability depends on the deterrent capability of the United States, and if American deterrence is affected, Israeli deterrence will suffer immediately. The brazenness of its Palestinian enemies will increase, who would have provoked against Israel’s vital interests. There could be many logical reason that could induce U.S. President George Bush to stop the war machine against Iraq, and to recall the 300,000 or so American troops, and order the vast armada of ships and planes to turn around, even if it threatened to bankrupt America’s image as super power and weakened president Bush’s image as a leader. On the face of it, there were many possibilities, and Pentagon and the CIA had to take them into consideration, as the Vietnam had been in the mind of every American imperialist policymaker. The Iraqi regime continued its policy of arrogance and empty obstinacy and did all it could to thwart America’s pro-war diplomatic efforts. The Iraqi regime was like someone galloping, with a driving force that is unclear, on the path of annihilation, while dragging the Wahhabi Middle East yet again into a destructive war. Wahhabi regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and UAE were weakened by America’s war efforts on Iraq, and Saudi monarchy would fall in near future. Whether United States invaded Iraq or not, it is certain the Saudi Arabia would lose its independence and sovereignty and if might find true solace as the American Oil colony, while under colonial occupation of American Big Oil.

 

Why Bother to Defy Bush’s Will?

World powers must impress upon President Bush for the need to share the Iraqi oil loot with other great powers, otherwise great powers would be forced to form the world coalition to defeat American oil colonialism. Great powers should not undermine the legal legitimacy of the lucrative principle of Oil Colonialism, while organizing world leaders against American oil colonialism. France, Germany, Russia, China and India must bother to defy President Bush to constantly harass him so that America agreed to share the spoils of Iraqi oil with fellow world powers and allowed other great powers to establish their own oil colonies if they could. Great powers should systematically oppose American oil colonialism, not to denigrate the concept of Oil Colonial Empires, but only to assert the rights of the top 6 world powers to establish the colonies of their own also. France and Germany defying America on Iraq, not to safeguard the independence of Iraq, but to make American oil colonialism accountable to other great powers. Britain supported President Bush, hoping that because of that support American oil colonialism would be accountable to Britain and share its loot with Britain. Russia and China might American oil colonialism over Iraq, in exchange for American consent for Russian colonial occupation of some oil-producing countries in Central Asia. America’s war on Iraq is not about Iraq but about who runs the world and how to make that preeminent power accountable to other great powers. Tony Blair wanted to cement ties with president Bush so that Britain could regain part ownership of the American oil colony in Iraq. Iraq had been a part of the British Empire and Britain imposed the rule of British Oil colonialism in Iraq after the breakup of the Islamic Ottoman Empire after the First World War. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Tony Blair, New Labour Party has now leapfrogged European Social Democracy and even Gaullism and landed in the lap of the most rightwing force on the planet, from America's Republican president George Bush. Influenced by American Oil Colonialism British Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson in 1968, decided to give up all colonial rights in British colonial possessions East of Suez, which included oil-rich Brunei, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman as well as free port Singapore, so that after the departure of Britain, Untied States could move in and make these oil-rich former British imperial possessions, into American Oil Colonial Empire. Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Scheverdnadze collaborated with the CIA to conspire the demise of the Soviet Union so that America could establish American oil colonies in former Central Asian oil-producing republics of Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. British spy Mohammad Ali Jinnah conspired for the breakup of the Indian Empire in 1947, so that British Oil Colonialism in Iran and Iraq may not share a land frontier with India. Britain realizes that only as the lap dog of the President Bush could Britain hope to regain part ownership of Iraqi Oil Colony. Britain trailed behind Germany and France as the world’s seventh largest economy in 2002.

 

British people would support Tony Blair, if he had gone to the British people and defended his dream to recreate British Empire, and thus pulling the rug under the feet of the Tory Party of Empire losers. British people would support Tony Blair, if he could articulate the defense of Oil Colonialism in the era of global economic dependence on the supply of oil, from former British colonial possessions. This result is the most glaring example of the fundamental dislocation between popular political culture and an isolated political class. Britain is stuck with a government that does not represent British people, prosecuting a war British people do not want. The conditions from which this dilemma emerges might be particular to Britain. But the issues of representation and accountability that underlie them are not particular to Britain, as issue of Iraqi war is not grappling with a local difficulty but a global crisis in democratic legitimacy.

 

It is stupid for President Bush to believe that France, Germany, Belgium, Italy would not like to establish their oil colonies in the oil-producing world, if Untied States succeeded in conquering and colonizing the oil-rich Iraq. Britain and Untied Stated failed to find foreign supporters for America’s naked oil colonial imperialism in Iraq, because President Bush refused to share the loot of the Iraqi Oil colony with its alliance partners, France, Germany, Belgium and Italy. Why should any great power, or former colonial power remain silent spectator to the colonial occupation and oil-rape of Iraq, without getting their share of the loot? It is difficult to find a nation that supports a US-led war against Iraq, and difficult to find a nation where people do not think it is inevitable. Every time Europeans turn on the news it is like watching an American juggernaut heading towards a crowded playground in slow motion, ready to rape and establish oil colony in oil-rich Iraq and declining to share its loot of Iraqi oil with its Alliance partners. French Belgium, Germans and Russians see the catastrophe coming, and the advent of the new age of Oil Colonial Empires, but feel powerless to stop the victorious march of American Oil colonialism, and not unsure whether they could repeat the success of America and establish their own oil colonies in the oil-producing world.

 

The Pentagon’s war on Iraq is not, and never has been, solely about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq’s support to Wahhabi terrorism. Pentagon’s war on Iraq to establish American oil colony in oil-rich Iraq, is about who runs the world, to whom these new OPEC rulers are accountable to, and how other great powers might influence these new world rulers. If and when American military action begins, many of these domestic rebellions and anti-war rhetoric of French and German diplomats may well fizzle out. Both Bush and Blair have made clear that the current Iraq crisis is about what kind of world America wants to live in and whether one nation, the United States has the right to defy international will, and exercise its right of preemptive strikes on oil-rich Iraq to herald a new age of Colonial Empires in the 21st Century. President Bush camouflaged Pentagon’s real politik interests in Wilsonian idealism to win the support of the Senate and Congress and the American public, while every diplomat of the world realized that struggling American economy and falling Dow Jones required the direct colonial occupation of a major oil-rich nation, so that the oil loot of Iraq could finance the economic recovery of Iraq and pay for balancing the Budgetary deficit. None of the great power, France, Germany, Belgium Italy, Russia, China, Japan and India took President Bush and Colin Powell and Tony Blair their word, that they are invading Iraq, not for establishing American Oil colony in Iraq and would not loot and rape Iraq for decades to come, if they could. Great powers would not mind America’s invasions of Iraq, if half of the oil loot from Iraq distributed among other great powers that chose to stand aside while America invaded and raped Iraq. To win the support of other great powers Untied States must share the loot and allow other great powers to establish their colonial rule over other oil-producing nation.

 

World would readily accept if the president of Halliburton Oil company were to become the de facto ruler of Iraq, than president Bush becoming direct ruler over American Oil Colony in Iraq. American oil companies better equipped to establish direct American rule over oil-producing countries than Pentagon, the CIA and the White House. American Multinational Oil Corporations should lobby with the Congress and Senate to pass required legislation, allowing the Big Oil the legal Charter to take over the political, military and administrative control over the oil producing nations, to secure the oil supply to the energy dependent Western economies. Britain won the Indian empire, not by the use of British Army but by the shrewd machinations of publicly traded company, East India Company Ltd. Perhaps it would be wiser if the Big Oil companies allowed to takeover the political and military control of the oil-producing nations. It would be a great boost to the Wall Street and the Dow Jones if the Halliburton Company allowed to takeover the political, military and administrative control over Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Iraq. Pentagon wisely released the report that Iraqi oil would pay for the cost of Iraq war and for the cost of American troops that would be stationed for many years to come to administer Iraq.

 

German anti-war sentiments reflects the German desire to emerge as world power equal to the Untied States to realize the goals that Adolf Hitler projected to uphold the high self-esteem of the Aryan German race. President Chirac could acquire the aura of napoleon Bonaparte and Chancellor Schroeder acquire the aura of Adolf Hitler if they could succeed either in averting American invasion of Iraq or equitable split of the Iraqi oil loot with United States. President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder expertly camouflaged the imperial colonial ambitions of France and Germany under the disguise of anti-war rhetoric. Unless President Chirac could rise to the occasion and fit in the imperial shoes of Gaullist France, the Fascists could overwhelm elections in France and elect a Fascist French Prime Minister. By asserting the power of France against President Bush, the French president Chirac hoped to delay the eventual triumph of the extreme-right leader Le Penn become the next president of France and his fascist henchman become the next prime minister of France. Germany would support the war efforts of president Bush provided America allowed Germany to share the loot in Iraq. Chancellor Schroeder could emerge as the next Fuehrer by riding on the support of the anti-war hysteria of Germans.

 

The anti-war movement has already made its mark on the mainstream politics in Turkey, Germany and France and would the same in Britain and Spain. Anti-war hysteria stopped the Turkish government in its tracks, forced the Pakistani regime to pause for reflection on the votes in the UN Security Council and given German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder another term in office. But the anti-war pressure that brought them to bear will persist, and would get translated over the demand to split the Iraqi oil loot among the Alliance partners on the equitable basis if the NATO were to survive the recent split in the European Union. As such, the issues the anti-war hysteria raises are inextricably entwined with those the anti-globalization movement that challenged the domination of the American dollar, World Bank in the global economy. By opposing President Bush on Iraqi war, France wanted to humble United States and signal its decline from the self-proclaimed status of the sole super power of the world, to one among the equal world powers. Soviet premier Khrushchev during Suez Canal War had deterred British French invasion of Suez Canal after President Nasser had nationalized the Suez Canal, and this forced withdrawal resulted in the global decline of France and Britain as world powers. If France, Germany, Russia, India and China could succeed in averting the looming American invasion of Iraq, then it would signal the decline of Untied States and the emergence of the Concert of Great Powers. The concert of great powers, namely, Germany, France, Russia, China and India would work in unison to hold Untied States in check to stabilize the world balance of power.

 

31(vi) Oil Colony or Democracy

Iraq would become the Oil colony ruthlessly governed by American and British colonial administrators, who would implement the classical divide and rule policies to keep Iraq under colonial rule for decades to come, for as long it would require to loot all the oil resources of Iraq for the enrichment of America. No sensible diplomats ever believed the hogwash the US State Department dished out to the journalists on the eve of the Iraq war to win the votes of the Non Permanent members of the UN Security Council belonging to the Non Aligned nations group. President Bush waged a war of naked imperialism to establish direct oil colony over Iraq, not to share power with elected representatives of Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein was a CIA agent and Untied States never had love for democracies in the Third World. President Bush is no moralist who would lose American lives to gift democracy to Iraq. America wanted to colonize Iraq and keep it under colonial occupation for may years to come, to exploit Iraqi oil. American has no intention to establish democratic government in post-Saddam Iraq. Diplomats are skeptical of the justification President Bush is offering for invading Iraq is the need to install a democratic Iraqi government. The Pentagon’s Middle East alliance system relied heavily on monarchs, sheikhs and dictators. The CIA started its fling with military coups when it backed military coups against legally elected Prime Minister Mossadeq in Iran in 1953 and installed the Pahlavi Monarchy. The CIA supported the military coup led by Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Gadhafy in Libya, Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Thus, supporting Iraqi democracy would run completely counter to America’s foreign policy tradition.

 

United States would invade Iraq to establish the totalitarian regime, preferably Wahhabi fundamentalist regime in Iraq. The White House-backed Iraqi opposition seeks restoration of the Hashemite monarchy, the descendants of King Faisal II, who was swept away in the first republican coup in Iraq in 1958. America touted over the last year to head an Iraqi government, one, former general Nizar al-Khazraji, has been implicated in the gassings of Kurds in 1988, and is now under house arrest in Denmark. America touted Ahmad Chalabi to head an Iraqi government, was convicted on bank fraud charges in Jordan and fled that country in the trunk of a car. It is very unlikely that neo-conservatives running Bush administration foreign policy will be ready to accept the kind of democracy envisioned by Iraqis themselves. 

 

Iraqi people would never accept the draconian rule of the Saudi Arabia Wahhabi clergy in Iraq. America would hand over power to the Wahhabi regime in Iraq, because they would remain dependent on American military support for their survival. Democratically elected representatives would never accept American colonial occupation. Only Wahhabi monarchy would accept American’s colonial occupation as Arab Sunnis represent only 16 percent of the population and Wahhabi Sunni represent less than half percent of Iraqi population, if they at all exist in Iraq. Democracy, to the Bush "neo-cons," means elections, the rule of law and free enterprise and freedom of the International capital to own and operate business in Iraq, without sharing profits with Iraqi people. In the perception of the Iraqis and rest of the world, this is a formula for American oil neocolonialism, and it would promote local elites, protected by the interim government and capitalist legal system, who would freely engage in commercial deals with international corporations to their individual enrichment.

 

American would not allow Arab Shiites to gain political power through elections in Iraq. Arab Shiites represent 50 percent of the population of Iraq and Sunni Kurds represent 35 percent of Iraq and Sunni Arabs represent only 15 percent population of Iraq. Whenever democratic elections held in Iraq would result in the majority for Shiite Arabs and Sunni Kurds and either would form the government in democratic Iraq, and Pentagon would never accept it. Shiite Arabs are closer to Iran than Saudi Arabia. Aryan Sunni Kurds closer to Iran than to Turkey or Saudi Arabia. Iran would be the real beneficiary of any democratic experiments in Iraq, which Pentagon would not permit.

 

America would not allow Aryan Kurds acquire political power or autonomy in Iraq. Iraqi democracy must recognize the democratic rights of Aryan Sunni Kurds, who represent 35 percent population of Iraq. Britain and France had promised Kurds independent state after the First World War in the Treaty of Sevres, as a reward for Kurds support to the Allied war efforts against Ottoman Empire. Kurds at a minimum, demand some form of autonomy within Iraq. Turkey has violently opposed Kurdish autonomy anywhere, out of fears of secession of Kurd-majority areas in Turkey. To Bush neo-cons Turkey ranks second only to Israel in regional strategic importance in the Middle East.

 

The Neo-conservatives in the bush administration determined to establish American oil colony in Iraq to herald a new age of colonial empire in 21st Century. American’s neo-conservatives would never permit a free and fair election in Iraq. Neo-conservatives want to colonize and rape Iraq, not to build and construct new Iraq. The Israel-centric Bush neo-conservatives, would not favor Iraqi democracy under the aegis of a postwar, American-supervised occupation, but would opt for a puppet regime pliable to U.S. direction, like Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. An illegitimate government will not be able to govern a fractious country without outside help. Maintaining a pro-American Iraqi government over the long haul will require years of direct American military and political involvement. President Bush looking forward to establish American oil colony over Iraq not the independent democratic regime in Iraq. America’s Iraq war is the neo-imperial project in oil colonialism, not and exercise of democracy.

 

31(vii) New Middle East Order

Great powers would challenge President Bush’s version of the New Middle East, simply because America refused to share oil loot of the American oil colonies in the OPEC world with fellow world powers, namely, France, Germany, Russia, China and India. Just as United states expanded from Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast in 19th century, it wants to bring the oil producing OPEC nations under direct American colonial rule to control the oil and gas resources of the OPEC nations to guarantee that Untied States would remain the dominant power of the world for a long foreseeable future. The doctrine of New Middle East means American Oil Colonial rule over OPEC nations. American Big Oil Colonialism would establish American colonial administrations throughout OPEC nations to loot the oil wealth of Arab nations at will and pay not more than $2 per barrel for the oil that American oil companies would extract from the oil fields. America wants to redraw the map of the Middle East and force OPEC nations become American oil colonies and to establish American colonial administration throughout the Middle East. United States has no love for democracy.

 

Bush Administration seeks to implement its NME agenda in Iraq that called for New Middle East Order in the Arab world. After establishing an American Oil colony in Iraq so that American Oil companies could loot Iraqi oil without paying less than $1 per barrel to the puppet regime in Iraq, American would herald the new age of Oil Colonialism in the world, where all world powers would enjoy the unmitigated right to establish oil colonies and mineral colonies throughout the Third World, as legitimate exercise of the right of the economic preservation, for securing the oil & gas supplies to their energy dependent industrial economies. After the successful conquest of Iraq, the American triumvirate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would decide which country to take over after Iraq and target other oil-rich Arabian Gulf countries take their forefingers out of the pocket and begins to wave it furiously at every Arab regimes, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE and Qatar to establish American Oil colonies in the Arab oil-producing world. Why should Untied States pay for the oil when it can loot the oil from the Arabian Gulf and pay the rulers only $1 per barrel and keep the profits to itself. The OPEC would become the first casualty of the American occupation of Iraq. The incomes of the oil-producing Arab nations should flow into the bank accounts of the American oil companies.

 

American Big Oil might get the legal charter to exercise political, military and administrative and Judicial functions in the oil-producing American oil colonies in the Islamic world, just as East India Company ruled India from 1787 to the 1857, before the political power transferred to the British Crown in London. Reform of the Middle East documented in the new approved script of the Bush Oil Administration. This rule number one in the New World Order, now officially labeled the New Middle East (NME). NME will hinge around economic reform and a new economic order on the lines of the European Union under the domination of America. American oil colonialism shall be the driving force behind New Middle East. The Multi National enterprises (MNEs) better equipped than the CIA and the Pentagon to colonize, occupy and administer oil-producing nations. Why shouldn’t the President of Halliburton oil company allowed to takeover power as the President of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? Whenever American oil companies allowed political control over oil-producing nations, would give unprecedented boost to the market cap of the Wall Street listed American oil corporations.

 

Turkey faced greatest challenge from nuclear Pakistan in its bid to recreate Ottoman Empire. Turkey failed in its bid to enter European Union and must now reconcile to regain control over its colonial possessions in the Middle East, by getting hired by Pentagon to supply troops to enforce American colonial rule over former territories of Ottoman Empire. Turkey is not going to be let into the European Union, as France and Germany do not want any more Muslims in European Union. Turkey's destiny lies in recreating the old Ottoman Empire, which was destroyed by British spy Kemal Pasha Ataturk. British secret services hired Ataturk to force Ottoman abolish the Caliphate so that fellow America spy Abdul Aziz Al Saud could claim rule over Arabian desert lands, then reputed to hold great oil riches. British secret services appointed another spy King Faisal I the king of Iraq. The recent election of the Islamist prime minister would give great Philip to the Turki ambitions to recreate Ottoman Empire throughout the Wahhabi Arabia.

 

Israel naturally is the second bull work of American imperialism in the New Middle East order. Turkey and Israel have always been partners and should work well together, with Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Syria and Egypt in harness.

 

America’s conquest of oil-rich Iraq would destroy the only remaining Islamic power in the Middle East, and ender the terrorism prone Wahhabi Arab world prostrate at the feet of the Christian super power. President Bush in one sweep of the magic wand, after Iraqi victory, would render history impotent, end the menace of the jihad and herald the new age of Oil Colonial Empires. President Bush 2nd would avenge the mistakes of president Bush 1st, and President Bush the Second should get the Nobel Prize for Peace, if Iraqi war resulted n crude oil flowing at $10 a barrel. American Big Oil shouldn’t pay more than $1 per barrel to the Arab rulers for taking out the oil from desert lands. Then President Bush would get reelected in 2004 and America would plan for the next round of colonial expansions.

 

President Bush would be proved right if he succeeded in establishing permanent American oil colony over Iraq to loot the oil riches of Iraq and would be proved wrong if he failed to conquer and colonize Iraq. Self-interest is the only logic behind war; to expect any other logic for war is illogical itself. The directional compass for war is set not by the liberation struggle of a Moses that led Jews out of captivity and slavery from Egypt, but by the doctrines of a ruthless Joshua, who used sword to destroy and conquer the city kingdoms of the goddess worshipping cities of Jordan valley. The only difference between right and wrong is the difference between success and failure in the execution of war, if one succeeded in the conquests one is proved right; if one failed, then one is proved horribly wrong.

 

Every great power and super power camouflaged its naked imperial and economic interests in the disguise of the idealistic pretensions, as United States historically camouflaged its machiavellian goals under Wilsonian ideals. Every super power’s diplomacy built around two words: either/or. Either you fall into line with the super power, or super power will come and get you. This would be as much true in the world controlled by the Pax Americana, as it was when world ruled by Pax Romana. President Bush’s war on oil-rich world is not an ultimatum designed for permanent war for establishing American colonial empires, for there is no such thing as permanent wars.

 

Pope John Paul II annoyed with president Bush, not because he waged wars for establishing American colonial empire against the wishes of the Pope, but because president Bush didn’t see it worthwhile to seek the blessing of the Vatican for American Empire as he wanted to establish Protestant Counter Reformation empire, not the Holy Roman American Empire, as Pope would have hoped president Bush would do. And there is always a Pope's Line established to maintain the balance as defined by the presiding genius of the moment. The Pope's Line was drawn by Rome in the last decade of the fifteenth century; it divided the world between Spain and Portugal to ensure that the two powers did not waste their energy in internecine conflict as they set out to conquer the world in the name of Christendom. Spain got the Americas, and Portugal got Africa and India. Pope John Paul II opposed President Bush’s war on Islamic terrorism and Afghanistan and imperial war on Iraq, because it threatened Vatican-Mecca Axis of Monotheism and Axis of fundamentalism. Roman Catholic church historically harnessed the power of Sunni Muslims to defeat the challengers of Roman Catholic Church, against Gnostic Apostolic Egypt in 7th Century, and against Byzantine Orthodoxy in 13th Century. The Catholic-Wahhabi Axis of Fundamentalism and Vatican-Mecca Axis of Monotheism threatens the national interests of the Protestant America. A superpower throughout history goes to war to establish that has super ambitions and super reorganization of the world order, and that is the principal difference between wars begun by the dominant power of the age, and those initiated by lesser powers.

 

31(viii) Is Iraq War Apocalyptic?

President Bush worshipped the god of oil not the Messiah mentioned in the Catholic end of time apocalyptic doctrines, when he ordered the invasions of Iraq on March 20, 2003. The greed of oil colonialism not the religious fervor of apocalyptic, teleological end of time doctrines influenced President Bush to wage war on Iraq to establish direct American oil colony in Iraq. Iraq is no great power and America would not prove its military prowess by defeating Iraq. America’s war on Iraq would have repercussions only if United States failed to share the loot of Iraqi oil with fellow world powers, namely, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan and India. President Bush not influenced by Christian End of Time, apocalyptic teleology in its war on Iraq. George W. Bush not the religious fanatic believing in the End of Time doctrine, though he might support them to win the support of the Catholic religious right conservative conspiracy to his goal of establishing American Oil colony over Iraq. President Bush may be called a hired Oil Thug, but should not be called a hired Christian thug. The Vatican and Catholic fundamentalists might be expressing their hatred for Protestant born-again-Christians for their refusal to toe the Pope’s line on international and to promote American oil interests even at the cost of Catholic ties with Mecca and Wahhabi fundamentalism. It is not right to call President Bush a hired Christian thug. President Bush is not a Christian crusader and does not belong to the religious right conservative conspiracy, even when the religious right might support him in elections and seek his favor. European Catholics scared by the religious beliefs of George W Bush the born again Christian Protestant. Anti-Protestant religious factor is at work, though: religious rhetoric, perhaps even fervor, which divides the President and many of those who voted for him from leading thinkers abroad, including those in some Western democracies. As European nations become more secular, they're increasingly suspicious of a country with a born-again Christian President, whose political base includes neo-conservatives, religious right conservatives, and Christian fundamentalists in the Unite States. British playwright Harold Pinter recently called Bush "a hired Christian thug."

 

Is United Nations the Anti-Christ’s Vehicle? Is president Bush a Christian religion-crazed bad guy in the Iraq crisis? To the believers of the end of Time doctrine the determination of Israel to expand Jewish settlements means the Jews are returning to Judea and Samaria, the territory God promised Abraham. With the U.N. opposing Bush's war wishes, some America's allies worry that the Christian right conservative conspiracy and maybe even the President Bush himself see the United Nations as the vehicle for the Antichrist's world order.

 

One reason is that fundamentalist Christian doctrine envisions a horrific conflict in Iraq is the concept of Biblical Armageddon, as the way to hasten the return of Jesus and the Millennium a thousand years of enlightenment that Jesus will return to preside over, according to the Catholic Good Book, describing the End of Time Doctrines and Catholic Apocalyptic teleology that Pope John Paul II convinced would take place as it was announced during Fatima Prophecy. And the Armageddon is supposed to take place, in the Middle East. No wonder that Iraq plays into these concerns like no other issue.

 

President Bush believes that Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. President Bush believes that God is not neutral and would oppose the forces of evil on the side of America. President Bush's constant talk about evil and evildoers fuels concern even in countries outside the Middle East that an apocalyptic vision based on Bible’s Apocalyptic teleological End of Time stories underlies President Bush’s war strategy in Iraq. Many religious leaders of the Presbyterian Church believe that Bush had become the "theologian in chief" of the protestant religious right.

 

Jews supported president Bush and demanded that Saddam Hussein be ousted; perhaps fearing that Saddam Hussein represented the precursor of Anti-Christ responsible for the future massacre of Jews. The destruction and conquest of oil-rich Iraq may mean to the Catholics the conquest of the power of the evil at Armageddon. Pope would not like Protestant King president Bush to take the credit for conquest of the evil at the hands of the Christa and the saints, because it would prove that protestant Christianity not the Catholicism is the real form of Christianity. The destruction of the Byzantine Orthodox Civilization by Muslims and the Ottoman Muslim Empire represented to the Christians the reign of the Anti-Christ or the precursor of the Anti-Christ that was supposed to rise and seize world power. Then will come Tribulation, when the Antichrist will arise and seize world power. From the days of Saladin, a medieval Islamic ruler, to the Ottoman Empire, and now to the era of Saddam Hussein, Christian fundamentalists have viewed Islamic leaders as a possible Antichrist or its forerunner. After seven years under this satanic figure's tyrannical rule, Christ and the saints presumably represented by George Bush & Co. will return and conquer the powers of evil at Armageddon, an ancient battlefield outside of Haifa in northern Israel, not far from Iraq. Ensconced in Jerusalem, Christ will then reign peacefully for a thousand years, the Millennium. The Antichrist slaughtering most Jews, as Saddam probably would like to, with the rest of Jews converting to Christianity. In the eyes of a non-American, this might explain why Jewish neo-conservatives are among the strongest supporters of Bush's Iraq policy. Jews sincerely believe that Saddam Hussein could cause the destruction of Jewish state of Israel, just as Ottoman Saladin conquered Byzantine Orthodox Christians and slaughtered them. The School of Biblical Prophesy, formulated by 19th century British churchman John Darby, foresees a series of events signaling the End of the Time and the last days of the world, as we know it. These End of Time Catholic doctrines foretold signals and events that include war, the emergence of a new world economic and political order, and the return of Jews to the land God promised Abraham.

 

31(ix) Bush Overextended USA

United States might find its resources and manpower over-extended if Saddam Hussein succeeded in repulsing American aggression. If Iraq failed to fight valiantly, not body should shed any tears for Iraq. Without the support of Indian army, United States might find that its armed forces are not good enough to create American Colonial Empire. United States lacked the manpower base to engage in long-term infantry warfare or guerrilla warfare. If Muslims could muster the courage to fight American troops then America might find that Bush overextended America. However, if President Bush succeeded in crushing Iraqi resistance and established profitable oil colony in Iraq, then the incomes of the oil colonialism would overcome any drains on America’s resources due to over-extension. However, if America planned to invade Syria, Iran and North Korea after winning war on Iraq, then America might get over-extended. President Bush correctly sought zero risk from terrorist attacks for America after Sept. 11. But Pentagon must also ask if greater risks lie ahead if the US becomes an isolated superpower because of the unilateralist Bush policies, one that claimed America’s military supremacy must last forever, in the Bush doctrine 2002. American super power could wind up overextending itself in places like Iraq, leaving the continental United States more vulnerable to foreign terrorist attacks and guerrilla nuclear attacks more than it now faced.

 

Empires of the past, Roman Empire, Napoleonic Empire and Third Reich faltered when their imperial and colonial reach exceeded their military grasp, when their military postures exceeded their economic capability and manpower resources, which caused more damage to these Empires than the harm these imperialists initially sought to avoid or divert by undertaking preemptive strikes against the potential enemies and threats.

 

President Bush embarking upon the imperial goal of American colonial empire in the oil-producing world to secure America’s energy needs of he future. President Bush has now gone far beyond merely defending Americans from terrorist attacks. Like several recent presidents, Bush claimed a unique historical and religious imperative for the United States by stating, "The advance of freedom depends on America's strength." But Bush seeks America’s strength that "strength beyond challenge," one that will put a limit on dangerous rivalries between world’s great powers, and force them to form Concert of world powers to tame and hold America in check. Before Sept. 11, Bush called for a humble foreign policy for America, but in his State of the Union address in 2003, President Bush said that the "call of history has come to the right country."

 

United Nations became relevant once again, when it stood as a solid rock and failed to become the rubber stamp of the United States. Most powerful nations of the world failed to win the support of the powerless African states of Guinea, Cameroon, Angola and Chile in favor of British-American resolution on Iraq. By his aggressive imperial policies against Iraq, President Bush gave new life to the moribund United Nations and Non Aligned Movement. In seeking this destiny, Bush may be fulfilling his father's post-cold-war quest to create a new world order. During the cold war, the US-Soviet contest created a bipolar world, where Non-aligned Nations led by India retained their political and economic independence, and succeeded in avoided in joining either of the super power camp. And before that, there was a multipolar order, based on a balance of power between rival European colonial powers. After the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, the sole super power United succeeded in taking over the former Soviet satellite states into the expanded NATO, but failed to exercise control over any of the truly Non Aligned Nations, except the Wahhabi oil-producing nations. United States failed to secure the UN Security Council votes of Angola, Chile, Pakistan, Cameroon and Guinea, the non-permanent members of the Security Council. President Bush wanted the US to be a unipolar power that can prevent wars by preempting them with force, and by deciding which nation is entitled to possess which weapons.

 

Old Europe, represented by France and Germany have challenged United States to reclaim their rightful status under the sun in the post-Cold War world order. No wonder countries accustomed to the orders of old Europe, Germany, France, and Russia, opposed the United States the immediate issue of Iraq, as they don't want to live in a giant's shadow, unheard and unheeded. Smaller nations, meanwhile, that never enjoyed the great power status or that depend on the US, are siding with Bush for now. Before even these Lilliputians also try to throw a rope over the American Gulliver. It was a humbling lesson for President Bush that America could not buy the votes of Pakistan, Guinea, Cameroon and Angola and Chile in favor of American British proposal for Iraq war. The first world could rope in the Second world into the NATO after the demise of the Soviet Union, but failed to rope in the Third World to accept America’s view of the one super power world. Non Alignment Movement (NAM) is India’s contribution to the world order after the Second World War. President Bush’s naked oil colonial imperialism made NAM nations relevant in the new world order. Iraq crisis exposed the disunity among the Muslim nations and exposed that the richest Muslim nation supported the Christian imperial power in its imperial conquest of Muslim Iraq, while Non Aligned World threw its support in the defense of Iraq. 

 

After World War II, the US was more powerful relative to others than it is now, and the demise of the 10th largest economy of the world, Russia didn’t mean that United Stated increased its lead over China, Japan and India, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th largest economies of the world. United States after the Second World War chose to share and channel that power with Europe, like Marshall Plan and NATO and through other international organizations, America helped set up. However, United States lost its head after the demise of the Soviet Union and failed to realize that China and India present greater challenge to the dominance of the United States more than Soviet Union ever could. Before the war on terrorism becomes a crisis of imperial overreach, the Oval Office needs to decide again if United States could work with other great powers as it defends itself against Islamic terrorism and promotes American freedom and the interest of American oil colonialism in the oil-producing Islamic world.

 

31(x) Pax Americana Dream

Hindu India would support President Bush’s attempts to create Pax Americana, as it would promote America’s imperial interests not Pope’s Christian interests. India would support imperialistic and oil colonial wars against oil producing nations as any war between Christian nation and Muslim nation would promote the national interests of the Hindu World. President Bush dreamt Pax Oil Americana not Holy Pax Americana. President Bush looks towards oil not Pope for inspiration. There is no doubt that President Bush wanted to establish secular Pax Americana on the lines of secular Pax Romana. It would be stupid to suspect that President Bush wanted to establish American Holy Roman Empire, which might have been the designs of President Bill Clinton or Secretary Madeleine Albright. President Bush is not Pope’s agent to establish Holy American Christian Empire. President Bush might establish American Oil Empire, but would not waste his resources to establish American Christian Empire. President Bush is declared oil imperialist, not the fanatic Christian Crusader.

 

Around 2,000 years ago, Roman republic turned itself into an empire and extended the "pax romana" over most of the known Western world, Western Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East, plus the great reservoir of barbarian tribes in Eastern Europe and central Asia. Empire of Rome exercised direct control over about half of the world’s total population, and able to tax them and raise troops from them. So the Roman Empire lasted more than 400 years, after the Roman conquest of the Greek Empire and Egyptian Empire and the barbarian conquest of the Rome in 415 AD. Barbarian German tribes conquered the Roman Empire, because due to the shortage of the manpower, Roman Empire forced to recruit barbarian tribes for Roman Army, and it resulted in the transfer of Roman military technology and tactics to the barbarians, who used the Roman tactics to defeat the Roman Army and capture and loot the Rome. American Empire recruited Islamic terrorists to defeat Soviet army in Afghanistan just as Roman Army had recruited barbarian tribes to supply soldiers for the Roman Army. Just as barbarian German tribes led by Roman Army trained barbarian commanders conquered Rome and ended the Roman Empire, and developed alliance with the Papacy, who deserted the interests of the Roman empire and sided with the barbarians to secure Papal control over Italy. The declining manpower base of the white race would undermine the growing ambitions of the American Empire led by president Bush.  

 

Neo-conservatives talk of turning the American republic into an imperial power that enforces a "pax Americana" around the planet, to promote the American colonial interests. But the United States has only 4 percent of the planet's population, and American people are averse to high taxes and war casualties and draft conscription to the Armed forces. Pentagon realized that the demand for American troops and war chest will rapidly outrun the supply of the soldiers and tax dollars, so the American empire will last for 15 years at the most, but it may be a hectic and painful 15 years. Soviet Union enacted Brezhnev Doctrine after the defeat of the United States in the Vietnam War in 1975 at the hands of the Asian Vietnamese. Around 15 years after the Soviet victory in Vietnam, the Soviet Union disintegrated and the Cold War ended with the United States as the sole super power of the world. American Empire in Iraq might meet the defeat Soviet Army faced in Afghanistan, when the CIA and Pakistan supplied Stringer missiles to Afghan Mujahideens. American could get into deep trouble if Russia decided to supply Aryan Kurds and Arab Shiites with weapons and SAM shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles, the Russian counterpart of the American Stringer missiles.

 

Neo-conservatives want to recreate the victory of America’s colonial experience in the Philippines and Cuba at the turn of the 20th Century in Iraq and New Middle East (NME) at the turn of the 21st Century, hoping American would be able to defeat the targeted nations by dint of American superiority in precision guided munitions. The dream of American Empire dimmed by the Vietnam War, again attracted American neoconservatives during 1980s, and it gained a much broader following after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The only apparent constraint on U.S. power, the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, and it gave birth to the idea that the world would be a safer place if governed by multilateral organizations under the control of American Big Oil. It gave way to the fantasy that the United States can and should make the world a safer place, particularly for American oil colonialism, by the unilateral exercise of its own immense power, to create spheres of interests worldwide, to mould the world in the image of America.

 

The American misconception about its permanent status as the super power is the hubris and it could result in the nemesis of the American Empire. Would United States meet the Vietnam-type defeat in Iraq? Bush Doctrine 2002 declared that United States would use military force to sabotage the attempt of any power that attempted to equal or surpass the power of the United States. Almost every American president believed that America would remain the super power for a very long to come without any break. "In all of American public life, there is hardly a single prominent figure who finds fault with the notion of the United States remaining the world's sole military superpower until the end of time." This is called hubris, and it is generally followed by nemesis. White House opposed any new international treaty that might act as a brake on the free exercise of the American power during Clinton's administration. President Bill Clinton, not President George W. Bush, who fought an international ban on land mines and tried to sabotage the new International Criminal Court. That will probably arrive during the next phase of the fantasy: the wildly ambitious project to make the conquest of Iraq the cornerstone for a wholesale restructuring of the Arab world along American lines. America is probably no more than two years away from a Somalia-style U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, after the start of initial hostilities.

 

President Bush wanted American occupation troops to remain in Iraq for at least two years as occupation troops. "America has made and kept this kind of commitment before, in the peace that followed a world war," said President George W. Bush late last month, comparing the latest project with the rebuilding of Germany and Japan after 1945. "We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary." American wants to remodel political set up of Iraq on the lines of Germany and Japan that Untied States undertook after the end of the Second World War. Iraq is no more like Germany than Saddam Hussein is like Adolf Hitler. Germany and Japan in 1945 were industrial states with strong national identities, and several generations' experience of democracy, homogeneous populations and fully professional bureaucracies. Iraq is an artificial state of competing ethnic identities with no democratic tradition and a deeply politicized totally corrupt state apparatus dominated by a single ethno-religious minority, Sunni Arabs that represent less than 15 percent of the Iraq’s population.

 

America should forget the megalomaniac idea of running the world or spreading democracy throughout the Middle East, unless India agreed to provide 10 million soldiers to the Pentagon to create Pax Americana. Merely occupying Iraq would prove too heavy a burden for the American public to tolerate for very long, unless American oil companies agree to loot the oil resources of Iraq to pay for the economic development in United States. The Aryan Kurds in the north will try to keep the de facto independence they have enjoyed for the past 10 years, and the Turkish army will move in to ensure that they don't set up an independent Kurdistan that would act as a beacon for Turkey's own huge Kurdish minority. Iran would support Kurds to secede from Turkey. The Shiite Arab majority of Iraq's population, long excluded from power by the Sunni Arab minority, will also try to secede from Iraq and form Shiite Iraq state, unless Shiites get the lion's share of power in Baghdad, since Arab Shiites represent 60 percent of the Iraqi population. American won't let that happen because the loyalties of Iraqi Shiites lie with their co-religionists in Iran, and Washington will not allow a pro-Iranian government to emerge in Baghdad that would control Iraq's oil and menace Saudi Arabia.

 

Invasions of Syria and Iran

Iraq is just the first step in neo-conservative plot to control the entire Middle East and to reorganize the political map of the oil-producing world. John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, told Israelis that he had no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterward. Bolton made his comments in private talks and it's not known if he elaborated on how America would deal with those nations. But there's little doubt his message, however incomplete, unsettled officials in Damascus, Tehran and Pyongyang. Why did Bolton fuel such an explosive idea at such a sensitive time? This kind of talk is extremely dangerous and extremely undiplomatic. It reminded diplomats of the World War II slogan, 'Loose lips sink ships.' In this case, loose lips can damage our whole effort in the Middle East, including trying to build international support for war in Iraq. Iran and Syria are also threats, but they are much greater threats to Israel than they are to the United States or any other nation. Singling Syria and Iran reinforced the notion that American military ventures in Iraq sought to promote Israeli interests more than to protect American national interests. The Jewish control over American media conspired to paint Israeli interests as America’s national interests. Iraq is just the first step in neo-conservative plot to control the entire Middle East and to reorganize the political map of the oil-producing world. John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, told Israelis that he had no doubt America will attack Iraq and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterward. Bolton made his comments in private talks and it's not known if he elaborated on how America would deal with those nations. But there's little doubt his message, however incomplete, unsettled officials in Damascus, Tehran and Pyongyang. Why did Bolton fuel such an explosive idea at such a sensitive time? This kind of talk is extremely dangerous and extremely undiplomatic. It reminded diplomats of the World War II slogan, 'Loose lips sink ships.' In this case, loose lips can damage our whole effort in the Middle East, including trying to build international support for war in Iraq. Iran and Syria are also threats, but they are much greater threats to Israel than they are to the United States or any other nation. Singling Syria and Iran reinforced the notion that American military ventures in Iraq sought to promote Israeli interests more than to protect American national interests. The Jewish control over American media conspired to paint Israeli interests as America’s national interests.

 

UN Debacle the 21st Century Tet Offensive

The American debacle for its failure to win the votes of Guinea, Angola, Cameroon, Pakistan and Chile, the non-permanent members of the Security Council, in 2003 February, could be called the 21st Century Tet Offensive, the incident that took place in Saigon in Feb 1968. Thirty-five years ago this month, in 1968 the U.S. Embassy in well-fortified Saigon fell under enemy attack. A TV news clip showed a couple of embassy civilians and uniformed U.S. military personnel fending off the dozen or so Viet Cong commandos who had invaded the U.S. compound. One of the civilians was wielding an automatic weapon high above his head, firing on targets over a wall. But there we were in 1968, overseas and assigned to embassies as attaches. But blood had been drawn in Saigon. When it was over, all the Vietnamese commandos were dead, but so were some Americans and South Vietnamese. That day in February 1968 and the days of fighting that followed in Saigon and key South Vietnam district capitals came to be known as the Tet Offensive. It mattered not that the U.S. Embassy was never overrun, or that the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong paid a heavy price in lives for their attacks. The surprise military offensive was a giant media and psychological success for the North Vietnamese. Tet Offensive marked a turning point, raising doubts in the minds of moderate Americans, not just hippies and campus radicals, about the worth of this conflict, and the antiwar movement intensified. Today American military might dominates the world. But there is, at least in some quarters, a disquieting feeling that without drawing a drop of American blood, the setbacks in the U.N. Security Council a week ago, the standoffs with NATO and the waves of global protests against a U.S.-led war on Iraq may come to be seen one day as our 21st-century diplomatic Tet Offensive.

 

31(xi) JASON 1966 Study on Tactical Nuclear Weapons

There would be no danger of nukes in America’s invasions of Iraq. President Bush won’t be foolish enough to use tactical nuclear weapons on Iraq or any other adversary. The 55-page study analyzed the effects of using tactical nuclear weapons against a variety of targets, most in North Vietnam, as well as the likely political effects of a nuclear campaign. Although it eschewed any comment on the moral dimensions of using tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam and focused primarily on military considerations, the report came to a strong conclusion: The JASON report grew out of an overheard remark. As the Vietnam War escalated in the spring of 1966, a high-ranking Pentagon official with access to President Johnson was heard by scientist Freeman Dyson to say, "It might be a good idea to toss in a nuke from time to time, just to keep the other side guessing." Dyson and three other scientists, Steven Weinberg, S. Courtney Wright and Robert Gomer, were so appalled by the remark that they undertook a systematic study of the utility of nuclear weapons in the Vietnam War. They were members of JASON, a group of elite scientific advisors to the Pentagon who spent two months each summer analyzing tough problems confronting the United States military.

 

Should the United States use nuclear weapons against rogue states and nonstate actors such as terrorists and insurgents? This question has been raised by the Bush administration in a variety of policy statements, including last year's Nuclear Posture Review, which ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for using nuclear weapons against a number of countries, including Iraq. The JASON Report concluded that a nuclear attack on Vietnamese insurgents would "offer the U.S. no decisive military advantage." Rather, the political effects of such an attack "would be uniformly bad and could be catastrophic."

 

Most important, the study warned that a first use of nuclear weapons by the United States could lead China or the Soviet Union to provide Vietnamese fighters with tactical nuclear weapons. These weapons could be used with great effectiveness against U.S. forces concentrated in 14 large and "highly vulnerable" bases. In fact, U.S. targets were far more vulnerable to the effective use of nuclear weapons than were the smaller, relatively mobile and difficult-to-find enemy encampments. For example, the authors estimated that it would take 3,000 tactical nuclear weapons per year to interdict supply routes like the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Even then, damaged roads and trails could be relatively easily rerouted and cleared. Other officials involved in the JASON study confirm that there was recurring talk around the Pentagon that spring and summer about using tactical nuclear weapons to block passes between North Vietnam and Laos, especially the Mu Gia Pass, a key part of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the Viet Cong's primary supply route headed south. Despite Bush administration claims to the contrary, today, as in 1966, nuclear-armed states remain unlikely to supply rogue groups with nuclear weapons, because to do so could bring retaliation and possible annihilation of their leaders and populations.

 

In the context of the Vietnam War, the JASON report noted that the Viet Cong's backers, China and the Soviet Union, had little interest in supplying their communist insurgents with nuclear weapons for purposes of a first use. Chinese and Soviet leaders would either be self-deterred by the prospect of loss of control, or would be deterred by the prospect of U.S. retaliation. But crucially, the JASON group recognized that any restraint felt by state supporters of insurgents might end if the United States were to use nuclear weapons first. Under those circumstances, whether for reasons of prestige and credibility, or to counter overwhelming American power, or to demonstrate their own nuclear strength, nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable states might become more willing to provide weapons of mass destruction to insurgents. At Nautilus Institute’s website www.nautilus.org, the JASON report can be viewed.

 

31(xii) Anti Terror Alliance Treaty Organization (ATATO)

United States and India should sign the Anti-Terror Alliance Treaty to eradicate the menace of Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth. There is no reason India and the United States cannot concurrently form a new international alliance, this one opposed to global terrorism. The nations that supported Untied States after the 9/11 attacks and continued to wage wars on global terrorism might form the core of this new alliance. It is through this alliance (how about calling it ATATO, for Anti-terror Alliance Treaty Organization) that the impending war in Islamic terrorism should be fought. No one could seriously argue that India and the United States were acting unilaterally if they fought the global war on Islamic terrorism in concert with fellow member allies of the ATATO Alliance.

 

Whenever ATATO demonstrated success against Islamic terrorism, many other nations, the victims of the Islamic terrorism would be clamoring to join the new alliance as soon as its success was demonstrated. A new alliance can help ensure that India and America’s response to Islamic terrorism, including regime change in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE, Yemen and Iraq, is not unilateral. The ATATO might accomplish its stated goal to defeat global Islamic terrorism. As was true in the past, a new alliance is needed today to defeat this new menace of global Islamic terrorism. Abandoning the United Nations or NATO would be too drastic and is unnecessary. After all, the United States did not abandon the Security Council when we helped give birth to NATO.

 

United States was for decades a member of the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), an alliance formed to provide defense against Communist aggression in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. SEATO founded in 1954 by Australia, France, Great Britain, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand and the United States. After political disputes, France ceased active participation in SEATO in 1967, and Pakistan withdrew in 1972. By mutual agreement, the alliance disbanded in 1977. Similarly, the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) was a mutual defense alliance founded in 1959 by Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and the United Kingdom, with the United States as a de facto member. Iran and Pakistan went their separate ways in 1979, and CENTO disbanded after it no longer could be effective. The U.N. security Council was formed by anti-Axis allies in the 1940s as a way of ensuring that era's threat never reappeared: fascism. As the 1950s dawned, it was obvious to some nations that this Security Council with the USSR as a permanent member would be ineffective in countering that era's new threat: communist encroachment into Western Europe so these nations formed a new alliance, NATO.

 

Iraq is detour from War on Terror

Most disturbing, our president does not trust us enough to tell us the casualty estimates for our sons and daughters and for Iraqi civilians. The Pentagon has produced low, medium and high-risk estimates. The president simply chooses not to disclose them for the justifiable fear that public support for war with Iraq will erode. Given the pattern of public deception in Vietnam, we should have learned to demand candor and respect for our judgment from our elected officials. Instead, we are now tacitly permitted to believe war in Iraq will resemble Gulf War I and Afghanistan -- quick, relatively bloodless and successful. We must pray that it will be. But prayers are no substitute for a leader who trusts us enough to be honest about the risks of war.

 

Obsession with Hussein caused the president Bush to neglect the probable consequences of the Iraqi war, attacks on the United States. America is not sufficiently prepared for the next terrorist attacks, attacks very likely to be precipitated by massive U.S. military invasion, and probable long-term occupation, of an Islamic nation in the most volatile region on Earth. America is still unprepared and still at risk of Islamic terrorist attacks. To leave America’s own mainland camp exposed and vulnerable to Islamic terrorist attacks, disregarding the military dictum that when an attack is made on the enemy, it invites counterattack by the enemy on the invaders mainland; is not the hallmark of prudent American leadership.

 

Did President Bush wage war on Iraq to establish American oil colony in Iraq or to attain other diplomatic or moral objectives? What were America’s strategic objectives in Iraq: disarmament of Iraq, or regime change in Iraq, or to mount a massive democratic revolution throughout the Arab world or all of the above? Once again, the strategic objective, and presidential candor was missing in identifying the clear military and political objectives in Iraq war. It was cynical in the extreme to assume the American people should not be told that America intended to conduct a political revolution among 1.1 billion people spread from Gibraltar to eastern Indonesia.

 

Why should President Bush try to camouflage the Roosevelt’s Machiavellian approach to establish American oil colony in Iraq in the Wilsonian idealism of transformation of the totalitarian regimes with the democratically elected governments in Iraq and the New Middle East. The extravagance, not to say arrogance, of this epic undertaking is sufficiently breathtaking in its hubris to make Woodrow Wilson blush. And as a visionary, George W. Bush is no Woodrow Wilson. Diplomats find nothing in the writings of America's founders, including those of the expansive Alexander Hamilton that suggested America’s national purpose should be the remaking of the world in our own image. In fact, most founders, and the prudent leaders since, have believed we should focus on perfecting our own democracy as an example to the world.

 

India’s Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh was the first diplomat that offered Indian military base facilities to United States to undertake military operations in Afghanistan. United States misused India’s invitation to force Pakistan offer military bases to Pentagon. United States did not allow India to play any significant role in Afghanistan. India felt violated. World supported President Bush on war on Afghanistan and United States misused the compassion of the world to promote the interests of the American Oil colonialism and Heroin cartel in Afghanistan. United States provided safe passage to the Al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan provided safe heaven to the top Taliban terrorists. Iraq is a detour from the war on terrorism. Hussein mysteriously morphed into Osama bin Laden, or vice-versa. The war on terrorism is too serious to become the vehicle for settling old scores, either abroad or between neo-hawks and traditionalists in the administration. It is also too serious to become an excuse -- a kind of foreign policy Trojan horse -- to experiment with the new doctrine of preemption to replace containment. And if we really do intend to bring democracy to the Arab world at the point of a bayonet, the American people deserve the candid accounting we have not been given. If America is up for preemptive war against nations that do not meet the historic standard of representing an imminent and unavoidable threat to America, then you are pretty much up for anything.

 

31(xiii) Role of Kurds in Iraq War

Independent and sovereign Kurdistan would become a political reality as a result of the disturbances created by America’s invasions of Iraq. It would not be in the interest of American oil colonialism to let Turkey occupy and control Mosul and Kirkuk. United States should better establish Kurdish rule in Northern Iraq, as Kurds would be more amenable to protect the interests of American oil colonialism than either Turks or Iraqis. India, Iran and Russia should support the establishment of independent Kurdistan, by carving out the Kurds-majority areas in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey and guarantee Kurdistan direct access to Sea.

 

America’s war on Iraq would enhance the economic and political power of Kurds in Iraq. United States should not use Turkish army in Iraq and must not allow Turkish occupation of the Mosul and Kirkuk oil fields. Iraqi Kurds have agreed not to take control of the cities of Mosul and Kirkuk centers of oil production that could provide the seed money for a Kurdish state. American could succeed in establishing permanent oil colony over Iraq only if cement strategic ties with Kurds and Shiites in Iraq. Only by taking Iraqi Kurds and Shiites into confidence that president Bush could hope to establish colonial occupation of Iraq. President Bush would commit hara-kiri if he attempted to impose the rule of Wahhabi Sunni Arabs over Iraqi Oil Colony. Iraqi opposition groups might give support for the American cause but would also flatly reject any Turkish military presence in Kurd-majority areas in Iraq, even if under American command, and that rejection echoed by some 100,000 Iraqi Kurds. The 25 million Kurds live in the mountainous borderlands that separate Turkey, Iraq and Iran are culturally and linguistically distinct, there belong to Aryan race and their language closer to Persian language, and Kurds claim to nationhood is more legitimate than Saudi claim for nationhood. The dream of Kurdistan is one of the most deserving hopes in the shifting sands of claims and traditions that bedevil the Middle East. Under the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds enjoyed the preferential status granted to all Muslim subjects; clannish and nomadic, and Kurds roamed the mountains under the guidance of conservative-minded clan chiefs and Kurd leaders sent their sons to be soldiers for the multi-ethnic, multi-faith Ottoman Empire. Kurds under Ottoman Empire enjoyed greater privilege than Wahhabi tribesmen of Mecca and Medina. Catholic disliked Kurds since the Kurd warrior defeated Christian Crusaders in Jerusalem and liberated Jerusalem and established Muslim rule thereafter. Sunni Kurds have the military capability to rule the Arab Muslim world. Aryan India, Aryan Pakistan and Aryan Iran would support the Aryan Kurds led regime in post-Saddam Iraq. The liberal Islamist party now in power in Ankara is already viewed less skeptically by the Kurds than its predecessors were. The America’s invasions of Iraq, if handled correctly could give Turkey's new Islamist government a chance to help reshape the region and to make a fresh start in the Kurd-majority mountain regions. The liberal Islamist party should better focus on increasing Turkish influence over Saudi Arabia to reclaim Ottoman Caliphate’s rights over Arabian Peninsula, and leave the mountain-Kurds semi-autonomous. Iraqi and Turki Kurds would come very handy in any future Turki designs to increase Turki influence over Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

 

The Ottoman Kurds were badly prepared when the Ottoman Empire began to fracture toward the end of the 19th century. Financed by American and British oil colonialism, one ethnic group after another asserted its identity and proclaiming independence, the Turks faced political eclipse. It was only by stressing a newfound ethnicity of their own that the Turks were able to forge a post-Ottoman country founded on the Western model and primacy of the Turki race and Turkish language in Roman script. In 1924 Turks abolished the caliphate, taking away the sultan's role as religious leader; it is no accident that the Kurdish language was outlawed on the same day. Being Muslim no longer counted in secular Turkey, and the Kurds frequently dismissed as "mountain Turks" found themselves second-class citizens in Turkey, denied the right to use their Kurd languages or express Kurd culture. Kurds faced cultural genocide in secular Turkey. The Kurds of Iraq invaded, tortured, displaced and bombed with chemical weapons by the Iraqi army in the 1980's, now enjoy a measure of autonomy under the allies' no-fly zone. Iraqi Kurds have organized practical self-government and have achieved some peace and even prosperity mainly as middlemen in the large black economy of the Iraq-Turkey-Iran borderlands.

 

31(xiv) Tel Aviv-Jeddah Axis or Saudi Arabia Israel Confederation

Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Singapore, Brunei and Malaysia are artificial states and they never existed in history and they were created to promote the interests of American and British oil colonialism after the World wars. The House of Al Saud would agree for Israel-Saudi Federation, if Israel could protect the royal family against threats from Mecca-based Wahhabi clergy. Israel’s takeover of Saudi Arabia would be good for the world and check Islamic terrorism. Zionist Cabal should make House of Al Saud paranoid of Osama bin Laden, arguing that United States might encourage Osama bin Laden takeover of Saudi Arabia, to replicate the overthrow of Shah of Iran. King Fahd realized that Osama Bin Laden was and continued to be a CIA agent, and America gave safe passage to Osama Bin Laden as he might come handy in any future overthrow of Saudi Royal family.

 

Like the Austro-Hungarian Empire the Israeli-Saudi Arabian joint monarchy could establish peace in the Middle East. The doctrine of New Middle East (NME) advocated the reorganization of the OPEC nations into European Union type confederation. Semite Israelis and Semite House of Al Saud would find the bonds of Semite race good enough to hire the military prowess of Israeli Army to protect the House of Al Saud. American and British secret services hired a local Wahhabi tribesman to murder the Ottoman Governor in Riyadh, whose wife was the aunt of Abdul Aziz Al Saud. Abdul Aziz hid in the house and murdered the governor and escaped by jumping from the roof. The Semite House of Al Saud would be willing to enter into political alliance with Israel, if Wahhabi clergy under the influence of Osama Bin Laden conspired to overthrow the monarchy and promote House of Bin Laden as new King of Saudi Arabia.

 

Nelson Mandela, the Nobel Laureate criticized Bush as "muddled mind" and qualified Tony Blair as "the US foreign minister". The whole world would realize that the Bush administration doesn't care for the world opinion, UNO and European Union. President Bush had made up his mind that United States would attack Iraq, certainly before the end of March 20003, with or without the UN, and without caring for the public opinion screams and shouts in any corner of the world. By going to war, at least the administration will finally be able to prove that the UN is irrelevant, the EU is irrelevant, NATO is irrelevant, and the people of the world are all irrelevant.

 

Saudi Arabia - supported by Egypt and Syria, bet everything on what some might define as a wishful thinking strategy: to bridge the abyss between America and Iraq by calling for more thorough inspections, like France, Germany and Russia, and at the same time creating conditions for Saddam Hussein to gradually step down, to pave a way for the Wahhabi military troops to enter Iraq to impose Wahhabi Shariah laws over secular liberal Iraq. The demand of the UAE and Saudi Arabia that Arab League troops should enter Iraq after Saddam Hussein stepped down and directly administer and rule Iraq for couple of years, would come very handy for Americans to justify the dispatch of pro-American Iraqi troops to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and UAE to establish interim military regimes in these Wahhabi countries, for few years before reforming these societies to create New Middle East and to transfer power to the newly elected representatives of men and women citizens of these countries.

 

Diplomats say that the Saudis are at the stage of extracting guarantees from the Bush administration, to secure Wahhabi Arab control over Iraq and imposition of Shariah laws over Iraq after the American conquest of Iraq. Saudi Arabia also tried to engage Nelson Mandela as a mediator, between Saddam Hussein and president Bush, something that the Bush administration never accepted. Nelson Mandela, the Nobel Laureate criticized Bush as "muddled mind" and qualified Tony Blair as "the US foreign minister." Mandela, anyway, is ready to go to Baghdad before the end of February along with fellow Nobel laureate Jimmy Carter on a joint mission to try to convince Saddam to do anything possible to avert war.

 

The unprecedented anti-war demonstrations against threatened American wars on Iraq resulted in the public opinion as a world power, powerful enough to influence world politics. The organizers themselves are amazed by the depth and breadth of this civil society mobilization across the world, even before a war has started. According to a spokesman for ANSWER, a coalition of US peace groups which helped organize a march of 200,000 people last month in Washington: "This is unprecedented. Demonstrations only got this large against the Vietnam War at the height of the conflict, years after it started." This "single largest day of protests in world history" - as the word in the street goes - could make a powerful case demonstrating how the US and UK lost their influence over world opinion.

 

Why United States used the threat of Saudi Osama bin Laden for American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but not the invasions of Saudi Arabia and UAE? In the name of Osama Bin Laden, who earned safe passage in Afghanistan war, United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and justified the American invasions of Iraq in 2003. Wahhabi terrorist Osama Bin Laden was a CIA agent and he perhaps continued to be the loyal CIA agent that he dispatched the Cassette to the Qatar TV at the time that it became priceless bonanza to US policy makers. Questions are being asked not only all over the Arab world, but also in Europe about the Feb 2003 Osama bin Laden tape, whether Bin Laden returned the favor to the CIA for giving safe passage from Afghanistan during Afghanistan war. It was not be classic bin Laden tape, but there's also no doubt its timing helped the Bush administration to bolster its case against Saddam, by linking Saddam Hussein to bin Laden. Of course this tape played to Osama bin Laden's advantage as well. The invasion of an Arab nation Iraq, would destabilize many "apostate" rulers in the Middle East, fuel jihad on an unprecedented scale, and generate "hundreds of Osama bin Laden."

 

Faced with the imminent threat of Osama Bin Laden takeover of Saudi Arabia, the House of Al Saud might agree to confederate with Israel to form the Austro-Hungarian empire type joint Wahhabi-Jewish Monarchy of Saudi Arabia-Israel confederation or invite Americans to establish direct American colony in Saudi Arabia, in exchange for protecting the wealth of the Al Saud family. Osama Bin Laden would join forces with Zionist Cabal and Christian Neo-Conservatives to bring down the oil-rich apostate rulers of Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Qatar, just as Ayatollah Khomeini could not have become absolute ruler of Iran without the direct support of President Jimmy Carter and the CIA. The CIA promoting Osama Bin Laden as the future ruler of Saudi Arabia by making him the darling of Islamic world, so that Jews and Christians might loot the wealth of the Al Saud royal family princes and princesses. Egyptian author Tawfez el-Hakem wondered why Colin Powell switched to breaking-news mode even before Al Jazeera acknowledged that it had the new bin Laden tape. As early as Tuesday afternoon, the Al Jazeera newsroom in Doha, Qatar, was bombarded by phone calls from newsrooms all over the planet, but until nine in the evening the network refused to confirm that it had received a new bin Laden tape. Bin Laden's message, anyway, was very clear. "Whoever supported the United States, including the hypocrites of Iraq or the rulers of Arab countries, those who approved America’s actions and followed America in this Crusade war by fighting with Americans or providing bases and administrative support, or any form of support, even by words, to kill the Muslims in Iraq, should know that these rulers of Arab countries are apostates and outside the community of Muslims. It is permissible to spill their blood and take their property." It's enlightening to compare this radical message with the most recent one by Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, and unlike bin Laden a certified theological authority: "The Islamic nation is confronted by many challenges put by its enemies, who wage war against Islam, its fundamentals, its principles, its values and its culture." The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia would anoint Osama Bin Laden as the Ruler of Saudi Arabia so that House of Bin Laden could establish new royal family in Saudi Arabia and overthrow the al Saud monarchy.

 

The Zionist Cabal and Republican Neo-conservatives and Christian religious Right conservatives, want to establish New Middle East on the lines of European Union, where OPEC nations would surrender their independence and sovereignty to the Middle East Confederation which would be led and dominated by America. If Middle Eastern regimes are Osama bin Laden's apostates, just as France and Germany are certainly Washington's apostates. The peaceful solution for the Iraqi crisis lies within the concept of the Europe Union. France and Germany have learned the hard way. After five centuries of wars, from 1618 to 1914, including the uninterrupted war of 1914-1945, they have created the nucleus of a European Union with the same currency and the ultimate objective of adopting a common foreign policy. This is nothing less than revolutionary in terms of uniting ancient and proud nation-states, rival colonial empires, fierce rivals, different cultures, and different languages. The European Union faced the threat of overextension when it invited the East European countries to join the EU. The EU is still a work in progress, with numerous flaws, but is the first instance in history where nation-states abdicated their national sovereignty and joined a common project for a whole White Christian European Civilization. The Bush Neo-conservatives and Zionist Cabal promoted the idea of Muslim Turkey into European Union, so that Muslim, Christian and Judaic New Middle East Union could comprise of all Semite Muslim Oil producing nations and Arab Christians and Semite Jewish Israel. American oil colonialism believed that Israel would protect the interest of American oil colonialism in the New Middle East Union by cementing closer military ties with Wahhabi oil producers, so that Semite Saudi Wahhabi oil producers could harness the military capability of Semite Israel to tame and check Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran from attempting to challenge the leadership of Mecca over Islamic Ummah. Zionist Cabal and Christian religious right might find common cause with Osama Bin Laden to establish House of Bin Laden rule over Saudi Arabia, in case House of Al Saud refused the Zionist offer for the formation of the Semite Wahhabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel. 

 

31(xv) Chirac is Bush’s Nemesis

Germany and France believed that president Bush led America became the greatest threat to the world peace and president Bush could be the Adolf Hitler of 21st Century. President Chirac had no option but to take up the leadership of the anti-Bush anti-America coalition to voice the feelings of the world opposed to America’s imperial policies in Iraq. Had President Chirac not opposed President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, the French public in the next elections would install a far right fascist prime minister and president in France. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder harnessed the anti-war emotions in Germany to prepare Germany as military power in the crisis prone 21st Century. By comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler the Germany minister cleansed the guilt feeling of the German society and Germany could start on the clean slate to assert Germany’s military power in the 21st Century. Riding on the public support of the anti-war groups Gerhard Schroeder could emerge as the new Hitler of Germany. Germany and France could become the new centers of world power, riding on the world recognition they received for their valiant opposition to the American imperialism.

 

France shone as the leading Critic of America

President Chirac had no option but to oppose President Bush to assert the power and glory of France, otherwise the Le Penn’s pro-right group would install a far-right fascist government in France in next elections. France will go to the limit in its opposition to a U.S. war on Iraq. President Chirac sealed role as the president Bush’s critic, to assert the image of France, so that people might not elect a Fascist Prime Minister and President in next elections. With the Elysee presidential palace as an elegant stage, French President Jacques Chirac delivered a dramatic message challenging President Bush’s threatened invasions of Iraq for establishing American oil colony in Iraq. Mr. Chirac said, "Here we have a problem of principles. We are not in a conflict with the United States, but we have a problem of principles, I would say a moral problem. Are we going to go to war if we have perhaps a means of avoiding it? That's where France, following its traditions, says if there is a means of avoiding it, we must do all we can." Since September 2002, French diplomats followed a raison d’etat policy that left open the option of eventual French participation in an UN-backed military operation against Iraq. Bad personal and political chemistry between president Chirac and President Bush worsened in January ’03, and the increasing aggressiveness of both governments has locked France and United States into a collision course. Just as a Pentagon’s massive military deployment in the Gulf shaped President Bush’s policy, France's emergence as dogged champion of the antiwar movement has made anything short of a French veto seem difficult to explain at home in France and overseas. No single moment appears to have consolidated the French decision, but Chirac's success last month at winning Russia over to the Franco-German antiwar coalition apparently bolstered the French president Chirac's resolve. The strategic thinking, meanwhile, ranged from high-minded points of international law to bottom-line political calculations. President Chirac realized that unless he rose to the occasion to fill in the shoes of Charles de Gaulle, the fascist president or prime minister would form the government in the next French elections. The legacy of Gen. Charles de Gaulle, who steadfastly asserted French independence from the United States, also influenced Chirac’s diplomacy. Chirac said he was flattered by such comparisons with Charles de Gaulle, but Gen. De Gaulle was the first to side with the United States. De Gaulle did not oppose for the sake of opposing the United States. De Gaulle affirmed the interests of France."

 

Chirac calculated that French interests and his own political survival lied with the overwhelming weight of anti-war opinion among the public and politicians in Europe, the Middle East and much of the rest of the world. Chirac achieved a remarkable across-the-board consensus among French voters and political parties, on the need to oppose the imperial ambitions of President Bush and that French diplomacy should hold American in check. Chirac has many friends among rulers of the Arab world. Chirac during a trip to Algeria in Feb ’03, to heal old colonial wounds, reveled in the cheers of crowds who hailed him as the man who stood up to American hegemony. France reasserted its clout in the Arab world, a perennial foreign French foreign policy objective.

 

Although France would not provide troops or military support for any U.S. invasion of Iraq, it might allow American planes to fly over French territory. France would participate in a reconstruction of Iraq that would most likely have to be directed by the U.N. France will be involved and France will fulfill its role in post-war reconstruction of Iraq. Our American friends are in the process of making a mistake, and France is telling them this, the role of true friends is not always to agree. French leaders regarded their veto power as the diplomatic equivalent of a nuclear weapon that should only be brandished, let alone unleashed as a last resort. France has not vetoed a U.S. initiative in the Security Council since the Suez crisis in 1956.

 

Is President Bush Hitler of 21st Century?

Why Germany minister Compared Bush to Hitler during elections? German minister during German general elections 2002 compared President George Bush with Hitler, and one wonders whether it was an insult to Bush or the attempt to rationalize the prewar imperial policies of Adolf Hitler. The German Minister’s remark comparing Bush to Hitler, ranked as exemplary rhetoric, like the President Ronald Reagan’s condemnation of the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire” and President Bush’s condemnation in 2003 of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as Axis of Evil. The Western democracies, Britain, France and United States appeased Hitler primarily because they were operating on a tragically inappropriate analogy, restoring the European concert of powers and civilization, which after the 1814 Congress of Vienna provided stability in European balance of power from 1814 to 1914. Britain and France wanted to profit by doing business with industrialized Germany and every Capitalist perceived benefits of doing business with Herr Hitler. Germany's role as an anti-Soviet bulwark was the idea that lasted throughout the Cold War gratified many British, American and French diplomats. The raison d’etat justified the rearmament of Germany as a check to the emergence of Stalin’s Soviet Union. The West’s policy of appeasement hoodwinked Hitler to abrogate Germany-Soviet Union Non Aggression Pact. The Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt understood the true peril of Nazism as well as Communism, the West owe its gratitude and its civilization, who paved the way for the demise of Nazism and Communism by making them fight with one other. Imperial Germans at the end of the First World War had financed and supported V.I. Lenin to return to the Soviet Union and takeover power by undermining the Mensheviks. Soviet Communism owed its existence to William Kaiser, who led Germany in the First World War. Hitler failed to realize what Secretary George Kennan understood after the war that one could do business with Stalin. But prophets are rare, and rarely deal in the conventional wisdom. France, Germany and Belgium believed that they could do business with Saddam Hussein, just as George Kennan believed he could do business with Joseph Stalin and Lavrenti Beria.

 

During Cold War United States realized the value Soviet menace presented to the American policy makers in subduing in the colonial aspirations of British Empire, French Empire and Portuguese Empire. Cold War diplomats owe a debt also to George Kennan, one of the architects of the doctrine of the postwar containment of communism, who clearly understood that Stalin, though in many ways as bad or worse, was no Hitler-type madman. Kennan’s containment policy recognized evil inherent in the Communist Soviet Union for what it was, but also tempered the '30s paradigm of balance of power and concert of Europe with prudence, and replaced the Concert of multiple powers with concert of two super powers, and it worked and preserved the world peace for 50 years and avoided the specter of nuclear wars between two nuclear adversaries. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the world’s great powers, namely, France, Germany, Russia, China and India, should pool resources to develop the second pole in the new world order that could tame and hold America into check.

 

Who is the Hitler of 2003: whether Saddam Hussein or President Bush? Bush administration and Britain argued that Saddam is the Hitler of the 2003 and that France and Germany committing diplomatic hara-kiri by adopting the policy of appeasement towards Iraq. France, Germany, Russia and China believed that President Bush determined to establish American oil colony over oil-rich Iraq, represents Hitler in 2003, and world must not allow his conquest of Iraq, just as it should not have allowed Nazi Germany’s conquest of Poland. One doesn't have to read the history of the 1930s to see it play out almost daily in 2003. President Bush might lead the world into world war three. However, one must need to read the history, and everyone who invokes the past to argue in favor of war or anything else needs to know what one’s talking about, as analogies are easy, but understanding is hard, especially trying to understand how other diplomats and leaders in other times could march themselves, open-eyed and with utter sincerity and rationality, into disaster, to lead the world towards wars.

 

After the 1991 demise of the Soviet Union, End of the Cold War, the world’s diplomats have wrestled with the question how to tame and hold United States into check, so that American may not embark on the messianic goal to establish American Oil Empire in the oil-producing world. From 1918 to 1938, Europe had wrestled with the question of how to reintegrate Germany into the community of nations, as France had been reintegrated after Napoleon, after the 1814 Congress of Vienna. This required treating Germany as a legitimate part of a civilized system, and not as the French tried in the 1920s as an eternal enemy or pariah. France resented that America and Britain cheated France out of its legitimate spoils of war after the victory in Europe as well as in the Middle East. This in turn meant understanding German aspirations, as they might play out within that Balance of power system. Prior to March 1938, everything Hitler did, any German statesman would have tried to do. One pre-Nazi foreign minister, Gustav Stresemann, won the Nobel Peace Prize for pursuing the same goals by more peaceful and devious means.

 

President Bush has undermined the legitimacy of the America’s war on global Islamic terrorism by waging unnecessary war on Iraq. Would Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) meet the fate of the Versailles treaty, if Germany, Japan, Canada and Taiwan declared their intention to develop and deploy nuclear weapons? Did Hitler tear up the disarmament provisions of the Versailles treaty? Versailles treaty was never intended to be the final settlement, was universally regarded as a dead letter before the ink was dry. German disarmament was supposed to be the prelude to European disarmament, which never quite happened.

 

Did Hitler remilitarize the Rhineland, which was indisputably a German territory? French attempts to keep Germany during inter-war period led to little more than intense resentment and festering hate between Germany and France. Did Hitler annex Austria? Anschluss, the union of Germany and the Austrian remnant of the Hapsburg Empire, had been proposed in 1919 by the great economist John Maynard Keynes, and had been a serious notion for at least a century before the "Grossdeutsch" solution to German unification, and many Austrians liked the idea of union with Germany to enjoy the glory of the Third Reich and the recent electoral success of Jorg Haider point to the pro-fascism political traditions of Austria. France and Belgium also hoping to go fascist some day in near future. .

 

31(xvi) Colonial Oil Lebensraum

Lebensraum & American Oil Colonialism

President Bush’s policies justified America’s invasions of Iraq by German concept of Lebensraum. United States needed control over oil-producing nations to secure oil supplies for American economy. American oil companies wanted to conquer and colonize oil-producing nations so that America could buy oil at very cheap prices. American occupation of Iraq would allow United States to extract Iraqi oil at the prices of its choice, say even at $2 per barrel. America needed lands rich in oil and gas resources to safeguard the oil and gas supplies of the oil-hungry America’s industrial economy. The principal of Lebensraum gives the great powers the right to establish oil colonies as right of economic self-defense, since oil and gas energy supplies determines the basic survival of the industrial economies. Every great power should accept the right of other rival great powers to establish Oil Colonies in oil producing countries to safeguard their supply of oil and gas supplies. What does Lebensraum or the living space mean for the President Bush, in war on Iraq? In 1960, the US produced 33.5% of the worlds total oil output, while it consumed 31% of it. But by 2000, these figures changed to 8.5% and 25.9% respectively. By 2003 the US alone consumed one-fourth of the worlds oil production yet produces just one-fifteenth of it. Statistics predicted that within seven years, before 2010, the United States would completely exhausted all of its own domestic oil resources. Iraq still possessed an estimated 112 billion barrels of oil reserves, and at current production rates, the country could continue supplying oil to the world for a half-century to come. What it all comes down to? United States desperately needed the oil extracted in the Middle East to sustain its economic development and ever-growing need for energy. The real aim of President Bush is to turn the vast oil-rich territories of the Gulf Region into America’s own national living space. America wants to conquer the oil-producing world and control the supply of the oil and gas to the world’s industrial economies.

 

Lebensraum is the real, behind-the-scenes reason for President Bush’s imperial invasion of Iraq. Lebensraum is the key to the mind of Bush Oil Administration and Bush Oil presidency. Lebensraum is a German word that translated as living space, a word, which forced us to remember the horrors of World War II. For Hitler, lebensraum meant all of the geographical space needed to supply the German nation with its material demands and security. Hitler used these alleged needs as pretexts for invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia, and other countries. Indeed, nature, too, wants the most productive soils of the earth to be possessed by those nations, which have the courage to conquer and the energy to fully cultivate them. President Bush sought to preempt other great powers by undertaking preemptive strikes against Iraq. France, Germany, Russia, China and India opposed President Bush’s invasions of Iraq, not to protect the independence and sovereignty of Iraq and other oil-producing nations, but to foil America’s preemptive strikes against Iraq, to force America share its loot of the Iraqi oil with other great powers. Great powers would accept oil-thirsty America’s right to establish oil colony over Iraq, provided America agreed that other great powers, France, Germany, Russia, China, India, and Japan also enjoyed similar right to establish colonies in other oil-producing nations. 

 

Is Bush Overreaching?

Powerlessness of the Sole Super Power

President Bush failed to cow down Saddam Hussein. President Bush though that he would bluff Saddam Hussein into submission and establish American oil colony in Iraq without losing any significant number of American lives. President Bush wanted to establish oil colony over Iraq, the country with the world’s second largest oil reserves, but failed or refused to share the loot of the Iraqi oil with its Atlantic partners the former colonial powers France and Belgium and successors to the Adolf Hitler. Sometimes America’s approach to Iraq could takes on a sort of Strangelove quality. In order to accomplish the perfectly rational goal of disarming Saddam Hussein, President Bush has to give a convincing impression of a crazy man, a Texas-tough megalomaniac who will let nothing shake him from his war-bound course. But the strategy works only if Bush assumes the Iraqi madman is rational enough to know when he's been out bluffed. The fear is that one or both of these men will overplay his hand and hurl America into a war no sane person could want and whose most serious casualties could come after the bombing stops. How did America come to such a pass? Saddam Hussein realized that he could either fight to get glory or escape to get shot in the back. Had Saddam not left Kuwait, it would have cost lots of American lives to fight house to house to takeover Kuwait city. Iraq is a very large country and America would win the war but at great cost. Iraqis have better weapons than Viet Cong had during Vietnam War or Afghans had during Afghanistan war.

 

The trios’ syllogism, starkly put is: America is the most powerful nation in the world. America wants to do good things. Getting rid of Hussein is a good thing. Therefore America has both the power and the moral duty to rid the world of Hussein no matter what the rest of the world thinks. The Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz trio mistakenly believed that United States is the omnipotent power of the world, simply because Russia the tenth largest economy of the world, no longer dared to challenge United States. America is not the world’s most powerful nation in the world, because United States has failed to prove its military prowess after the Vietnam War. The American victories over Panama, Haiti, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, were not big enough victories to anoint America with the medal of the sole superpower of the world. Explanation lies in the syllogism that seems to drive the thinking of the president, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top deputy Paul Wolfowitz. This premise is so deeply held by Bush administration "hawks" that they are simply accepted as facts from which the rest of the policy flows. The Neo-Cons hawks believe that unmatched American power plus America’s good intentions is enough to reshape the world, no matter what the world may think.

 

The most powerful country of the world failed to woo, buy, cajole and threaten to secure votes of these non-permanent members of the Non Aligned nations against Iraq. United Nations and Non Aligned Movement got a new leash of life when President Bush failed to secure the votes of Guinea, Cameron, Angola, Pakistan and Chile in favor of American British resolution in the Security council. France, Germany, Russia, China and India would prove to the world that America could be held into check by other great powers acting in unison. Five Great powers would prove that America’s intentions in invasions of Iraq are neither good nor moral, but purely imperialistic to establish oil colony in Iraq. America lost its moral pretensions, and can no longer claim its intentions to invade Iraq based on good moral intentions. But this is a misreading of power. Military power and influence is not the same thing. Hawk Neo-Cons mistakenly believe that America’s power is so great that America can accomplish its military and diplomatic goals through force and intimidation and resolve. But there are only a few things America can get other nations to do by hitting them over the head. At some point, other nations have to believe that what America wants them to do is in their interest, too.

 

If Saddam realized that the principal objective of America was to promote oil colonialism, then Iraq might burn the oil fields of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to disturb the oil supplies of the OPEC nations. If Saddam Hussein convinced that America would invade Iraq, no matter what he may do, then he should better prepare for war and conspire to inflict as much casualties as possible. U.S. policy needs to confront two questions. First, how great is the threat from Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction? Second, how good is America’s war strategy? "There's no doubt in any diplomat’s mind that the world would be better off without Saddam. But if America’s strategy for achieving that goal is no good, America might wind up getting rid of Saddam without resolving the underlying problems. The hubris of its hawks has the Bush administration in a position where it feels it has to keep pressure on Hussein by dismissing as too little or irrelevant his grudging destruction of his weapons of mass destruction. Hussein, meanwhile, may well interpret that unrelenting pressure as evidence that the Bush administration wants him dead, whether disarmed or not, in which case he should do as little as he can get away with.

 

Saddam Hussein might offer France and Germany, Russia and China more enticing oil deals to drive wedge in their relationship with the United States. Worse, Hussein's give-a-little, wait-a-little tactic splits America’s allies, namely, Germany, France, Belgium and Italy, leading Hussein to believe that he can do as well by temporizing as by disarming. It might even be true. Surely it must be getting harder, even in the Bush administration, to play the lone-wolf role in circumstances where America are not directly threatened. And the longer America delayed the war on Iraq, the harder it will be to attack Iraq without looking like the neighborhood bully. "The truth is, action against Saddam, military or otherwise, can work well only if America and its Atlantic partners in NATO are united on the Iraqi war issue. "The United Nations can't succeed without American power, but American power by itself can be a long-term loser, if it could produce victory in Iraq as such a high cost as to make it meaningless, then it would mean that American power itself would be a long term loser by its victory in Iraq.

 

The adamant Oval Office and Pentagon helped the emergence of 4-power Eurasian Alliance among France, Germany, Russia, and China to combine diplomatic assets to hold Untied States in check. The tenacity of President Bush and arrogance of Rumsfeld caused irreparable rifts in America’s relationships with France and Germany. The unity of the NATO alliance partners been so hard to come by because of American approach especially Donald Rumsfeld. The Bush administration has created so much resentment in the world with its repeated policies of unilateralism. 'Axis of evil' may be a catchy rhetoric, but the use of the term ‘evil’ suggested that Bush Administration replaced pragmatism that historically marked America’s dealings in the world with an ideology, and a religion-based ideology, and denouncing France and Germany as ‘Old Europe” is just silly. President Bush is tenacious, one would give him credit for that, but tenacity without judgment doesn't give President Bush the leadership credibility he needs in the world, if he wanted to win friends and isolate enemies in the multipolar world, especially when Germany and France the world’s fifth and sixth largest economies raised a banner of revolt against the Yankee neighborhood bully and succeeded in winning over Russia and China, fundamentally changing the geopolitical balance of the Eurasian continent.

 

President Bush should openly declare the neo-imperial goals of the untied States to establish oil colonies in the Middle East, and offer to share the oil loot with the other great powers of the world, namely, France, Germany, Russia, China and India. President might say that he's tried nonmilitary approaches, but what Bush has done is so halfhearted that it amounts to checking off boxes, waiting for diplomacy to fail so we can go to war. If America had been genuinely trying over the months, America might have had both unity among its allies and pro-war coalition as the results. How could President Bush imagine that France and Germany would allow establish American oil colony over Iraq, without getting ironclad guarantees about the split of the loot of the Iraqi oil. It's still not too late, but it will mean real diplomacy, at the head-of-state level, to get America back to a unified approach, towards establishing Oil colonies throughout the oil-producing world, by offering rival world powers equitable share of the oil loot. America wanted to rape Iraq, but didn’t want to share the oil loot with its Atlantic partners. America had the rude awakening that it cold no longer rape the oil producing world alone without giving the other great powers to rape the oil-producing nations. 

 

49 xvii Profitable Oil Colonialism

Profits of the oil colonialism heralded the new age of colonial empires after President Bush’s invasions of Iraq. Greedy American capitalists led by the hordes of Jewish profiteers building castles in air, hoping billions of dollars incomes of the American oil colony over Iraq would end the recession in United States and force the bear market become the bull market. European colonial empires, namely, French Empire, British Empire, Portuguese Empire and Dutch Empire emerged unscathed after the Second World War, but European colonial powers consented for the process of decolonization, simply because colonies no longer generated net incomes for the coffers of the colonial powers. President Bush’s successful experiment of American Oil colonialism in Iraq opened the eyes of the world powers, as oil colonies became profitable and generate net incomes for the occupation troops. Colonial Empires staged a comeback in the 21st century, simply because Oil colonies became cash cows for the colonial powers. Great powers would agree to let every great power establish oil colonies to secure oil supplies for their industrial economies at the price they could afford.

 

Profitability of American Oil Colonialism

Colonial Empires disintegrated after 1945 primarily because colonies no longer produced net incomes for the colonial powers. The advent of oil colonialism made the oil colonies highly profitable and thus began the world powers’ scramble for oil colonies. Oil colonialism has come to stay because oil colonies became cash cows and highly profitable enterprises. American Big Oil conceptualized the OPEC Cartel to hijack the oil prices so that the Zionist Cabal and American Oil Colonialism could tax the world’s consumers and reap huge profits. Global price of oil rises and falls in tandem. Increase in the price of oil profits producers of domestic American oil and gas, and it directly goes in to the bottom line of the Big Oil’s balance sheet. In 2002, the United States consumed about 20 million barrels of oil a day. Eleven million of those barrels are imported, but 9 million are from domestic oil production. Oil is oil, and when events, a war in the Middle East or an OPEC ministers' meeting in Vienna, affect the price of oil we import from Saudi Arabia and Iraq, they have the same effect on the oil produced in the United States. After President Bush threatened and prepared for war against Iraq, the price of oil has gone from the low $20s to the high $30s a barrel. American consumers are paying an extra $15 a barrel, or $300 million a day, or more than $100 billion a year as a "war premium" on the oil they consume for the war rhetoric of President Bus. It's like a tax imposed as a result of government policy except that the government doesn't get the money, only Big Oil companies makes that extra income. No wonder Big Oil would fund the next presidential elections of Bush in 2004. President Bush reducing taxes for the rich and by oil price increases increasing the indirect taxes of the general public, while enriching oilmen. American consumers paying $ 9 billion a month before the Iraq war even started. It would be in addition to the $200 billion or so direct cost of prosecuting the Iraq war. Of that $100 billion, $55 billion pays for the oil we import. But $135 million a day a day or more than $45 billion a year minus some taxes goes into the pockets of American domestic oil producers.

 

How has an attack on the United States by a Wahhabi Arab terrorist group based in Saudi Arabia, UAE and Yemen led American invasions of Afghanistan and later on invasions of Iraq? Why was Saudi Arabia not included in the Axis of Evil, when 14 of the 19 Wahhabi hijackers were Saudi citizens? Why are nuclear weapons in Iraq worth a war but not nuclear weapons in North Korea? In the Gulf War II, the President Bush failed to answer these questions sincerely or even plausibly, let alone convincingly. It is hard to dismiss the official reasons for this war as disingenuous without some theory about what the ulterior motive or unspoken war aim might be. Bush is not taking the nation into war to avenge his father or as a "wag the dog" strategy to win reelection. President Bush deserved more credit than that. Nor is President Bush planning to conquer and occupy Iraq in order to bring human rights to the Iraqi people or start a chain reaction of democracy throughout the Middle East, as he and New-conservatives and Zionist Cabal and religious right have lately augmented the official war aims, code named New Middle East (NME). President Bush is no freedom freak and wouldn’t risk American lives to establish democracy in Iraq. 

 

In the initial stages the interests of the Semite Diamond Cartel and Semite OPEC Cartel coincided with those of the American Big Oil. However, after the election victory of the President Bush, American Big Oil realized it would make much more profits if, American directly established oil colonies throughout the oil-producing world. Why should American Big Oil pay to the corrupt rulers of the Arab regimes more than $1 per barrel royalty, if America could succeed in bring Arab oil producing countries under the direct colonial rule of America? American Big Oil would take over OPEC as well as OPEC nations in the 21st Century, if president Bush agreed to share the Oil loot with other rival oil colonial empires, led by France, Germany, Russia, China and India.

 

America wanted to establish direct colonial occupation of Iraq. America’s ulterior motive in Iraq war, everyone seems to agree on is "oil." But what does it mean? Supporters of the Iraq war say that our dependence on oil from the Middle East is what makes the removal of a madman in Baghdad more pressing than the removal of a madman in Pyongyang. President Bush and Vice President Cheney, both oilmen could be betraying America's national interest for the benefit of the American Big Oil. As a seller would American Big Oil want higher prices for its oil and gas products in United States? As a buyer and importer would American Big Oil want lower prices? Would American Big Oil long for stability in the Middle East or hunger for new opportunities that might emerge from the chaos? And how will the Iraq war affect the price of oil in American markets? Why American domestic oil prices going up in anticipation of Iraqi war? But when the America’s invasions of Iraq is successfully over, increased Iraqi oil supplies to United States will reduce prices, unless Saddam Hussein destroys Iraqi oil fields, and burns some of Kuwait and Saudi Arabian oil fields and gas terminals, which would have the opposite effect, and cause sudden jump in the price of oil and gas. General stability in the Middle East, alone will guarantee steady supply and reduce prices even further. But if the war sets off a chain reaction of chaos and instability in the Middle East, it will raise oil prices even higher. So what does the American Big Oil hope to gain by America’s invasions of Iraq? American Big Oil dreamt to establish American Oil Colony in Iraq, so that American Big Oil in partnership with American occupation forces would exercise political, military and economic control over Iraq and Iraqi oil resources. American oil colonialism would like to pay nominal royalty say $1 per barrel to the puppet regimes it would install in Iraq and other Oil colonies and sell the oil at the price market would bear and invest the extra profits to develop American economy and industry. When Iraq itself would become the property of United States after the establishment of the American Oil colony over Iraq, then the American Big Oil would determine, how much oil it should extract and how much royalty paid to the Iraqi regime. France, Germany, Russia, China and India would accept the reasoning underlying the direct colonial occupation of oil-producing nations, provided they also could establish oil colonies in other oil-producing countries, not currently under direct military control of the Untied States.

 

American Oil Colonialism might take over oil-producing countries and establish direct political and military over oil countries and take the oil as it finds them and perhaps pay $1 per barrel royalty to the puppet regimes it would establish throughout the oil producing world. "Oil Producer" is a misleading term for people who pull oil out of the ground and sell it. "Oil Extractors" would be more accurate. The oil is there in the ground produced from leftover dinosaurs that God or nature has tossed into the recycle bin. This oil costs something less than $2 per barrel to extract, but that something is far less than $25 a barrel. So the extra $15 is a gift from Hussein and Bush. President Bush is prosecuting a war against Iraq in order to enrich or, more accurately, further enrich his oil-patch buddies, Halliburton Company and Big Oil. Just as East India Company sought permission to trade as traders and ended up ruling the Bengal Empire, the American Big Oil like Halliburton could end up ruling a number of oil-producing nations in the Middle East and Africa. American Big Oil better equipped to rule over Oil-producing nations more efficiently than Pentagon and the CIA.

 

United States realized the effectiveness of the CIA to stage military coups in early 1950s in Iran. Then onwards United States realized more on the CIA-led covert operations and the CIA-sponsored military coups to effect the regime changes in the Third World. White House would soon realize that American Big Oil have more resources and better diplomatic and covert operations capability than the CIA, the FBI and the Pentagon in establishing American Oil colonies in the oil-producing world. American Big Oil like Halliburton would be more effective than the CIA and the Pentagon to establish direct political control over Arab oil producing countries. 

 

31(xviii) Lilliputians Chain Bush

Non Aligned Nations Rebuffed Bush

United Nations and Non Aligned Movement would have met the moral death if President Bush had succeeded to buy, cajole and threaten to secure the votes of Lilliputian non-permanent members of the UN Security Council. Non Aligned Nations at the United Nations, especially the Lilliputian non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, proved the effectiveness of the Non Aligned Movement by rejecting President Bush’s overtures, threats and cajoling and force America and Britain to withdraw their resolution on Iraq. What does the war party want? What dreams and aspirations lurk in the minds of George Bush and Tony Blair? What are the secret ambitions of the cabal of right-wing hawks in Washington who are the driving force for war? Is the real objective the control of Iraq’s vast oil resources, as many people suspect, so as to hold to ransom the entire industrialized world? Is the true aim an imperial dream of global hegemony? What do British and American colonialists want in Iraq? What are the secret ambitions of the cabal of right-wing hawks in Washington who are the driving force for war? Is the real objective the control of Iraq’s vast oil resources, as many people suspect, so as to hold to ransom the entire industrialized world? Is the true aim an imperial dream of global hegemony?

 

Non-Aligned Lilliputians Chained Bush

United States became relevant because it checked the power of the United States. United States and Non Aligned Movement would have died a moral death if it had succumbed to the American pressure and OK’d the brazen American invasions of Iraq. Lilliputian politicians of the Third World and asserted their willing to share the burden of global responsibility and established the diplomatic precedent that Non Aligned Nations can look at the United States in the eyes and stare him down and the biggest bully couldn’t buy their vote in the Security Council. The leaders of the world, the First World and the Third World raised their voice in the United Nations and told President Bush that United States no longer the leader the world and United Nations no longer could dictate the global agenda. President Bush inadvertently made United Nations and Non Alignment Movement very relevant because of the Iraq crisis. United nations became relevant because it could tame, control and lead world opposition to President Bush’s invasions of Iraq.

 

President Bush without understanding what it was doing, created a situation in which the majority of nations see the United Nations as the only institution that has the possibility of checking American power and limiting the consequences of American unilateralism. Shifting coalitions of the willing will work through the United Nations and other major international institutions, and use the Internet for mass mobilization, including inside the United States itself, to counterbalance, contain and hold America in check, and oppose United States on many economic and politico-military issues. United States will no longer be entirely free to set the international agenda. United States exposed the conceit underlying America’s war on rogue states, war against terrorism, anti-proliferation. America’s penchant for trade globalization and other American causes would no longer automatically dominate international political and media attention. Bush discovered to his dismay that America’s efforts to override or divide opposition to what America wants on Iraq have created a coherent international opposition to America that before was not there. President Bush’s Iraq war adventures have diminished rather than affirmed America’s old international leadership. Lilliputian diplomats of the Non Aligned Third World rose to the occasion and tamed and shackled the bully Gulliver United States.

 

World Public Opinion as World Power

The Iraqi crisis witnessed the rising power of the world public opinion and made world public opinion as potent instrument of diplomacy and foreign policy. In a democratic age world public opinion counts and it can change the world by removing such politicians as refuse to take into account the public opinion, while formulating policies. Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush might lose next elections, because of their disdain for the public opinion. In the Internet Age, the world public opinion proved its political power. The diplomats of the world realized the power of the world opinion, which if they continued to support America’s war on Iraq, might boom rang on them and drive them out of power. It was the power of the world opinion that no non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, agreed to sell its vote to the United States, in spite of the rewards that United States had offered. The size, tenor and scale of international demonstrations against the Iraq war shocked the White House. Neither France, nor Russia nor China required to veto the Anglo-American-Spanish resolution, as United States failed to get the votes of the third world countries, Guinea, Cameroon, Angola, Pakistan and Chile. It simply fell short, badly short, of the nine votes needed to pass. No wonder United States withdrew the resolution to meet the defeat. Such a back down before the French, Germans and Russians, after Washington's six-month buildup to Iraq war, and after all what president Bush had said, itself altered the perceived international balance of power. United States lost its self-anointed status as the sole super power of the world. President Bush succeeded in making Untied States the biggest neighborhood bully.

 

Restoration of Ottoman Empire By Turkey

There is specter of American, British and Israeli military dreams in Iraq torpedoed by their closest ally, Turkey. Ever since its foundation in the 1920s, the modern Iraqi state has felt threatened on both its western and eastern flanks by Turkey and Iran. It was only in 1926, and under strong British pressure, that Turkey gave up its attempt to win back the oil-rich northern part of Iraq, governed by the Ottoman Empire until its dismemberment in World War I. Turkey has always been especially interested in the district of Mosul, inhabited to this day by Kurds and Turkmen as well as Arabs. A collapse of the Iraqi state and the ensuing chaos might revive these dormant Turkish ambitions.

 

TURKEY DREAMT NEW CALIPHATE: Turkey likely to emerge as serious challenger to the United States in Iraq. Why should the successor state of the ottoman Caliphate allow Christian United States take over and establish American Oil Colony over Iraq, which had been part of the Ottoman Caliphate. Why shouldn’t Turkey establish Turkic oil colony over Iraq instead? Iraqi people and ruling elite might agree to become part of the Turkey, if it could thwart the imposition of American oil colonial rule over Iraq. Iraqi would prefer Turks exploit Iraqi oil instead of America.

 

Turkey’s foreign minister declared that United States would allow Turkish troops to enter northern Iraq to set up a buffer zone against an exodus of Iraqi refugees to Iraq, in exchange for Turkey’s permission to allow American warplanes to over fly Turkey on their way to Iraq. Pentagon may have to add Turkey to the merde list and place it right up there with France. Turkey’s new President, from whom President Bush expected much, has basically told the United States to shove it. The Turks won’t even allow American refueling plane to operate from their territory. Turkey planned to launch a major land thrust into northern Iraq from Turkey to set up a buffer zone against an exodus of Iraqi refugees to Turkey. Turkey portrayed that as a decision to prevent anarchy in the oil-rich region of Mosul and Kirkuk. Any attempt by Turkey to set up the buffer zone in Kirkuk and Mosul could leave Iraq’s Kurds at Turkey’s mercy. As the America’s war on Iraq succeeded in taking over Basra and Baghdad, Turks could fall on any remaining Iraqi forces and trumpet Turkey’s occupation of northern Iraq as an ally of the United States. The Turkish economy is on life support, and the unfettered access to the Mosul and Kirkuk oil fields could allow them to make up $20 billions they have forsaken by rejecting Bush’s deal. Turks would tell the world that they are taking over northern Iraq in order to stop the United States from taking over the entire country. Thus Turks would get the oil in northern Iraq and kill off the Kurd’s desire for an independent state in northern Iraq. There won’t be anything Pentagon can do about it. America may fight many wars after Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is gone, but fighting Turkey for Iraq’s oil won’t happen. Would Turks able to outsmart United States and establish Turkish Oil colony over Mosul and Kirkuk while President Bush got bad image as the greedy oil imperialist? United States promoted spy Kemal Pasha Ataturk to establish Kemalist regime to undermine Turkey’s Ottoman heritage so that the oil-rich regions of Iraq and Saudi Arabia could secede. The Kemalist military rulers agreed for the secession of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in exchange monopoly over political power in Turkey. Turkey’s all previous military dictators were the CIA agents. United States allowed Muslim prime minister to take over power hoping that he would help establish American oil colony over Iraq. Turkey after losing the right to join European union determined to take over Iraqi oil, as Iraq had been part of Turkey and Ottoman Empire.

 

Turkish Parliament's failure to permit an attack on Iraq by way of Turkey came as a staggering and unexpected blow to Pentagon. Even if the Turkish Parliament, were to reverse its decision, an old and important America-Turkey alliance has lost its earlier luster. In any event, Turkey is determined to crush the aspirations for independence of the Iraqi Kurds and is preparing to send tens of thousands of troops into northern Iraq the moment war breaks out. If Iraq is defeated, as seems likely, the Turkish Army will race for Kirkuk and its oil fields to prevent them falling into Kurdish hands. Violent clashes between Turkish troops and Kurdish irregulars can be expected. If Turkey takes a bite out of Iraq, Iran could do so as well. It might seek total control of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which marks the disputed border that triggered the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s and which for centuries had envenomed relations between the Ottoman and Persian Empires. In any event, Turkey is determined to crush the aspirations for independence of the Iraqi Kurds and is preparing to send tens of thousands of troops into northern Iraq the moment war breaks out. If Iraq is defeated, as seems likely, the Turkish Army will race for Kirkuk and its oil fields to prevent them falling into Kurdish hands. Violent clashes between Turkish troops and Kurdish irregulars can be expected. If Turkey takes a bite out of Iraq, Iran could do so as well. It might seek total control of the Shatt al-Arab waterway which marks the disputed border that triggered the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s and which for centuries envenomed relations between the Ottoman and Persian empires.

 

Can Iran dominate Persian Gulf?

Iran would oppose the Turks attempt to establish Turki oil colony over Mosul and Kirkuk. However, Iran might prefer Turkey established oil colony in northern Iraq, than America. Were Iraq to come under rule of foreign oil colonialism, it is better that Turkey took over northern Iraqi oil fields of Mosul and Kirkuk and Iran took over the southern oil fields of Iraq in Basra region where Shiites command majority.

 

The Islamic regime in Tehran would no doubt also like to extend its influence over the Shiite holy cities of Najaf, Karbala and Al-Kazimain, all located in Iraq and which act as a magnet for Shiite communities everywhere. Some reports suggest that units of Iranian-trained Iraqi exiles ­ the so-called Badr Brigades of the Tehran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq ­ are preparing to intervene in the north, center and south of Iraq. The Islamic regime in Tehran would no doubt also like to extend its influence over the Shiite holy cities of Najaf, Karbala and Al-Kazimain, all located in Iraq and which act as a magnet for Shiite communities everywhere. Some reports suggest that units of Iranian-trained Iraqi exiles ­ the so-called Badr Brigades of the Tehran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq ­ are preparing to intervene in the north, center and south of Iraq.

 

Iraq Crisis Like 1956 Suez Canal Crisis

The Suez Canal War destroyed the great power status of Colonial powers, namely, France and Britain, primarily because of the role played by the Soviet Union. The Iraq War crisis could result in the decline of the super power status of United States, if president Bush failed in its attempt to establish permanent oil colony over Iraq. Failure of United States, Britain and Spain to bull doze its Iraq war resolution, highlighted the great decline in the international power of the United States. France, Britain and Israel sent their troops to Suez Canal in 1956 and forced to withdraw under humiliation. America, Britain and Spain met their fair share of humiliation and they withdrew their resolution in the Security Council. But such a back down before the French, Germans and Russians, after Washington's six-month buildup to war, and after all that the president has said, would itself alter the perceived international balance. Secretary Donald Rumsfeld deliberately denounced France and Germany as Old Europe, because he wanted to create dissensions between East Europeans and West Europeans so that the former Soviet satellites would become the military allies of the United States, willing towage wars on Germany and France, whenever Untied States changed its policy towards France and Germany. The trans-Atlantic relationship will never be same after this. If America won the war on Iraq and the Iraq gamble succeeded, then United States would divide European Union and build a new military and economic alliance with Central and Eastern Europe as the base for U.S. power-projection in the Middle East and Central Asia. If America lost the Iraq War and its Iraq gamble failed then America could fallback toward an embittered version of the anti-internationalist and America-first policies with which Bush began his term two years ago. A White House policy metaphor has been that of European Lilliputians unsuccessfully trying to tie down an American Gulliver. The effort supposedly led by politically craven or vainglorious Lilliputian politicians, unwilling to share the burden of global responsibility, ungrateful, longing for lost national glories etc. The White House-inspired campaign against the motivations, persons and moral character of individual German, French and even Belgian leaders, especially President Chirac had been the most vicious in postwar trans-Atlantic relations, and permanently damaged the American-French ties. It was a very bad taste to change the name of French fries to Freedom fries. Maybe the change of the name to Freedom Fries was very appropriate, as it signaled that Freedom of express got fried and badly burnt in the United States.

 

31(xix) Capitulation of Arabs

Wahhabi Arabs Humbly Bowed to Bush

Arab nations including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE humbly bowed down in deference to American colonialism in Iraq, because they hoped that American invasions would reestablish Wahhabi fundamentalist regime in Iraq. It is no accident that except Iran, Syria and Libya no Muslims or Arab nation opposed American invasions of Iraq. The political culture in the Arab world has always put a premium on power and adjusted to it. The Wahhabi proponents of revival of Mecca Caliphate realized that Arab Bedouin had been the most uncivilized barbarian ethnic group in the entire Islamic world as late as 1960 and tribes of Mecca had never exercised any power and influence except during Mecca Caliphate and early part of Damascus Caliphate. Proponents of Mecca Caliphates realized that only by serving the national interests of the White House and the economic interests of the American Oil colonialism could Mecca ward off the challenges of Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran and Ankara to the ambitions of Mecca Caliphate. Without the direct military support of the Pentagon, Iraq, Iran and Turkey would challenge the pretensions of Saudi Arabia to inherit Islamic Caliphate. Most of the Arab leaders in the Arabia have adjusted to what they perceive to be a new reality. Arab leaders never even attempted to prevent American invasions of Iraq and instead began signaling that they wanted neither on the wrong side of the conflict nor on the wrong side of the America nor on wrong side of the American agenda for New Middle East in the region. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Qatar openly support America. Arab leaders realized that liberation of Iraq might be springboard to broader political transformations in the Middle East. Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia seem to see the way the wind is blowing in the area and they intend, at least tactically to be on the right side of the winds. American leaders had accepted at the start of the crisis that America would go to war and that Saddam Hussein would be removed, and for Arab leaders it was a given thing.

 

Assuming the America’s invasions of Iraq goes well, the Arab nations would agree to come under America’s colonial influence albeit rule, whenever White House so decided.

 

The liberation of Iraq will create a window for America and for the region to create a New Middle East that protected rights of Arab women and installed democratic governments throughout the region. To promote the interests of American oil colonialism United States must not internationalize peacekeeping responsibilities in post-war Iraq. General Tommy Franks must become the new governor of Iraq, as Gen. McArthur had been in Japan. Only Gen. Tommy Franks could be politically neutral in Iraq and fair to all ethnic groups. No politician could be trusted to be neutral in Iraq. The opinion of Arab nations does not count and Pentagon should manage Iraq by deploying American troops as occupation force and undertake total transformation of the Iraqi society. To meet America’s responsibilities for law and order in Iraq and the provision of social services America must prepare the ground for other Non Aligned Nations, namely India, Pakistan, Bangladesh to join, and give them different roles and responsibilities in different regions of Iraq. The Arab Sunni bureaucrats should not have much role in the interim administration. It would be premature to believe that president Bush wanted to create a stable transition to a broad-based, representative government in Iraq, because that would scare repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE. Wahhabi regimes would prefer losing their privileged positions to American Oil colonialism than to democratically representative government representing the will of their people. If forced to choose, King Fahd would readily become a colony of America than making Saudi Arabia a democracy. Faced with the specter of America sponsored democracy the Arab regimes would readily come under American colonial administration.

 

The time for Arab leaders to offer democratic slogans but no serious dissolution of power is past. America should present to the new troika of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia the American blueprint that should be adopted by all Arab countries in the Middle East. American Colonial Empire should promote the noble goals of the New Middle East, and Americans must become advocates for reform in the region, making clear that tolerance, the rule of law and inclusion of women are the best pathways to progress. America must emphasize that expanding the scope for political and economic participation is the best prescription for restoring hope. American colonial administration should take over control of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Qatar to replace Wahhabi Shariah law by American laws and American officials should be appointed as shadow ministers, in Iraq, now and in other parts of the Middle East. Monarchies and Sheikhdoms are relics of the past and must be done away in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and UAE. America and British Empire promoted the artificial states of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Iraq to engineer their secession for multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire. United States need not prolong this charade after the successful conquest of Iraq. United States should establish direct colonial occupation of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE to make Arab oil and gas fields the properties of the American Big Oil so that it may profit by paying no more than $ 2 per barrel they extract from the oil fields in OPEC nations and sell the oil at the price markets can bear and retain profits for Americans. Since Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE had been artificial states to begin with they could be replaced by American colonial administrations. President Bush should follow up the success of Iraqi war to establish American Empire in the OPEC Arabia. More Saudis and Kuwait would rejoice the imposition of American colonial administration in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait than Iraqis who rejoiced at the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

 

Fundamentalism & Secularism Dual Sword

The West employed secularism as instrument to weaken Islam in Turkey, Hinduism in India and Buddhism in China and employed fundamentalist Islam to engineer the secession of Pakistan from Indian empire, and secessions of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and UAE from Ottoman Caliphate and to overthrow the secular regime of Shah of Iran. Hindu India should retaliate by supporting the Secular Caliphate dreams of Turkey, Iran and Pakistan to undermine Saudi Arabia that sought to establish Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate with the military support of Christian America. American oil colonialism had been mortal enemy of Ottoman and Indian Empires and promoted secularism to weaken Islamic and Hindu basis of Ottoman and Indian empires respectively, and promoted Islamic fundamentalism to engineer the secession of Muslim Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait form Ottoman empire and secession of Muslim Pakistan from Indian empire. However, in 2003 Muslim government ruled Turkey and Hindu government ruled India. It is no accident that in 2003 Islamic governments were in power in Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Iraq, though earlier all these four countries enjoyed secular, liberal Muslim governments. India should stroke the dreams of Ottoman Caliphate in Turkey, Shiite Caliphate in Iran and Islamabad Caliphate in Pakistan to organize and mobilize patriotic forces in Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Iraq to establish non-Western colonial empire so that the oil-wealth of Muslim nations enriched Asia neither America nor Europe. India would prefer Iraq, Kuwait, UAE and Saudi Arabia come under the colonial control of Turkey, or Pakistan or Iran, rather than under colonial occupation of United States and Britain.

 

American oil colonialism hyped and legitimized Wahhabi Islamic fundamentalism to win the allegiance of the Muslim rulers to gain American colonial occupation of Arab oil and gas resources and to engineer the secession of Muslim-majority regions from multi-ethnic and multi-religion states, namely, Ottoman Empire, Indian Empire, Yugoslavia, and Soviet Union. American and British colonialism employed Islamic fundamentalism to undermine the Ottoman Empire, Indian Empire and Iranian Empire to secure their colonial control over Middle East oil, to engineer the secession of Islamic Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Ottoman Empire, secession of Pakistan from Indian Empire, and to establish fundamentalist regime in Iran by overthrowing the secular monarchy of Shah of Iran. American and British colonialism simultaneously supported secular Kemal Pasha Ataturk and secular military dictators to undermine the Islamic character of Ottoman Empire, and supported secular Jawaharlal Nehru to undermine the Hindu character of India and supported secular Mao tse tung to undermine the Buddhist character of China. Throughout the oil-producing world, American oil colonialism took the side of Islamic fundamentalism to gain control over Muslim gas and oil fields.

 

Turkey to Recreate Ottoman Caliphate

Turkey’s flirtation with European Union came to an abrupt end when Christian France and Germany rejected Muslim Turkey’s application to join primarily Christian European Union. Frustrated by its attempt to become part of the Europe, Turkey’s new Islamic government realized that American had imposed secular regimes in post-Ottoman Turkey primarily to ward off Turkey’s challenge to American oil colonialism in the former territories of the Ottoman Empire. During Christian America’s imperialist invasions of Muslim Iraq, the Muslim rulers of Turkey the successor state of Ottoman Caliphate realized that it became Turkey’s destiny to reestablish Ottoman-era control over Mosul and Kirkuk oil fields in Northern Iraq to present serious challenge to America’s plans to rape Iraqi oil wealth. Why should Turkey support America’s colonial occupation of Iraq for the paltry sum of $ 20 billion, when Turkey could make more than $20 billion a year by looting the northern Iraqi oil fields? Iraq belonged to Ottoman Empire and Turkey enjoyed more legitimate claims over Iraq than United States. The Turkey could take over Mosul and Kirkuk and tell the world that they’re taking over northern Iraq in order to stop the United States from taking over the entire country. Perhaps faced with imminent defeat Saddam could have offered confederation with Turkey, in exchange for Turkey’s support against American invasions. Iran and India would support Turkey’s occupation of Iraq as lesser evil than America’s occupation of Iraq. India and Iran should help Turkey reestablish its Ottoman credentials and dream to recreate Ottoman Empire that would encompass Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen and Jordan. America’s occupation of Iraq presented great geopolitical threat to Middle East, South Asia and Central Asia. India would support Turkey or Pakistan establish colonial rule over Arab OPEC nations. Turkey should invade northern Iraq and occupy oil fields of Mosul and Kirkuk to deter United States from taking over entire Iraq. Iran would support Turkey’s occupation of Mosul and Kirkuk if it checked America’s colonial occupation of Iraq. India should join the war on the side of Iran, Turkey and Iraq if American occupation of Iraq resulted in the imposition of Saudi Wahhabi rule over secular, liberal Iraq. India and Iran should help Turks manipulate the whole northern front to their advantage, if it checked American colonialism in Iraq. Turkey’s new prime minister, from whom President Bush expected much, has basically told the United States to shove it. France and Germany would come to the defense of Turkey’s occupation of Mosul and Kirkuk oil fields and buy Iraqi oil from Turkey. Probably Pentagon won’t dare to attack Turkey to gain control over Mosul and Kirkuk. When American oil companies looted Iraq oil they would have no face to criticize Turkey’s loot of Mosul and Kirkuk oil. It would be better if Iraq partitioned between Turkey and United States. Rise of Turkey as Islamic power threatened Saudi Arabia’s pretensions to leadership of Islam and turn into dust the ill gotten dreams of 2nd rise of Mecca Caliphate. India would prefer Istanbul Caliphate Vs Mecca Caliphate. India would support rather than oppose Turkey’s invasions to gain control over Islamic holy cities of Mecca & Medina. India would support the rising Islamic powers, namely, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan, to take control over Mecca and Medina.

 

31(xx) Unmighty Dollar’s Fall

Rise or fall of the Unmighty Dollar

Great Powers would support President Bush’s invasions of Iraq for establish oil colony, because had he not invaded Iraq, United States would have declined and lost its economic leadership in the world. President bush invaded oil-rich Iraq because he knew that dollar, revered by foreigners as the mighty dollar, was in reality unmighty and United States faced the specter of Stock indices meltdown and flight of foreign capital. President bush invaded Iraq to make United States prosperous and wealthy. Total victory in Iraq and stable American colonial administration in Iraq would bring unprecedented prosperity to American people, and President Bush would get honor as the greatest president in the United States history, greater than Abraham Lincoln as well as George Washington. A new age will dawn in world history, the new age of Colonial empires. If mighty Pentagon succeeded in subjugating the will of Islam and will of Iraqi people and established American oil colony over Iraq, and pump out the oil and pay whatever price it wanted to pay to Iraq for oil, then American stock markets would zoom and the Dow Jones Industrial Index could hit 20,000 in a year or two, if not 30,000. However, a less than spectacular defeat of Iraq, or costly Iraq war in terms of American casualties and post-war Islamic terrorist counter attacks on American targets could drive more foreign investors away from the United States, and cause crash of the American stock markets, which could hurting living standards of American people and America’s political and economic influence in Europe and Asia. If America succeeded in gaining unrestricted access to the Iraqi oil then it could hypothecate future incomes of the Iraqi oil to pay for the Iraq war and the lucrative contracts that American construction companies would get in post Saddam Iraq. No wonder it would be in the national interests of Turkey, Iran, Russia, China, France, Germany, Belgium, Canada and India if United States slipped and failed to gain spectacular permanent victory over Iraq and failed to establish permanent oil colony over Iraq. It would not be in the interests of the world powers, Britain and Spain included, if United States continued to loot the oil riches of Iraq, without sharing the loot with other world powers. The rape of oil-rich Iraq to establish American oil colony over Iraq, would be in long-term national interests of other world powers, if it set the legal precedent for other world powers to establish oil colonies of their own. Great powers should compel United States to share its loot of Iraqi oil with other world powers. It would not be in the geopolitical interests of other world powers to undermine the very concept of new age of oil colonial empires. Every world power would profit if President Bush’s war on Iraq heralded the new age of colonial empires.

 

America needed to establish a permanent oil colonial rule over Iraq to secure uninterrupted oil and gas supplies to American consumers at the price American oil companies would like to pay to the Arab producers, say $2 per barrel, for the oil it would extract from the Iraqi oil fields. President bush realized that only by establishing permanent oil colony in Iraq, could United States sabotage the hostile schemes of its adversaries to disturb the oil supplies to the America. America became very vulnerable to the disruption of the oil supplies from Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Gulf. President Bush succinctly realized America’s oil vulnerability that he decided to invade Iraq, in spite of the world’s opposition to this invasion. Oil is the Achilles’ heel of the American economy and the recent military revolution of GPS satellite and PGM technology equipped precision-guided anti-ship cruise missiles made American oil tankers, aircraft carriers, US Navy and Merchant Marine vulnerable. America became over confident of its high-tech toys and brazenly flaunted its military capabilities of its high-tech weapons, without realizing that major land powers endowed with much larger populations would deploy the cheaply produced Precision Guided Munitions to undermine the maritime supremacy of the West. Russia could easily disrupt oil supplies from Arabian Gulf, if it supplied anti-ship missiles to Iran and established military bases in Iran and realized the Czarist dream of a warm seaport in the Arabian Sea. American became weaker by the Iraqi war because suddenly the world realized that the disruption of the Arabian Gulf oil supplies would undermine the economic, military and diplomatic power of the so-called sole superpower of the world. President Bush’s war on Iraq broadcast the vulnerability of America’s Achilles’ heel in Arabian Oil. In future all adversaries would challenge the might of the United States in the Arabian Gulf.

 

President Bush invaded Iraq because America had become the world’s greatest debtor nation. The unprecedented loot of the Iraqi oil would reduce the foreign debt of United States. American could overcome its weakness as the world’s greatest debtor nation by becoming the world’s greatest colonial empire. American being the world’s greatest debtor nation had no option but to conquer and loot the oil resources of Iraq. American oil colony over Iraq would guarantee that American standard of living would not decline even when world’s greatest debtor nation continued to increase its level of foreign debt with abandon. While the United States is the greatest power the world has ever seen, it is also the world’s greatest debtor nation. Present level of American prosperity is beyond the means and capacity of American economy and heavily dependent on foreign lenders that invest their foreign reserves in American dollars and invest that in United States in long-term public debt of the US government. Foreign Debt is the Achilles’ heel of the United States and the strength of the US Dollar depended on foreigners’ propensity to invest their savings in dollar than in any other international currency. Iraq war made United States more vulnerable to the flight of the foreign capital and Iraq war made this Achilles' heel tender and unless remedied portend negative implications for America’s future living standards and world influence.

 

President Bush forced to invade Iraq by the worsening balance of trade and growing import bill that American consumers became addicted to. Only by occupying Iraq, could American oil companies loot the Iraqi oil and America could continue to import more than its exports to satisfy the demand of its consumers. Without Iraqi invasions American consumers would have to change their consumption habits. For years America has been importing more than it exports. These "current account" deficits have now reached an annual rate of $US 500 billion, or about 5 percent of GDP and 50 percent more than the United States spends on defense. America has been paying for the difference by borrowing. The money has to come from foreign lenders because the imports that generated the deficits and growing balance of trade resulted in transfers of dollars to the foreign exporters. The foreign debt America owed abroad totaled about $US 2 trillion, or about 20 percent of America’s GDP, estimated at $8.35 trillion in 2002. Total United States foreign debt could easily top 65 percent of GDP by 2010, at its current growth rate, Even with interest rates of only 3 percent, it would take nearly $US 200 billion annually for the United States simply to finance the foreign debt. The United States deficit would rose because America saved far less than other countries, and Iraq war is about to make that situation a lot worse, unless after the war United States brought back looted oil from Iraqi oil fields without paying for it. United States would easily solve the problem of balance of trade deficit by extracting Iraqi oil and paying only $2 per barrel for it to Iraqi oil colony.

 

President Bush realized that world might hate America for its invasions of Iraq, but the rape of Iraqi oil would make America prosperous and custodian of world’s freedom again. War is big money and big profits for Pentagon. America makes money by War. The 1991 Gulf War was fully paid for by allies of the United States, including Japan and Saudi Arabia. Newsweek quoted Economist Martin Wolf’s conservatively estimates that the cost of the war and of rebuilding Iraq over a 10-year period would cost around $US 156 billion to $US 755 billion, but it would be paid for by the Iraqi oil. Some pessimists wrongly estimated that the cost of Iraq war and the reconstruction cost would run as high as $US 3 trillion, but it also included at least 50% gross profits for the American companies, that meant that American colonial Administration would be able to sell the future oil reserves of Iraq and pay the American companies for the rebuilding cost of Iraq, which indirectly meant the profit of $1.5 trillion for American companies. The 1991 Gulf War cost paid for by other countries and it didn’t cause United States any financial loss and the Pentagon made profits on 1991 Gulf War. The 2003 Iraq war would be paid for by Iraqi oil extracted by American oil companies after the war. Japan would not pay for the Iraq war cost. This Iraq war cost paid by the United States will be reimbursed by Iraqi oil. The Iraq war would not cause any new taxes for American public and this Iraq war will greatly increase the U.S. budget deficit, but stock market will boom when looted Iraqi oil would start arriving in American markets. The looted Iraqi oil, the black oil would cause same economic effect on American economy as the unprecedented flow of Inca and Maya gold to Spain during colonial era.

 

Only by establishing permanent oil colony over Iraq president Bush could succeed in developing new foundations of the cancerous American economy facing the specter of recession and collapse of the Dow Jones Industrial Index. Untied States economy would not have any rosy picture unless it established permanent oil colony in Iraq and succeeded in bringing home Iraqi oil by paying token price of less than $2 per barrel of oil. President Bush invaded Iraq to secure a new source of the capital as the foreign reserve banks had started to park their foreign exchange reserves in Euro instead of Dollar. During 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s it had been relatively easy to get the foreign funds into Wall Street as overseas investors rushed to buy American stocks, bonds, real estate and companies as no other economy was big enough to absorb that kind of available capital. The same would not be true during first decades of the 21st Century as neither Japan nor European Union could possibly make a productive use of that kind of capital available. China is the only market that showed its ability to absorb large quantities of Foreign Direct Investments. During the 1990s meltdown in Asia, United States became the home for investors from China, Taiwan, Japan and Western Europe, the exporting countries with large international reserves. The flood of money buoyed the dollar and stocks, allowing Americans to live beyond their means by consuming more than they produced. After the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, there has been a decline in the flow of the foreign funds in to American stocks and bonds in American capital markets that is as critical to American economy as the flow of Arabian crude oil. Private foreign investment in the United States fell during late 1990s and it declined precipitously in 2002 after the 9/11 attacks and it was partially offset by increased sale of U.S. Treasury notes to Asian governments and some foreign reserve banks shifted some of their reserve currency holdings from Dollars to Euros, which resulted in the fall of the exchange rates of dollar against the euro.

 

America needed to establish an American oil colony over Iraq to hedge America’s dependence on foreigners buying US Treasury Notes even when its foreign debt approached 2 trillion dollars, around 20 percent of its total GNP in 2002, estimated at $8.35 trillion in 2002 by the World Bank and $10 trillion by the CIA. However, taking into account the accounting frauds of Corporate America the real GNP of United States in 2002 could be under $ 6 trillion, only 50% more than the China’s GNP of $4.1 trillion and equal to the combine GNP of India ($ 2.1 trillion) and China ($ 4.1 trillion).

 

American needed to establish oil colony over Iraq so that Saddam Hussein may not persuade OPEC nations set benchmark OPEC oil prices in Euro instead of US Dollar. America needed to establish oil colony in Afghanistan under the camouflage of war on Islamic terror, so that booming opium production would force global drug dealers invest their incomes of heroin trade in US dollars and in American economy. American is economic super power primarily because world trade in crude oil and gas priced in US dollar and Saddam Hussein threatened American dollar by pricing Iraqi oil in Euro instead of Dollar. United States could be thrown from its pedestal if OPEC fixed the price of the crude oil in Euro instead of Dollar. If buyers of oil forced to buy Euro to make their annual purchases of crude oil in the world markets, the reserve banks of the major economies would place their foreign exchange reserves in Euro instead of Dollar. America is an economic super power because $750 billion annual incomes of the global drug trade in cocaine and heroin is invested in American economy. If the annual incomes and total illegal assets of the global drug cartels no longer invested in American economy would cause deep recession in the United States. America is an economic super power because in spite of the growing negative balance of trade, the exporting nations chose to invest their savings in dollars and in buying US Government treasury notes and in buying American stocks and bonds. American economy would collapse if the foreigners took their money out of the American economy and US Securities. The U.S. international debt is getting so large, that foreign buyers of the US treasury notes could become nervous about their Treasury notes holdings and cut back on buying new long term US treasury notes. A dramatic increase in the public debt could result in a steep fall of the exchange price of the dollar versus Euro and Yen that would contract American economy and significantly increasing the cost of projecting Pentagon’s power abroad in any future conflicts. United States could reduce its dependence on Public Debt only by raising taxes. United States would become more dependent on lenders like China and Saudi Arabia. The economic power of the superpower United States is not that impressive as many would like to believe and it would fall if its adversaries could attack any of its two Achilles heel, the dependence on Arabian gulf oil and dependence on constant flow of foreign debt. However, tables could turn against America if United States failed to establish permanent oil colony over Iraq or other great powers succeeded in establishing their own oil colonies and United States no longer controlled their supplies of oil and gas supplies. Adversaries could seriously threaten the American economy and security if they concentrated on disrupting the transportation of oil and gas supplies in the Arabian Gulf region.

 

President Bush saved America from economic and diplomatic disaster by invading Iraq to establish American oil colonial administration so that by looting Iraqi oil could America remain the world’s largest economy and preeminent military power. For the greater good of America President Bush ordered that oil-rich Iraq lose its independence and sovereignty and become the brightest jewel of American Colonial Empire, as India had been in the British Indian Empire. United Sates would also establish direct colonial rule over Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates during the Second term (2005-2009) of Bush Administration. The greater good of imperial America justified the loss of freedom, independence and sovereignty of Arab OPEC nations, led by corrupt regimes. Should George W. Bush declare King of Iraq and Dick Cheney King of Saudi Arabia after they complete second term in the White House in 2009. Hindu India would support Christian American Colonial rule over Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq, provided American didn’t object to India establishing an oil colony of its own, so that India could also take home around 5 million barrels crude oil per day by paying no more than $2 per barrel of oil. India would love American oil colonial empire, so long as India got its fair share of oil loot. India with the population of over 1.1 billion could easily solve many of its economic problems by conquering an oil-producing nation and by establishing an Indian Oil colony thereat. Colonial Empires would replace smaller nation states as the units of the International system in the 21st Century. Oil Colonialism is the sure panacea of many economic ills of United States, Russia, China, India, Japan, France and Germany. World shall be safer, better and more humane after the advent of the new age of Oil Colonial Empires.

 

31(xxi) Scramble for Oil Colonies

New Right of Economic Self Defense

What should be the response of the world powers, namely, France, Germany, Russia, China and India towards American oil colonialism in Iraq? The size of the loot is too big to be left for the sole exploitation by America, Saudi Arabia and Jews. India as well as other world powers would combine their diplomatic resources to gain their fair share of Iraqi oil loot. At the outbreak of the 21st Century, Wahhabi Mecca joined forces with Zionist Cabal and American Big Oil to use the le Anglo Saxon soldiers to establish oil colonies and Wahhabi rule over Muslim oil-producing nations, so that Semite House of Al Saud, Zionist Cabal and Protestant Big Oil could earn hundreds of billion dollars by looting, non-Wahhabi militarily weak secular and liberal Muslim and Shiite oil-producing nations. Semite tribes of Mecca no less predators than their fellow Semite Israelis and American Jews and American Oil colonialism. The rape of the Third World oil began in 2003 and it would continue and bring all other oil-producing nations under the colonial occupation of the great powers and oil colonialism. The year 2003 is the turning point in history and the world politics and global diplomacy dramatically changed after America’s conquest of Iraq. The world would never be same again. Oil Colonial Empires would be the principal actors in the new world order. World powers could not stop America’s invasions of Iraq. Similarly Untied States would be powerless to stop the invasions of other great powers to establish their respective oil colonies.

 

The imperialistic diplomacy of President Bush created new norms of Customary International Law and created right of world powers to establish new oil colonies to secure their oil gas and energy supplies, under the Right of Economic Self-Defense. Now onwards, great powers would have an unfettered right for preemptive strikes to establish oil colonies in their exercise of Right of Economic Self Defense to secure their oil, gas and energy supplies, crucial for the survival of their industrial economies. The new age would be known as the new age of oil colonial empires. The scramble for oil colonies began immediately after American troops entered Iraq. Osama bin Laden’s 9/11 attacks made the world powers realize the threat the irresponsible nations, especially smaller but rich oil producing nations present to the world civilization. To preserve the world Civilization the world’s great powers have a duty to bring all weaker oil-producing nations under control and occupation of great powers led colonial empires. Oil producing nations have no right to exist as independent nations, if it continued to support, nurture and propagate intolerance, ethnic separatism, predator religious cults and religious terrorism. President Bush did a great service to the cause of world civilization when he established American oil colony over Iraq. Great powers should not oppose American colonial policies in Iraq, simply to undermine the legitimacy of the very concept of oil colonialism, though they should demand their fair share of Iraqi oil loot. All great powers should support world powers inherent right to establish colonies to neutralize the threat of terrorism. Whatever United States, Britain and Spain did in Iraq, other great powers, namely, France, Germany, Russia, China and India also could do whenever they faced threats of the disruption of oil and energy supplies. Other great powers should and must establish oil colonies of their own, so that terrorists might never again threaten the World Civilization. In the 21st Century the diplomats would formulate policies to promote nations interests defined in terms of oil interests. Oil determined the world diplomacy. The use of preemptive strikes to secure oil, gas and energy supplies legitimate under customary practice of International Law, after President Bush’s imperialistic invasions of Iraq to establish American Oil colony over oil-rich Iraq. The acts of President Bush, the leading power of the world, created new right under customary international law, that allowed every one of eight world power unfettered right of economic self preservation to establish oil colonies to secure their oil and gas supplies. Now onward great powers should not militarily retaliate against American oil colonialism to liberate Iraq, but aggressively bargain, threaten, or cajole to get their fair share of the Iraqi oil loot. In the new colonial world order the great powers should refrain from disturbing world peace by militarily challenging the rights to great powers to establish colonial administrations in the oil colonies, without interference of other great powers. The norms of colonial diplomatic behavior that prevailed during 18th and 19th centuries would again become the norms of international relations in the new age of colonial empires in the 21st Century. In terms of diplomacy and international system the 21st Century would be similar to 18th and 19th Century and drastically different from the 20th Century. History is cyclical. The year 2003 is the turning point in history, and 21st Century became the mirror image of the 18th Century, in the aftermath of President Bush’s invasions of Iraq. President George W. Bush became a history-maker, when he invaded Iraq and heralded the new age of oil colonial empires in the 21st Century and teleported to the diplomacy of 18th and 19th centuries. World would never be the same again. Like the commander of the Enterprise in the Star Track TV serial, President Bush at the helm of the Oval Office, launched the invasion of Iraq and teleported into the new world 18th Century type colonial diplomacy and the world would never again be same again. Now onwards, the problem facing world diplomats is not how to liberate Iraq, but to devise new policies to promote their nation’s interests defined as oil interests in the new world order. 

 

$ 10 Per barrel Crude Oil Prices

After establishing permanent oil colony over Iraq, United States would no longer bother to continue friendly ties with Wahhabi clergy and Al Saud royal family in Saudi Arabia. After occupying Iraq, United States should overthrow Al Saudi royal family in Saudi Arabia and liberate Saudi Arabia from the tyrannical yoke of Al Saudi royal house and liberate the women of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE from the tyrannical yoke of Wahhabi clergy and Wahhabi religious police. Saudi Arabia should become an oil colony of America and American oil companies should be free to extract Saudi Arabian oil by paying token $2 per barrel of oil and keep the profits. American Oil colony in Iraq would destroy the illegal OPEC cartel, bring down Al Saud Monarchy in Saudi Arabia, make Iraq the custodian of Islamic Holy cities of Mecca and Medina and expel Wahhabi fundamentalists from Mecca & Medina and end the financial lifeline of Islamic terrorism. Just as the American oil colonialism in Equatorial Guinea and Angola gave deathblow to the Semite De Beers Diamond Cartel, similarly the victory of American oil colonialism in Iraq, would give a deathblow to illegal OPEC oil cartel as well as deathblow to House of Al Saud monarchy in Saudi Arabia. America’s occupation of Iraq would bring down the oil prices, as Colonial administration would be able to extract large quantities of Iraqi oil at the price, it would like to pay, without bothering for the prices set by illegal OPEC oil cartel. President Bush’s invasion of Iraq would reestablish the Colonial Empires in the 21st Century, because Oil Colonies would make colonial powers very wealthy, prosperous and powerful. American occupation of Oil and exploitation of Iraqi oil by American oil colonialism would bring down the oil prices in the world and give a deathblow to the OPEC and Saudi Arabia. American conquest of Iraq would be followed by the military occupation of Saudi Arabia by American oil colonialism. The regime change in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq caused a shock to the energy world that rivaled the shock caused by the original formation of OPEC in 1971. The average crude price outlook for 2003 will fall from $30 a barrel to below $20 and further down. Oil technology hasn't changed in 30 years. OPEC is an illegal cartel like the De Beers Cartel. De Beers Diamond Cartel caused innumerable loss of lives and spate of civil wars in Africa. OPEC cartel unleashed the specter of Wahhabi fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism. OPEC illegally control global oil prices by collusion of oil producers that managed to keep the economies of Japan, South Korea, India, China and United States in a state of co-dependency on the whims and fancies of corrupt and oppressive rulers of the artificial states of OPEC many of them never existed in history and may not have any justification to exist as independent nations. The oppressive OPEC leaders are not accountable to their citizens. It is high time that Oil Colonial Powers should bring OPEC nations under colonial occupation so that the oil wealth of OPEC nations properly harvested to promote economic progress of the Colonial Empires. A $10-per-barrel price drop is the equivalent of an immediate $40-50 billion tax cut to the American economy. That level of economic stimulus would benefit all the world's citizens, including those of Japan, South Korea, India, France, Germany and United States, who became dependent on OPEC oil imports. American Oil colonial administration should not pay to Iraq more than $2 per barrel and extract the optimum quantity of oil and gas from Iraq and properly invest the oil incomes to boost American economy. Under colonial occupation the OPEC nations as colonies should sell OPEC oil for less than $10 per barrel in international markets and colonial powers should not pay more than $2 per barrel to the rulers of the OPEC nations for extracting OPEC oil from grounds.

31(2) Burning Museums is War Crime & Kulturcide War Crimes

What is Expert’s Theory

Expert’s theory is the summary or summation of the Expert’s argument in a case, so that Jury may arrive at decision, whether to accept the argument of the Prosecutor or the Defendant. Unlike Muslims, Jews and Catholics Hindu and Buddhist experts, philosophers and prophets do not claim finality in their argument, because Hindu Holy scripture “Gita” declares that there are infinite paths to Divinity and Truth.

 

Grand Conspiracy Does Exist

The WASP’s United States is under attack of the "Proverbial Snake" described in the "Protocols of the meetings of the Elders of Zion" which claimed to have destroyed the vitals of the ancient pagan Hindu Pharaoh Egypt, Pagan Hindu ancient Hindu, pagan Hindu Roman Empire, Arian Gnostic Christian civilization of Egypt and Syria, Orthodox Byzantine Empire. The European power that conspired to bring down the Soviet Union could be conspiring to disintegrate WASP super power United States, hoping that its decline would herald the rise of European Union as super power. Semite Israel and the Polish Papacy jointly represent the Hidden Hand described in the Protocols of the Meeting of the Elders of Zion.

 

37 (i) Iconoclasts Burnt Museums

The investigations into the forces that burnt and looted the Baghdad Museums points fingers at Semite Mecca, Semite Israel and Catholic Vatican. It would be for International Criminal Court at The Hague to decide what penalties to impose on the perpetrators of this Crime of Century. Semite Jews should not defend the destruction of Baghdad Museums at hands of Semite Saudi Wahhabi iconoclasts. The Vatican should not defend Semite Saudi Wahhabi, who looted the Baghdad Museums. The WASPs should not defend the Semite iconoclasts that looted Baghdad Museums. The looters of the Baghdad Museums inserted the iconoclast, religious agenda in the otherwise secular American oil colonialism war on Iraq. Semite Israel and Fundamentalist Catholic Vatican and Christian religious right conservative should help identify the real culprits of the destruction of the Museum artifacts and send them for trial to International Criminal Court at The Hague. If involvement of Semite Saudi Wahhabi terrorists in the burning of Baghdad Museum proved them King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and the Grand Mufti of Mecca should face trial for War Crimes in The Hague.

 

Semite Agenda in Yankees War on Iraq

There are concerned Americans who feel that the policy coming from the Bush administration is one endless wars and bloody struggle after another, because presidential advisers Paul Wolfowitz promoted the idea of Iraq and Syria invasion to protect Semite Israeli Jewish interests, and vice president Dick Cheney promoted American oil colonialism war to protect the Semite Saudi Wahhabi interests in the non-Semite Iraq, the cradle of Civilization, where Jews spent their Babylon Captivity as slaves. Semite Jews, Semite Muslims and Semite Oil Colonialism used force to conquer and destroy the successors of Babylon Civilization that enslaved Jews and expelled Jews from Jerusalem. Semite Jews, Muslims and Americans celebrated the return of Semite Jews to Israel by engineering the American conquest of the Arabian Peninsula to impose the domination of Semite Wahhabi Islam. Semite Jews and Semite Jews converted in Islam entered into pact with Semite oil interests to buy political influence over Christian Republican Neo-conservatives, to restore the domination of the Arabian Peninsula to the iconoclast monotheist Semite race of Muslims and Jews.

 

Semite Barbarians Invaded non-Semite Iraq

At the beginning of the 21st Century the Semite Jews, Semite Wahhabi Muslims, and American Judeo-Christians joined the ranks of uncivilized barbarians when they burnt the Baghdad Museum. Barbarian Julius Caesar had burnt the library of Alexandria, when he invaded Alexandria. At the end of 4th Century Semite Hellenic Jews burnt the pagan Hindu temples of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome along with fundamentalist Christians that took control over Rome during Theodosius I, when in 393 by Roman Royal Edict Christianity became the sole official religion of Roman Empire. Then 300 years later during 7th Century the Damascus Jews joined forces with fellow Semite Muslim Bedouin to loot and burn the Christian temples of Egypt, Syria and Libya, Tunisia and Algeria.

 

Did Semite Israeli, Semite American Jews, Semite Saudis and iconoclast religious right conservative conspiracy renewed the global axis of iconoclast monotheism to burn the pagan artifacts that established the Babylon was advance modern Civilization at least 5,000 years before Jews, Semite race and the Judeo Christians became civilized and moved out of their animal like living in the caves? Damage in Baghdad as "truly a world heritage loss. But for Iraq, this is Year Zero; with the destruction of the antiquities in the Museum of Archaeology on Saturday and the burning of the National Archives and then the Koranic library, the cultural identity of Iraq is being erased. Why? Who set these fires? For what insane purpose is this heritage being destroyed? Library books, letters and priceless documents are set ablaze in final act of the sacking of Baghdad on 14 April 2003. The National Library and Archives, a priceless treasure of Ottoman historical documents, including the old royal archives of Iraq, were turned to ashes in 3,000 degrees of heat. Then the library of Korans at the Ministry of Religious Endowment was set ablaze.

 

Semite barbarian looters took or destroyed 170,000 items from Iraq's National Museum, which had housed a priceless collection of masterpieces and memorabilia dating back across human history from the time of the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Sumerians, the Medes, the Greeks and the Persians. Marble carvings, stone tablets, clay pots and tablets containing some of the earliest known examples of writing were destroyed or stolen. The pillaging of the Baghdad museum represented far more than an Iraqi loss. It was a blow to "the world's human history. Noting that the museum's collection included some of the earliest examples of mathematics and some of the first legal codes ever written. It was a truly a world heritage loss.

 

Items that survived 7,000 years of human history were lost on April 2003 in a city controlled by forces under the direction of Donald Rumsfeld. Yet Rumsfeld refused to take any responsibility. "We didn't allow it," he said. "It happened." But did it have to happen? Thousands of the finest soldiers in the world were in and around Baghdad. "Stuff happens," and then, when pressed, put a happy face on the looting by saying, "It's untidy. And freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes."

 

When American journalist Robert Fisk caught sight of the Koranic library burning, flames 100 feet high were bursting from the windows, he raced to the offices of the occupying power, the US Marines' Civil Affairs Bureau, who shouted to a colleague that this guy says some biblical library is on fire. Robert Fisk gave the map location, the precise name in Arabic and English. Journalist said the smoke could be seen from three miles away and it would take only five minutes to drive there. Half an hour later, there wasn't an American at the scene, and the flames were shooting 200 feet into the air. Looters were holding in hands the last Baghdad vestiges of Iraq's written history. But the older files and archives were on the upper floors of the library where petrol must have been used to set fire so expertly to the building. The heat was such that the marble flooring had buckled upwards and the concrete stairs had been cracked.

 

Wahhabi Taliban looted the Kabul Museums, so they also looted the Baghdad Museums. Afghan Taliban destroyed the Bamian Buddhas, so they destroyed the pagan artifacts in Baghdad. Saudi Arabian Wahhabi fundamentalists burnt the Baghdad Museums because it contained the proof that Wahhabi Cult developed by British Spy Lawrence of Arabia and Arab Jews. King Faisal of the Hejaz, the ruler of Mecca, whose staff are the authors of many of the letters I saved, was later deposed by the Saudis. His son Faisel became king of Iraq ­ Winston Churchill gave him Baghdad after the French threw him out of Damascus ­ and his brother Abdullah became the first king of Jordan, the father of King Hussein and the grandfather of the present-day Jordanian monarch, King Abdullah II. For almost a thousand years, Baghdad was the cultural capital of the Arab world, the most literate population in the Middle East. Genghis Khan's grandson burnt the city in the 13th century and, so it was said, the Tigris River ran black with the ink of books. On 4/14/2003, the black ashes of thousands of ancient documents filled the skies of Iraq. Why? 

 

Why the cultural identity of Iraq is being erased? Semite Jews, Semite Saudis and Judeo-Christians burnt the Museum to erase the cultural identity of Iraq. Why? Who set these fires? For what insane purpose is this heritage being destroyed? Again, standing in this shroud of blue smoke and embers, Robert Frisk asked the same question: why? The answer is very simple: The barbarians invaded Iraq to destroy the cultural history of Hindu Iraq, which boasted advance rich wealthy Goddess worshipping civilizations at least 20,000 years before the ancestors of nomadic Semite Jews and cave-dwelling Christians became civilized or learnt to speak or write. The America’s war on Iraq is it Clash of Races, the War in which barbarian Semite Saudi Wahhabi Muslims and Semite Israeli tribes joined forces to destroy the Hindu traditions of Iraq, which for thousands of years worshipped Hindu Gods and Goddesses. The Ancient Kingdom Of Mittani worshipped Hindu gods of Varuna and Indra. Kali and Durga were the main reigning goddesses of Babylon revered as Goddess Innanna and Astarte. What should be the military response of Hindu India, Buddhist China and Japan to the Semite destruction of cultural identity of Iraq? What role iconoclast Semite conquest of non-Semite Iraq play in the Global Clash of Races, and Wars of Religions and the Clash of Civilizations in the 21st Century?

 

Barbarian Semite Saudi Wahhabi iconoclast burnt the Baghdad Museum to burn the proof that Wahhabi cult was created by Jews and spy Lawrence of Arabia to justify the Mecca’s revolt against Ottoman Caliphate. It contained the details of the correspondence of the court of Sharief Hussein of Mecca, who started the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Turks at the advice of Lawrence of Arabia. Lawrence of Arabia promised to make Mecca the seat of future Caliphate of Islam in exchange for their revolt against the Ottoman rulers of Baghdad. Jewish control over American media misled the American WASPs to wage war on oil-rich Iraq to promote the iconoclastic monotheist agenda of Semite Jews, Semite Wahhabi Muslims and Semite Judeo-Christians and Semite Neo-conservatives.

 

31(ii) Wars of Intolerance

Semite Agenda in Yankees War on Iraq

There are concerned Americans who feel that the policy coming from the Bush administration is one endless wars and bloody struggle after another, because presidential advisers Paul Wolfowitz promoted the idea of Iraq and Syria invasion to protect Semite Israeli Jewish interests, and vice president Dick Cheney promoted American oil colonialism war to protect the Semite Saudi Wahhabi interests in the non-Semite Iraq, the cradle of Civilization, where Jews spent their Babylon Captivity as slaves. Semite Jews, Semite Muslims and Semite Oil Colonialism used force to conquer and destroy the successors of Babylon Civilization that enslaved Jews and expelled Jews from Jerusalem. Semite Jews, Muslims and Americans celebrated the return of Semite Jews to Israel by engineering the American conquest of the Arabian Peninsula to impose the domination of Semite Wahhabi Islam. Semite Jews and Semite Jews converted in Islam entered into pact with Semite oil interests to buy political influence over Christian Republican Neo-conservatives, to restore the domination of the Arabian Peninsula to the iconoclast monotheist Semite race of Muslims and Jews.

 

Semite Barbarians Invaded non-Semite Iraq

At the beginning of the 21st Century the Semite Jews, Semite Wahhabi Muslims, and American Judeo-Christians joined the ranks of uncivilized barbarians when they burnt the Baghdad Museum. Barbarian Julius Caesar had burnt the library of Alexandria, when he invaded Alexandria. At the end of 4th Century Semite Hellenic Jews burnt the pagan Hindu temples of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome along with fundamentalist Christians that took control over Rome during Theodosius I, when in 393 by Roman Royal Edict Christianity became the sole official religion of Roman Empire. Then 300 years later during 7th Century the Damascus Jews joined forces with fellow Semite Muslim Bedouin to loot and burn the Christian temples of Egypt, Syria and Libya, Tunisia and Algeria.

 

Iconoclast Mecca-Vatican-Jerusalem Axis

Baghdad Museums and Libraries burnt by Semite iconoclasts, to erase the cultural history of non-Semite Babylonian Civilization and Semite’s religious motivations made it the Crime of Millennium and War Crime, punishable by the International Criminal Court at The Hague. Reformed Christianity and the White Anglo Saxon Protestants should not take the historic sin committed by Semite Jews, Semite Muslims and Semite Judeo Christians by burning the Museums of Baghdad, otherwise historians of the world would write that American Civilization, Protestant Christians and Protestant President George W. Bush similar to Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane. The Protestant WASPs should not take the blame of the Semite iconoclasts. Reformed Christianity, WASP Protestants should demand that the political and religious leaders of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican face charges of Kulturcide and War Crime in the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

 

The predator intolerant iconoclast monotheist Axis, or the Mecca-Vatican-Jerusalem Axis of intolerance burnt the ancient pagan cultural history of the mankind in Baghdad, as they had previously burnt the ancient temples of Egypt, Greece, and Rome. What should be the response of non-Semite Civilizations for the destruction of the records of the Civilization by Semite iconoclasts? What role should American Reformed Christians and Russian Orthodox Christians play to bring the barbarian iconoclasts to justice, for their heinous Crime of the Millennium, the destruction of the pre-Christian cultural legacy of the mankind? Buddhist China and Japan should militarily respond by destroying the homeland of the iconoclast monotheist terrorist barbarians in the Arabian Peninsula.

 

Is this Crime of the Millennium, the destruction of the pagan cultural heritage during Iraq War 2003, ten times more heinous than Nazi Holocaust of Jews during Second World War? Should WASPs dispatch the religious and political leaders of Mecca-Vatican-Jerusalem Axis of Iconoclast Intolerance to International Criminal Court at The Hague? Why should non-Semite Civilizations, the Protestant WASPs and secular American imperialist forces take the blame committed by Semite Jews, Semite Wahhabi Muslims, Semite Judeo-Christians and Bolshevik Jews? The rape of Iraqi cultural treasures has lots in common with the rape of Russian hard currency wealth by Bolshevik Jews? The Semite Neo-conservatives inflicted the religious iconoclast monotheist blow to the otherwise secular imperialist war on Iraq for Iraqi oil, to transform the Protestant America’s war on oil-rich Iraq, into the Semite war to impose Wahhabi Islamic fundamentalism on Iraq, and to destroy the non-Semite cultural history of Babylon, to punish Iraq for the Babylonian Captivity of Jews by the Assyrians. Semite Neo-Conservatives transformed Protestant’s Oil war on Iraq into Semite religious wars to destroy records of entire non-Semite history of the mankind.

 

WASP President George W. Bush should preside over secular investigations into the role Semite Wahhabis and Semite Jews and Semite Judeo Christians played in this heinous Crime of the Millennium, to decide which political and religious leaders should face the music at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, otherwise history books would record that Protestant leader George Bush was a leader of barbarians like Attila the Hun or Alaric the barbarian. By prosecuting the Semite perpetrators of the War Crimes in Baghdad Museums, Protestant Bush would cleanse the Reformed Christianity of the blood cast by Semites in the Baghdad Museums. Failure to prosecute Semite iconoclasts would give inerasable stigma on the Reformed Christianity that it too represented barbarianism.

 

Iraqi Didn’t Burn Museums

Iraqis didn’t burn the Museums of Baghdad. Iraqis didn’t loot the Museums of Baghdad. The people of Iraq, like the people of Afghanistan had preserved their national cultural heritage. Who’s to blame for the destruction of Iraqi museums, libraries, amounting to what The New York Times calls “one of the greatest cultural disasters in recent Middle Eastern history? Either the Neo-conservative Bush Administration, or the iconoclast Semite Jews, or the Vatican’s iconoclast Catholic religious right conservatives, or the iconoclast Semite Saudi Wahhabi Sunni fundamentalist are to blame. US political leaders are “destroyers of civilization” like Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane, said Hamid Dabashi of Columbia University. They are barbarians whose criminal neglect makes them comparable to Nero, said Michael Sells of Haverford College. The US government’s war crime renders it akin to the Mongols who sacked Baghdad in 1258, said Arjomand of the State University of New York, Stony Brook.

 

The real perpetrators of the crime were the iconoclast fundamentalists, who destroyed the 2000-year old Buddha statues of Bamian Afghanistan, or cut the heads of the god Vishnu in Angkor Wat Cambodia, or cut the head of the 2000-year old Buddha in China, or bombed the Hindu temple Borobudor in Indonesia. The Jerusalem-Mecca-Vatican Axis of Iconoclast fundamentalism destroyed the pagan artifacts in Baghdad to promote the religious interests of iconoclast Semite Judaism, Semite Wahhabi fundamentalism, or Semite Judeo-Christian fundamentalism, or Semite Marxist fundamentalism. The Pentagon is responsible for the Museums of Baghdad, only so far as it did not shoot the Semite looters of the Museums in Baghdad and it make America guilty of war crimes, just as Adolf Hitler was for the Jewish Holocaust, or Slobadan Milosevic was for the Bosnia deaths. 

 

Foreigners Burnt Baghdad Museums

Iraqi didn’t burn the Baghdad Museums. The French did not sack the Louvre in 1944. The Japanese did not burn their national library in 1945. Panamanians did not destroy their archives in 1990. Kuwaitis did not destroy their historic Korans in 1991. Semite Jews and Semite Wahhabi Saudi Muslims and Semite Catholic iconoclast fundamentalists indulged in the unchecked frenzy of cultural theft. And frenzy it was. At the national Museum of Iraq, perhaps the greatest storehouse of antiquities in the Middle East, the 28 galleries of the museum and vaults with huge steel doors and guarding storage chambers that descend floor into floor into unlighted darkness had been completely ransacked. The devastation at Iraq’s national library and archives was worse, for both institutions were purposefully incinerated. Much of the Iraq’s culture and records were destroyed. Nothing was left in the national library’s main wing but its charred walls. The smoldering shell contained the charred remnants of historic books and nation’s intellectual legacy gone up in smoke. Iraq’s main Islamic library with its collection of rare priceless Korans, calligraphy and illumination was also burned.

 

Who Burnt Ancient Temples of Greece Rome

Who burnt the great library of Athens in the 7th Century? Who burnt and looted the temples of Mithra, Isis, Zeus in ancient Greece and temples of Athena and Jupiter in Rome in 4th and 5th Century? Who looted the Hindu temples of Isis, Ossir, in Ancient Egypt? Who looted the Christian churches of Syria, Egypt, Libya and Algeria in 7th Century? Semite Jews and Semite Muslims and Semite Catholics burnt the library of Athens, temples of Greece, Rome and Egypt in the ancient world. This descent into barbarism is so unusual that it has only a few precedents, the Catholic destruction of the cultural artifacts and cultural history and books of Incas, Mayas and Aztecs. Hellenic Jews burnt the Temples of Athens and Library of Athens. Damascus Jews looted the Temples and churches of Syria, Egypt, Libya, and Algeria. 

 

Protestants didn’t Burn Museums

The Protestant WASPs are not responsible for the destruction of Baghdad Museum. Was the Jerusalem-Mecca-Vatican Axis of intolerance responsible for the destruction of the Baghdad Museum? Which of the three perpetrators, namely, Semite Jews, Semite Muslims, and Semite Christians responsible for the destruction for the Iraq’s cultural legacy, was more responsible for this War Crime and Crime of Kulturcide? 

 

The WASPs should realize that the Semite Republican Neo-conservatives inserted the religious agenda into President Bush’s war for oil colonialism by burning the Baghdad Museum and destroyed any chance President Bush had for winning the Presidential elections 2004. The burning of the Baghdad Museum is as great a sin as the murder of Jesus and the death by stoning of apostle James, the elder brother of Jesus in 64 AD at orders of chief Rabbi of Jews. Failure to prosecute the criminals that destroyed the Baghdad Museums might result in the destruction of the States of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican in the 21st Century. The destruction of the religious intolerant states and predator intolerant religions might become the outcome of the destruction of the cultural history of the mankind. Should every State that conspired in the burning of the Baghdad Museums pay $100 billion in reparation for the damages to the Museums?

 

America Not a Barbarian Nation

United States is preponderant power of the world in 2003, just as Mongols were in 13th Century, Romans in 4th Century and Pharaohs of Egypt before Christian era. Failure of the Protestants and WASP Americans to pin the blame on the real perpetrators of the Kulturcide in Baghdad, would present president Bush as the Nero of Baghdad, or barbarian Attila the Hun, murderer Genghis Khan and destroyer Tamerlane in the history books that would be written in the 21st Century. Why should good guy WASPs take the blame for the Kulturcide, War Crimes perpetrated by Semite Jews, or Semite Wahhabi Muslims, or Semite Judeo Christians? Would Protestant President George Bush like to join the ranks in world history as the Attila the Hun, or Genghis Khan or Tamerlane? To protect the good name of Reformed Christianity the Protestant WASPs should demand the formation of the War Crime Tribunal for prosecution of the War Crimes and Cultural Genocide and Kulturcide and prosecute the political and religious leaders of Semite Israel, Semite Saudi Arabia and the Vatican and let the law takes it own course.

 

Should WASPs Prosecute Iconoclasts?

Failure of the United States to prosecute the political and religious leadership of the States that conspired to burn the Baghdad Museums might cause World War III and the global Clash of Races and the War of Civilizations in the first half of the 21st Century. Reformed Christianity, Protestants and Anglo Saxons should withdraw the support they have hitherto extended to the religious intolerance of Semite Israel, Semite Saudi Arabia and the Vatican, because the religious interests of Reformed Christianity and the civilization interests of Protestant United States so demand it, otherwise history would record that Protestant President George W. Bush like Alaric the barbarian, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane, presided over the barbarian Civilization of Protestant America. Let the political and religious leadership of religious intolerant States, suffer the consequences of their acts of intolerance, and no Protestant should take the blame for their sin, as it would taint the Reformed Christianity and WASPs America with the label of barbarianism.

 

Even the mightiest power on earth would fail to cleanse this evil stigma that history books would record. There is no chance that president George W. Bush would ever get reelected in 2004 elections. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican take urgent steps to prosecute the perpetrators of the destruction of the cultural heritage of the world in Baghdad, and their failure to do so, would make them forfeit their right to exist as independent state and free society in the 21st Century. Perhaps the predator intolerant religious sects and cults would face their demise in the 21st Century, unless the perpetrators of the Kulturcide meet their Maker at the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

 

The American Jews joined the Republican Neo-conservatism and aligned with the American oil colonialism to wage war on Iraq to protect the existence of Israel, faced by the threats of Palestinian suicide bombers. Fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Catholic religious right conservatives inserted the religious agenda into President Bush’s secular oil colonialism war on Iraq, to destroy President Bush’s chances in the Elections 2004. President Bush does not belong to the religious right conservative conspiracy. Vatican and the Fundamentalist Jews would promote the Democratic presidential nominee over President Bush. The destruction of the Baghdad Museums was the religious war waged by Semite Jews, Semite Wahhabi Muslims, and Semite Judeo Christians to destroy the presidential aspirations of the Republican WASP Protestant George Bush, to improve the chances of the Jewish presidential nominee in the US Elections 2004. Protestant President Bush would improve his chances in presidential Elections, if he would demand the prosecution of all those responsible for the Burning of Baghdad Museums.

 

The War Crime of burning of Baghdad Museums during Iraq War 2003 was ten times more heinous a crime than the Nazi Holocaust of Jews during the Second War, and ten times more war criminals should hang for this crime of the Millennium. The ball is in the court of the Reformed Christianity and America’s White Anglo Saxon Protestants, to decide whether Reformed Christianity is on the side of predator religious intolerance and barbarianism or on the side of tolerance and the Civilization. The choice the Reformed Christianity makes would determine the coalitions of the Civilizations in the Global Clash of Races and the Third World War. Whichever State conspired it and whichever religious Cult executed the conspiracy would face the wrath of the God and the combined might of the Civilizations in the Global Clash of Races in the 21st Century.

 

The Reformed Christianity, Protestants, Non- Denominational Christians, Coptic and Apostolic Christians, Shiites and Sufi Muslims, Kabbalah Mystic Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and pagans would be on the same side of the battle lines in the global clash of religions and clash of races. The predator intolerant religions, fundamentalists and theocratic religions, Wahhabi Sunnis, and fundamentalist Catholics and Orthodox Jews would be on the other side of the battle lines in the global clash of religions. The Civilizations of the ancient religions, India, China and Japan would join forces to retaliate against the iconoclast fundamentalist intolerant idol-breakers, and to break the unholy Jerusalem-Mecca-Vatican Axis of religious Intolerance and Iconoclast Monotheism. First World War started with a freak incident of the murder of the Crown Prince of Austro Hungarian Empire. The Third World War might have started with the destruction of the Baghdad Museums at the hands of intolerant iconoclast fundamentalist Semite Jews, Semite Wahhabi and Semite Judeo-Christians. Only the impartial war crime trial of the perpetrators of this heinous War Crime by the International Criminal Court at The Hague could avert the looming global clash of races and clash of civilizations and the war of religions. The Reformed Christianity and the Orthodox Christianity should declare its Civilization’s stand on this issue. The severity of this war crime would allow China, India and Japan to wage war to conquer all Wahhabi oil-producing nations and to dispossess all Wahhabi intolerant tribes from the Arabian Peninsula and to rape their oil to pay for the restoration of the pagan artifacts burnt by them.

 

The pagan nations of Hindu and Buddhist could express their anger by the conquest and colonization of Wahhabi Arabia. May be Hindu Gods and Buddhist gods would cool anger by drinking the oil and gas of Arabia. In final analysis oil is the source of all evil, as well as source of all wealth and the cause of all wars, in the 21st Century including the Third World War.

 

He who controls the oil of Arabian Gulf, controls the destiny of the world. Arabian Gulf and Caspian Sea basin lie in the neighborhood of India, which has one billion plus population and world’s fourth largest economy. Arabian Sea had been Indian Lake throughout 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th Century. Before 1965, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Oman and UAE kept their foreign currency reserves in Indian rupee, as Indian rupee was their reserve currency until 1965. India would become a super power if ever Indian rupee replaced US dollar as the underlying currency of the global oil trade. Learning by the experience of easy American conquest of Iraq, India learnt the short route to riches and elimination of poverty of Indians, which is by conquering Saudi Arabia and establish permanent oil colony in the Arabian Gulf. What America and Britain could do in Iraq, India has the right to do the same in Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Brunei. Loss of sovereignty of 25 million people of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and UAE would bring unprecedented prosperity to one billion plus Indians. India as well as China, Pakistan and Japan have right of preemptive strikes to punish intolerant tyrant barbarian regimes in Arabian Gulf to establish oil colonies, much like what America did in Iraq in April 2003.  

 

31(iii) War Crime of Millennium

The Saudi Semite Wahhabi Sunni fundamentalists looted the Baghdad Museums, just as they and looted the Kabul Museums, both to further their iconoclast religious agenda and to make money. The iconoclast Semite Wahhabi terrorists looted Kabul Museum, and Baghdad Museums. While some pieces looted from other museums, including Kabul's main gallery, plundered in 1993 when the Taliban seized power, are eventually recovered, most are not. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE should pay $500 billion in War Crime reparation to rebuild pagan religious artifacts and rebuild Iraqi Museums. If it is proved that Wahhabi fundamentalists burnt the library of Koran then Wahhabi Cult should be banned and all Wahhabi clergy removed from Mecca & Medina. The investigation into the destruction of Baghdad Museum is very important to avert the Third World War.

 

(1) Baghdad's Antiquity Thieves Ready?

First, the looting of the Baghdad Museum was a War Crime, because the foreigners looted the Museums and transported the goods by trucks out of Iraq, and no way the America occupation forces could claim innocence. Looting of Iraqi museums not done by Iraqi nationals. Who these foreign looters were? How could they enter Iraq and leave Iraq without the consent of the American occupation troops? It was well planned, well targeted War Crime against Iraqi cultural heritage.

 

Whatever their tribal and religious differences, all Iraqis can be proud of one thing: On their soil modern civilization was born. Cities were invented in what is now Iraq. So was writing and even an early form of democracy. So it doesn't sound overblown when Elizabeth C. Stone, a professor of anthropology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, ranks the looting of the Baghdad Museum with the burning of the Great Library at Alexandria or the rape of Aztec and Inca cultures by the conquistadors. Iraq is a country, whose past has been decapitated. Putting the pieces back together won't be easy. Although most art dealers publicly denounce the trade in stolen objects, many continue to buy and sell works of dubious origin. There is a well-developed global network that specializes in stolen antiquities, and while some objects have been recovered in the past, most remain out of sight in private hands. "There's always a market for greedy collectors. It doesn't matter to them if they can't show it to anyone.

 

In this case the sheer rarity of the objects will almost certainly fuel demand. The collection at the Baghdad Museum included one of the first representations of a human face, plus thousands of cuneiform tablets and other objects that bears witness to everyday life thousands of years ago. Up to 170,000 objects were lifted and that on the black market they could fetch from $5 for small items to $2 million for the best stuff. When was the last time any of us saw great Sumerian art come on the market? It's extraordinarily rare. That may explain why the thievery seemed so well organized. It was almost as if the perpetrators were waiting for Baghdad to fall to make their move. Gil J. Stein, a professor of archeology at the University of Chicago, which has been conducting digs in Iraq for 80 years, believes that dealers ordered the most important pieces well in advance. They were looking for very specific artifacts. They knew where to look.

 

So where did the stolen Iraqi art go? A few well-informed and unscrupulous Iraqis probably arranged for poorly paid "mules" to truck the pieces through the trackless desert and across the porous borders into Jordan, Syria, or Turkey. From there, the objects can be easily shipped by air to shady international dealers. Typically, the works are intentionally mislabeled, with their museum ID numbers stripped off, to evade detection. Over time, such pieces acquire what's known in the art world as “good provenance," or seeming legitimacy. Initially, people who buy the objects will make up histories for them. As the antiquities pass through several more hands, the trail becomes increasingly murky.

 

Eventually, a collector may end up acquiring one of these works not knowing it was looted. It probably helps the recovery effort that some of the pieces are too well known to find buyers. One is the Lady of Warka, an alabaster face that's one of the earliest representations of the human form. Everybody is going to shun this material. But it seems clear that most of the works will disappear into private vaults. It doesn't help that the looters burned museum files. As a result, a clear picture of what was taken may never materialize. While some pieces looted from other museums, including Kabul's main gallery, plundered in 1993 when the Taliban seized power, are eventually recovered, most are not. That's why the loss for Iraq and the world is incalculable. (Jack Ewing, Joseph Weber, Michael Shari, “Were Baghdad's Antiquity Thieves Ready? Business Week Online, Fri Apr 18, 2003)

 

(2) Raiders of the Lost Art

Second, the United States Armed Forces didn’t protect the Museums, even when they were told in advance about the threat to the Museum, because they may have played a part in the looting of the priceless artifacts of the Iraqi Museums. United States was guilty for the crime of looting Iraqi Museums.

 

Why didn't USA protect the National Museum and Library in Baghdad? The deputy director of the National Museum amid the devastation The Bush administration and the military have made it sound as though the extensive looting of three major Iraqi cultural institutions in Baghdad this past weekend was not foreseeable. At a Centcom briefing April 15, U.S. Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said, "I don't think anyone anticipated that the riches of Iraq would be looted by the people of Iraq." But in fact the administration had reason to suspect that this looting would happen. During uprisings within Iraq after the first Gulf War, nine of 13 regional museums, in Dohuk and elsewhere, were systematically looted. Many of these artifacts appeared on the international black market. It shouldn't have been a surprise that widespread theft would take place again during an interregnum in Baghdad. What's more, the Pentagon had long ago been informed by archaeologists of the value and importance of these institutions and in fact had drawn up a "No Strike List" of sites to avoid during its shock and awe campaign a list that included the National Museum. On April 17, ’03 the chairman of the President's Advisory Committee on Cultural Property submitted his resignation to President Bush citing "the wanton and preventable destruction" of Iraq's National Museum of Antiquities.

 

The remnants of the National Library If, like me, you know little about Mesopotamian art, the reports that emerged over the weekend might have found you unable to judge just how significant the loss was. By now it's clear that it's horrifically extensive: Archaeologists in the United States consider the National Museum of Antiquities, thoroughly sacked, to be among the 10 most important museums in the world. It was to Mesopotamian art what the Louvre is to Western painting. It maintained a collection of international antiquities dating back some 5,000 years. Needless to say, many Arab countries and civilians are taking its destruction personally. And yet this destruction was largely unnecessary.

 

Famous head of an Akkadian ruler, among the important pieces of art missing is a 4,300-year-old bronze mask of an Akkadian king that is featured in most books of ancient art history. It was on the cover of one of my high school textbooks; I remember wanting to touch its nobly beard. Also gone is a small limestone statuette of a prince, circa 3300 B.C.; jewelry from the royal tombs of Ur dating to 2500 B.C.; a solid gold harp from the Sumerian era; a series of small ivories dating to the eighth century B.C.; second-century B.C. Parthian sculptures from Hatra; and a collection of around 80,000 cuneiform tablets that contain examples of the some of the world's earliest writing. The museum's comprehensive collection was unprecedented. Saddam's secularism and his long-term interest in Iraq's archaeological legacy in part self-serving; he inscribed his name next to Nebuchadnezzar's in the Hanging Gardens of Babylon had enriched the National Museum's collection. According to a Financial Times piece from 2000, Saddam reportedly made extensive suggestions in the margins of all reports filed by Iraq's archaeological director, Donny George. Saddam Hussein also made antiquities smuggling punishable by death.

 

A Parthian male divinity figure But it's hard to know exactly what's been lost. Because of the U.S. embargo, few American archaeologists had even been in Baghdad since 1991. Several I spoke with noted that we can't rule out the possibility that Saddam Hussein and Baath Party officials may have been selling off items over the years. In 2000, when the National Museum reopened after renovations for damage done during the first Gulf War, many exhibits and treasures previously at the museum were missing. One suggested that the initial estimate of 170,000 stolen objects would turn out to be high.

 

The destruction wrought in the National Library and the Ministry for Religious Affairs, on the other hand, is irreparable: The buildings were burned nearly to the ground. We'll never have a chance to buy back, on the black market, all the books and manuscripts that were burned nor will we discover them someday in a criminal's closet. Among them were extensive antique manuscripts that are not available in print, and thousands of illuminated and handwritten Qurans, now in ashes.

 

How could this happen? The looting of the museum occurred in two waves, according to witnesses and to international art and antiquities experts. The first appears to have been executed by insiders equipped with glass cutters and other tools. Apparently, they knew what they were looking for. The thieves opened glass display cases without smashing them and penetrated the locked vaults in the museum. The second wave of looting was what's known as opportunistic the kind that Donald Rumsfeld described as the natural exuberance of a country working off the nervous energy occasioned by regime change.

 

Attack of the Lion Statue is gone. The Pentagon has defended its non-action by saying that it agreed to protect the sites during battle, as distinct from any looting that came afterward. Splitting hairs, anyone? The United States could easily have done more to stop the ransacking. The looting of the museum began on Friday; it extended, according to a BBC radio report, for three days, at which point there still were no guards posted outside the building. Numerous newspapers quote Iraqi citizens who saw American patrols impassively watch as looters carted away vases, jewelry, pots, and other goods. The Guardian reported on Monday that U.S. Army commanders had just rejected a new plea from desperate officials of the Iraq Museum for aid. And the fires at the National Library and the Ministry of Religious Affairs took place two whole days after the looting of the museum began. Americans ought to have protected the museums, just as we posted Army patrols outside the National Ministry of Oil. The military's inaction doesn't seem to have been a question of choosing between protecting civilians and guarding gold jewelry. The Chicago Tribune reported that the U.S. military successfully assigned men to chip away a disrespectful mural of former President George Bush on the floor of the Al Rashid Hotel, even though it failed to protect the museum and library from being plundered.

 

A female mask from the National Museum was looted. Why didn't anyone act? How hard would it have been for someone to call Tommy Franks and say, "This is getting out of hand"? Put bluntly, it seems like the administration just didn't care enough to stop it an indifference that's part and parcel with its general attitude toward anything other than its military objectives. Rumsfeld appeared genuinely annoyed even to have to answer questions about the ransacking of the museum and library: "We didn't allow it to happen. It happened," he said. This ham-fisted diplomacy immediately gave rise to anti-American conspiracy-mongering: Nine British archaeologists suggested that, in turning a blind eye to the looting, the Bush administration was succumbing to pressure from private collectors to allow treasures to be traded on the open market. Others have suggested the Bush Administration wanted the world to feel the symbolic weight of the destruction of Saddam's regime.

 

A few books remain from the library. What's to be done now? If they haven't already, the military might start by posting guards at the museum even as a token symbol of respect. The best chance for recovering the stolen art is seizing it at the borders of Iraq, which U.S. troops are patrolling in the hopes of keeping Baath officials from escaping. We should drawn up guidelines of what the military should look for, and urge the U.S. government to offer amnesty and a small reward for all those who have "found" Iraqi art. But for the military to take on this responsibility, the administration itself needs to convey the urgency of the matter, which it has only just begun to do:

 

No U.S. official has yet apologized and there've been few or no words from Bush on the issue. The FBI announced that it would help in the search to recover antiquities. Colin Powell has promised that the United States would help rebuild the city's National Museum. Only two of the thousands of pieces of art that were stolen after the first Gulf War were recovered, Even if a sculpture of a bronze Akkadian king isn't important to the Bush administration, you'd think its own self-interest would be: In the eyes of the world, the war's success will be measured as much by what happens now and over the coming months as by the shock and awe campaign. And the United States now has a black mark that it could have avoided. (Meghan O'Rourke, Raiders of the Lost Art, Why didn't we protect the National Museum and Library in Baghdad? Posted Thursday, April 17, 2003, at 4:28 PM PT

 

(3) Foreign Looters Had Keys to Iraq Museum

Third, Semite Saudi Wahhabi iconoclasts got the keys of the Museums and burnt them. There are three suspects for the Museums thefts. First, Saudi Wahhabi Fundamentalists are the prime culprits as they had earlier destroyed the Bamian Buddhas in Afghanistan. Second, the iconoclast Catholic fundamentalists are prime suspects, as they had destroyed the Vishnu statues in the Angkor War temples in Cambodia. Third, the Semite Israeli Jews are prime suspects as Hellenic Jews had destroyed the Hindu temples in ancient Greece and Rome. The destruction of the Museums was definitely the work of foreign Semite iconoclast fundamentalists.

 

"I have a suspicion it was organized outside the country. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was. What seemed like random looting in Baghdad the pillaging of treasures dating back 5,000 years in human history may have been in part a carefully planned theft, and the stolen artifacts could already be on their way to collectors in Europe? Interpol, the international police organization, announced it was sending a special team to Iraq to help track down the pillaged treasures, and called on everyone involved in the conservation and trade of antiquities "to categorically decline any offers of cultural property originating from Iraq." "They were able to obtain keys from somewhere for the vaults and were able to take out the very important, the very best material. "I have a suspicion it was organized outside the country. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was." The bandits were so efficient at emptying Iraqi libraries and Baghdad's National museums that reports have already surfaced of artifacts appearing on the black market. Unverified information suggested that certain artifacts had already surfaced in Paris, Iran and other parts of Europe. There was no information on whether those items, which included gold jewelry of the Assyrian queens remained inside. It was also unknown whether one of its greatest treasures of the looted National Museum tablets containing Hammurabi's Code, one of the earliest codes of law were there when the looting began. The museum is one of the most important and largest repositories of antiquities in the Middle East. Before the war, Iraq's antiquities' authorities gathered artifacts from around the country and moved them to the museum, assuming it would not be bombed. "They did not count on the museum being looted. Thousands of antiquities had disappeared from the country even before the current war. (Jocelyn Gecker, Associated Press Writer, Experts: Looters Had Keys to Iraq Museum, Fri Apr 18, 2003)

 

(4) Treasures Looted

Fourth, the damages to the Baghdad Museums was truly a world heritage loss, and legally a War Crime, the Crime of Kulturcide, and the case should be tried at International Criminal Court, at The Hague. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican are the prime suspects. The Vatican-Mecca-Jerusalem Axis of iconoclast Monotheism and Intolerance organized this War Crime to destroy the cultural heritage of the Pagan world.

 

Damage in Baghdad as "truly a world heritage loss. But for Iraq, this is Year Zero; with the destruction of the antiquities in the Museum of Archaeology on Saturday and the burning of the National Archives and then the Koranic library, the cultural identity of Iraq is being erased. Why? Who set these fires? For what insane purpose is this heritage being destroyed? Library books, letters and priceless documents are set ablaze in sacking of Baghdad on 14 April 2003. In Baghdad it was day for the burning of books. First came the looters, then the arsonists. It was the final act in the sacking of Baghdad. The National Library and Archives, a priceless treasure of Ottoman historical documents, including the old royal archives of Iraq, were turned to ashes in 3,000 degrees of heat. Then the library of Korans at the Ministry of Religious Endowment was set ablaze.

 

Semite looters took or destroyed 170,000 items from Iraq's National Museum, which had housed a priceless collection of masterpieces and memorabilia dating back across human history from the time of the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Sumerians, the Medes, the Greeks and the Persians. Marble carvings, stone tablets, clay pots and tablets containing some of the earliest known examples of writing were destroyed or stolen. The pillaging of the Baghdad museum represented far more than an Iraqi loss. John Russell, an archeologist at the Massachusetts College of Art, described the destruction as a blow to "the world's human history." Noting that the museum's collection included some of the earliest examples of mathematics and some of the first legal codes ever written, the British Museum's Dominique Collon described the damage in Baghdad as "truly a world heritage loss."

 

Items that survived 7,000 years of human history were lost on April 2003 in a city controlled by forces under the direction of Donald Rumsfeld. Yet Rumsfeld refused to take any responsibility. "We didn't allow it," he said. "It happened." But did it have to happen? Thousands of the finest soldiers in the world were in and around Baghdad.

 

Suppose rioters were looting Vatican Museums, Museums of Rome, New York Museums or London Museums. Suppose rioters were wrecking an American city, looting its hospitals and destroying one of the greatest museums in the world. And imagine if, as this happened, one of the nation's most prominent liberal officials excused the violence by saying, "Stuff happens," and then, when pressed, put a happy face on the looting by saying, "It's untidy. And freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes." Would it take even 10 minutes for conservatives in Congress and the media to call for the head of the liberal official? How loudly would Rush Limbaugh condemn her irresponsibility? How many times would Sean Hannity blame her for the continued violence? Would Bill O'Reilly demand that the offending official appear to defend herself on Fox TV? Would House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, propose a congressional investigation, removal of the liberal leader, perhaps even criminal prosecution? No one who has witnessed the faux patriotic policing of the discourse by America's conservative political and media elites could possibly doubt that such a response to rioting would send the yammering yahoos of the right into a frenzy of finger-pointing. Yet when rioters were tearing up the U.S.-controlled city of Baghdad last week, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld responded by saying, "Stuff happens." Echoing statements by other Bush administration apparatchiks, Rumsfeld described the looting of the city as an "untidy" display of freedom. On the day that Rumsfeld was declaring on live television that "free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes," rioters looted the Yarmouk Hospital, carting away not just beds, sheets and medicines but toilets and the ultrasound scanners.

 

When Robert Fisk caught sight of the Koranic library burning, flames 100 feet high were bursting from the windows, he raced to the offices of the occupying power, the US Marines' Civil Affairs Bureau. An officer shouted to colleague "this guy says some biblical library is on fire". The journalist gave the map location, the precise name in Arabic and English. Journalist said the smoke could be seen from three miles away and it would take only five minutes to drive there. Half an hour later, there wasn't an American at the scene, and the flames were shooting 200 feet into the air. The looters cursed anyone who tried to reclaim a book of Islamic law. Amid the ashes of Iraqi history, was found a file blowing in the wind outside: pages of handwritten letters between the court of Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who started the Arab revolt against the Turks for Lawrence of Arabia, and the Ottoman rulers of Baghdad. And the Americans did nothing. All over the filthy yard they blew, letters of recommendation to the courts of Arabia, demands for ammunition for troops, reports on the theft of camels and attacks on pilgrims, all in delicate hand-written Arabic script. Looters were holding in hands the last Baghdad vestiges of Iraq's written history.

 

There was a time when the Arabs said that their books were written in Cairo, printed in Beirut and read in Baghdad. Now they burn libraries in Baghdad. In the National Archives were not just the Ottoman records of the Caliphate, but even the dark years of the country's modern history, handwritten accounts of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, with personal photographs and military diaries, and microfiche copies of Arabic newspapers going back to the early 1900s. But the older files and archives were on the upper floors of the library where petrol must have been used to set fire so expertly to the building. The heat was such that the marble flooring had buckled upwards and the concrete stairs had been cracked. The papers on the floor were almost too hot to touch, bore no print or writing, and crumbled into ash the moment anyone picked them up. Again, standing in this shroud of blue smoke and embers, journalist asked the same question: why?

 

So, as an all-too-painful reflection on what this means, let me quote from the shreds of paper that I found on the road outside, blowing in the wind, written by long-dead men who wrote to the Sublime Porte in Istanbul or to the Court of Sharif of Mecca with expressions of loyalty and who signed themselves "your slave". There was a request to protect a camel convoy of tea, rice and sugar, signed by Husni Attiya al-Hijazi (recommending Abdul Ghani-Naim and Ahmed Kindi as honest merchants), a request for perfume and advice from Jaber al-Ayashi of the royal court of Sharif Hussein to Baghdad to warn robbers in the desert. "This is just to give you our advice for which you will be highly rewarded," Ayashi says. "If you don't take our advice, then we have warned you." A touch of Saddam there, I thought. The date was 1912. Some of the documents list the cost of bullets, military horses and artillery for Ottoman armies in Baghdad and Arabia, others record the opening of the first telephone exchange in the Hejaz ­ soon to be Saudi Arabia ­ while one recounts, from the village of Azrak in modern-day Jordan, the theft of clothes from a camel train by Ali bin Kassem, who attacked his interrogators "with a knife and tried to stab them but was restrained and later bought off". There is a 19th-century letter of recommendation for a merchant, Yahyia Messoudi, "a man of the highest morals, of good conduct and who works with the [Ottoman] government." This, in other words, was the tapestry of Arab history ­ all that is left of it, which fell into The Independent's hands as the mass of documents crackled in the immense heat of the ruins.

 

King Faisal of the Hejaz, the ruler of Mecca, whose staff are the authors of many of the letters I saved, was later deposed by the Saudis. His son Faisel became king of Iraq ­ Winston Churchill gave him Baghdad after the French threw him out of Damascus ­ and his brother Abdullah became the first king of Jordan, the father of King Hussein and the grandfather of the present-day Jordanian monarch, King Abdullah II. For almost a thousand years, Baghdad was the cultural capital of the Arab world, the most literate population in the Middle East. Genghis Khan's grandson burnt the city in the 13th century and, so it was said, the Tigris River ran black with the ink of books. On 4/14/2003, the black ashes of thousands of ancient documents filled the skies of Iraq. Why? (Robert Fisk, 17th April 2003)

 

(5) Treasures looted? 'Stuff happens'

Fifth, Pentagon is responsible for the Crime of Kulturcide committed by the foreign looters, the iconoclast monotheist intolerant looters that came in their trucks and carried them away with the full knowledge of the American occupation troops.

 

Americans could have protected government buildings, hospitals and the world's great archeological and historical treasures. U.S. Defense Department officials had, months ago, promised top archaeologists from around the world that such protection would be provided at the Baghdad museums. And everyone agrees they would have had little trouble preventing the looting of key buildings. When U.S. and allied troops took charge of the great cities of Europe during World War II, they proudly defended museums and other cultural institutions. They could have done the same in Baghdad, and they would have, had a signal come from the Pentagon. But the boss at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld, who had promised to teach the Iraqi people a lesson was too busy explaining that rioting and looting are what free people are free to do. Yet when rioters were tearing up the U.S.-controlled city of Baghdad last week, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld responded by saying, "Stuff happens." Echoing statements by other Bush administration apparatchiks, Rumsfeld described the looting of the city as an "untidy" display of freedom. On the day that Rumsfeld was declaring on live television that "free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes," rioters looted the Yarmouk Hospital, carting away not just beds, sheets and medicines but toilets and the ultrasound scanners. Suppose rioters were wrecking an American city, looting its hospitals and destroying one of the greatest museums in the world. And imagine if, as this happened, one of the nation's most prominent liberal officials excused the violence by saying, "Stuff happens," and then, when pressed, put a happy face on the looting by saying, "It's untidy. And freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes." Would it take even 10 minutes for conservatives in Congress and the media to call for the head of the liberal official? How loudly would Rush Limbaugh condemn her irresponsibility? How many times would Sean Hannity blame her for the continued violence? Would Bill O'Reilly demand that the offending official appear to defend herself on Fox TV? Would House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, propose a congressional investigation, removal of the liberal leader, perhaps even criminal prosecution? No one who has witnessed the faux patriotic policing of the discourse by America's conservative political and media elites could possibly doubt that such a response to rioting would send the yammering yahoos of the right into a frenzy of finger-pointing. (John Nichols: Treasures looted? 'Stuff happens' April 15, 2003)

 

 

(6) Looting was work of organized traffickers

Sixth, the European Christian and Jewish looters representing organized crime and organized Church looted the historical artifacts at Baghdad Museums.

 

Looters sacked the National Archaeological Museum in Baghdad last Friday, removing or destroying thousands of artifacts and provoking widespread criticism of the occupying US army for failing to take steps to protect the building. Among the items lost was a collection of around 80,000 cuneiform tablets that contain examples of the some of the world's earliest writing. A 5,000 year-old Sumerian alabaster vase, known as the Warka vase also disappeared. The knowledge of the extent of the looting was sketchy. Some very important pieces, which you would find in any introductory art book, have been lost. In addition to sacking the National Archaeological Museum with its unique collection of artifacts dating from the start of civilization looters destroyed the National Archives Center in Baghdad and burned the National Library burned. A museum in the northern city of Mosul was also looted. A library of Korans in the religious endowments ministry was set on fire and a collection of 20th century Iraqi figurative art collected by the Gulbenkian museum was destroyed. Onlookers described some of the looters as being directed by well-dressed men who knew what they wanted to take. These organized looters had keys to the vaults where they believed the most valued items were kept. Some of the most important treasures were relocated in the Iraqi National Bank before the US-British invasion on March 20, and though this too had been looted it was unclear if the artifacts there had been taken. Three days after the looting in Baghdad, there were reports that art dealers in Paris and other European cities had already been contacted with offers of stolen items. One of the first tasks would be to establish a database of items what had been housed in the National Archaeological Museum. It was unclear if the museum's own inventory, contained in several ledgers had survived. "If you want to destroy the illicit market in stolen artifacts) there must be a clear database. The level of proof for criminal convictions does presuppose this kind of database. (AFP, Looting was work of organized traffickers: UNESCO experts Thu Apr 17, 2003, 2:14 PM ET)

 

(7) A Cultural Casualty of War

Seventh, the damages done to the cultural heritage of Iraq is a War Crime and the leaders of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican should face prosecution at the International Criminal Court, at The Hague.

 

The U.S. military's failure to stop the looting of the Iraqi National Museum was a strategic blunder. One tank. That's about all it would have taken to prevent the wholesale destruction of the Iraqi National Museum in Baghdad last week, where a stellar repository of ancient civilization was looted and trashed after American and British forces entered the city, toppling the ironfisted regime of Saddam Hussein. A mighty American tank or two, and a few watchful soldiers, strategically parked by the front door surely could have prevented the catastrophe, which was reportedly carried out with a blend of randomness and precision. A couple of dozen men, women and even children began the looting one day, hundreds of looters finished it the next day and then burnt the Museums and libraries. But, come on now. Let's be serious. Is anybody really surprised that Baghdad's great civic art museum didn't rate a measly tank? That the treasures of ancient Mesopotamia sat unguarded and exposed, ripe for the picking by local scavengers either amateur or professional? The horrendous event was not, after all, a dire outcome of "the fog of war." It was instead a routine example of the fog of the Bush administration, when it comes to matters cultural. Today it is almost universally accepted that, in the long run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the United States did the dance of international diplomacy with two left feet. Diplomatic negotiation isn't just a matter of bare-knuckled, bottom-line horse-trading that forces determined adversaries finally to agree. It's a nuance give-and-take, an incremental persuasion that rises or falls on an understanding of social mores and the complex pageant of cultural sensitivities. There's a reason that diplomacy is called an art, not a science or a business. Art is not this administration's long suit. Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked at a Pentagon press briefing this week whether the military had made a mistake in failing to defend the museum. The House of Wisdom, Iraq's national library, where the country's historical archives are kept, was also severely damaged. Noting that the museum was not considered of major importance when sporadic combat operations were still underway in isolated pockets around the sprawling city, Gen. Myers explained, "It's as much as anything a matter of priorities." We know that, general; we know. Irreplaceable cultural artifacts dating to the dawn of civilization in the Middle East were not a Bush administration priority. That's the problem. Oil is a one-dimensional asset. It's property that can be bought and sold. This, an administration composed of oilmen understood. Art, on the other hand, is a two-dimensional asset. It's property, yes; the looters know well that it can have significant commercial value, and the illicit trade in antiquities saw its leading indicators take a giant leap last week. But aside from monetary worth, art is also an intangible resource, one that has immense use-value. It's a repository of meaning, a reservoir of social faith, a talisman of historical identity. Art has benefits that cannot be measured in dollars and cents alone. And it's a value that is critically needed now. Not immediately securing the museum was more than just a cultural shame although it was certainly that. It was also a gross strategic blunder. The Bush Administration squandered an instrument of extraordinary power for rebuilding Iraq, when it desperately needs every useful tool it can get. (Christopher Knight, A Cultural Casualty of War, Los Angeles Times, April 18, 2003)

 

(8) Ancient Wonders Are History as Mob Plunders Iraq Museum

Eight, the destruction of the ancient history of Iraq is a War Crime and should be prosecuted as the War Crime at the International Criminal Court, at The Hague.

 

Iraq's present is chaotic, its future uncertain, and now its past has been plundered. The looters came in waves, pillaging one of the finest collections of antiquities in the world as they stripped the Iraq Museum of more than 100,000 pieces of history, museum officials said. The police had abandoned their posts leaving only four museum guards to protect the treasures of what is often called the cradle of civilization. "There were hundreds of looters women, children, young people, old people. "These were mobs.” The mobs descended on the nation's cultural jewels. There was the gold and ivory harp of Ur, birthplace of the patriarch Abraham; artifacts from ancient Nineveh; and 5,000-year-old tablets bearing some of the earliest known writing. There was what is widely considered to be the first known calendar, a 10,000-year-old pebble with 12 scratches on it. There were stone, bone and flint instruments, some as much as 40,000 years old, found in Iraqi caves. There was a vast collection of Assyrian artifacts, including colossal sculptures from ancient royal palaces. The cultural disaster began at Abdel Rahman Mugeer's door Wednesday, 9th April 2003. The robbers knocked on the door of the guards' house and said, 'We will kill you if you don't open the door. How the guards responded isn't clear. But even if they didn't let them inside, looters smashed through windows, pulled out metal bars, climbed through ventilation shafts, broke through cinder block barricades and pried open heavy metal doors. They got inside any way they could. There was some speculation that they got in with insider help. Museum staff members said they begged U.S. troops to help. The Americans chased away the first group of looters, but when the troops left, the looters returned. "The looting of anything from this museum is a major, major consequence," said McGuire Gibson, a professor of Mesopotamian archeology at the University of Chicago. "Every important small piece in the country is in that museum." The museum staff has had experience with looters and the damage that war can inflict on antiquities. Widespread antiquity looting throughout the country began during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Since then, museum officials have been nearly helpless to staunch the hemorrhage of treasures from ancient Sumer, Babylonia and Assyria. The artifacts that have left Iraq sometimes were taken literally by the truckload. The museum staff made preparations for looters this time around. They took almost everything from the galleries and locked it in underground vaults. Museum workers bricked up entrances to the vaults before locking the foot-thick metal doors. "This represents the heritage of the nation," he said at the time. "They are not only things to see and enjoy. We get strength from them to look toward the future. They represent the glory of Iraq." Despite the precautions, the thieves got inside some of the vaults. Outside the director's office, metal boxes that had once held collections of valuable books were popped open, with the books strewn about. A statue in the corner had its hands smashed off. Showcases were all empty, the glass shattered. The specifics of the losses may not be known for some time, but the museum's contents as "the single most important collection of Mesopotamian artifacts in the world." About 170,000 items were in the museum when the war started. (Michael Slackman, Ancient Wonders Are History as Mob Plunders Iraq Museum, Los Angeles Times, April 13, 2003)

 

(9) Expert Thieves Took Artifacts

Ninth, the Christian and Semite thieves with the active consent of their respective governments stole these ancient artifacts to rob the Iraqi Museums and to enrich the Western Museums.

 

The Uruk Vase, 5,500 years old, is among the most well known of the pieces stolen from the National Museum of Antiquities. Well-organized professional thieves stole most of the priceless artifacts looted from Baghdad's National Museum of Antiquities last week, and they may have had inside help from low-level museum employees. Thousands of objects were lost at the museum, both to the sophisticated burglars and to mob looting. "Most of it was well-planned looting by professionals. "They stole these cultural goods to make profits. One group of thieves had keys to an underground vault where the most valuable artifacts were stored. The thefts were probably the work of international gangs who hired Iraqis for the job, and who have been active in recent years doing illegal excavations at Iraqi archaeological digs. Top museum officials tried to protect the institution, but the thieves may have succeeded in paying off guards or other low-ranking personnel. UNESCO had urged the U.S. government before the war to safeguard it and other cultural sites. "If I were to blame somebody, it would be those armed bandits who looted their own cultural treasury. The museum was assaulted during "a power vacuum" following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's government, and "anything could happen in such confusion and turmoil.

 

Artifacts lost at the museum include vases, statues, gold jewelry and clay tablets that are the earliest examples of writing. The University of Chicago's Oriental Institute has already listed between 2,000 and 3,000 lost objects in a database, according to institute professor McGuire Gibson, who is one of the specialists advising UNESCO. Professional thieves, who knew what they were doing, took the most important and the best materials away. Then mobs came in and just marauded. The thieves broke heads off some statues, apparently to make it easier to carry them away. He was more critical of the U.S. military than the UNESCO chief. Noting that U.S. troops protected the oil ministry and prime minister's office, "other things were given a higher priority" than cultural sites. Any further destruction would be "completely inexcusable. "Some of the stolen artifacts are so well known that no collector would dare let it be known that he or she had them. One is the alabaster Uruk Vase, with pictures of grain, sheep, goats and priests dating from about 3500 B.C. It is pictured in many introductory art history books. It's not clear whether the Uruk Mask, a priceless alabaster face of a goddess from the same era, was stolen. A statue of a seated king from about 2000 B.C. was another major loss. Some of Iraq's most valuable artifacts were placed in a vault in the national bank after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. It isn't yet known if that vault is secure, or which items were placed there. Looting and thefts also caused extensive losses at three other cultural sites in Baghdad. Arabic manuscripts, mostly from 900-1200, were stolen or burned at the Saddam Center for Manuscripts. Archives of the Awkaf religious center, with documents about the Muslim, Jewish and Christian religions, were burned. Twentieth-century paintings at the Museum of Fine Arts were burned. A museum in Mosul also was looted, but the losses were not as great as in Baghdad. The UNESCO issued an appeal "to those responsible for civil order in Iraq" to guard and secure museums, libraries, archives, monuments and other sites. It also called for an immediate ban on international trade in Iraqi cultural objects. "The meeting deplores and is deeply shocked by the extensive damage to, and looting of the cultural heritage of Iraq caused by the recent conflict," a statement said. It called on U.S. and British forces to observe a 1954 international convention providing for protection of cultural property during armed conflicts. State Department should allow a UNESCO team to visit Iraq as soon as possible to assess the damage. Security Council resolution to temporarily broaden a 1970 international convention banning trade in cultural artifacts. For Iraqi artifacts, the ban should apply to all 188 members of UNESCO instead of just the 97 countries that have ratified the accord. American forces should "control illicit trafficking, so that stolen goods will not leave Iraq. Cultural sites continue to lack adequate protection. United States takes responsibility for protecting Iraq's cultural patrimony under international law, Gibson said he assumes there will be "some funds behind that. The Uruk Vase, 5,500 years old, is among the most well known of the pieces stolen from the National Museum of Antiquities. (Robert J. McCartney, Expert Thieves Took Artifacts, UNESCO Says Washington Post Foreign Service, Friday, April 18, 2003; Page A01)

 

(10) Iraq National Museum Treasures Plundered

Tenth, the destruction of the Hammurabi’s Code was destroyed by Christian and Semite looters to destroy the evidence that proved that Asia had been civilized thousands of years before West Europeans became civilized.

 

The museum's most famous holding may have been tablets with Hammurabi's Code one of mankind's earliest codes of law. It could not be determined whether the tablets were at the museum when the war broke out. Other treasures believed to be at the museum such as the Ram in the Thicket from Ur, a statue representing a deity from 2600 BC are no doubt gone, perhaps forever. "This is just one of the most tragic things that could happen for our being able to understand the past. The looting, he said, "is destroying the history of the very people that are there." The famed Iraq National Museum, home of extraordinary Babylonian, Sumerian and Assyrian collections and rare Islamic texts, sat empty Saturday April 12, 03, except for shattered glass display cases and cracked pottery bowls that littered the floor. In an unchecked frenzy of cultural theft, looters who pillaged government buildings and businesses after the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime also targeted the museum. Gone were irreplaceable archaeological treasures from the Cradle of Civilization. Everything that could be carried out has disappeared from the museum gold bowls and drinking cups, ritual masks worn in funerals, elaborately wrought headdresses, lyres studded with jewels priceless craftsmanship from ancient Mesopotamia. "This is the property of this nation and the treasure of 7,000 years of civilization. What does this country think it is doing?" Much of the looting occurred Thursday, April 10, ’03 according to a security guard who stood by helplessly as hoards broke into the museum with wheelbarrows and carts and stole priceless jewelry, clay tablets and manuscripts.

 

Left behind were row upon row of empty glass cases some smashed up, others left intact heaps of crumbled pottery and hunks of broken statues scattered across the exhibit floors. Sensing its treasures could be in peril, museum curators secretly removed antiquities from their display cases before the war and placed them into storage vaults but to no avail. The doors of the vaults were opened or smashed, and everything was taken, museum workers said. That led one museum employee to suspect that others familiar with the museum may have participated in the theft. "The fact that the vaults were opened suggests that employees of the museum may have been involved. "To ordinarily people, these are just stones. Only the educated know the value of these pieces."

 

Iraq's national antiquities department also housed at the museum; for irreplaceable records of every archaeological expedition in Iraq since the 1930s; for perhaps hundreds of thousands of artifacts from 10,000 years of civilization, both on display and in storage. Among them, he said, was the copper head of an Akkadian king, at least 4,300 years old. Its eyes were gouged out, nose flattened, ears and beard cut off, apparently by subjects who took their revenge on his image much the same way as Iraqis mutilated statues of Saddam. "These are the foundational cornerstones of Western civilization, and are literally priceless which he said will not prevent them from finding a price on the black market. Some of the gold artifacts may be melted down, but most pieces will find their way into the hands of private collectors, he said. The chances of recovery are slim; regional museums were looted after the 1991 Gulf War, and 4,000 pieces were lost. "I understand three or four have been recovered. Whatever treasures aren't sold will be trashed.

 

McGuire Gibson, a University of Chicago professor and president of the American Association for Research in Baghdad had been in frequent and frantic touch with U.S. military officials since April 9, 03, Wednesday, imploring them to send troops "in there and protect that building." The Americans could have prevented the looting, agreed Patty Gerstenblith, a professor at DePaul School of Law in Chicago who helped circulate a petition before the war, urging that care be taken to protect Iraqi antiquities. "It was completely inexcusable and avoidable," she said. The museum itself was battered. Looters using pushcarts or heavy slabs of wood to carry booty down from the second floor chipped its marble staircase, likely. The museum is in the Al-Salhiya neighborhood of Baghdad, with its back to a poor neighborhood. Early Saturday, five armed men showed up at the gate: One was armed with a Kalashnikov, three carried pistols, one wielded an iron bar. The man with the assault rifle walked into the museum, accused journalists there of stealing artifacts and ordered them to leave. He claimed to be there to protect the museum from plundering. One of the men said he was a member of the feared Fedayeen Saddam militia. "You think Saddam is now gone, so you can do what you like," he raged. (HAMZA HENDAWI, Iraq National Museum Treasures Plundered, Associated Press Writer, BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sat Apr 12, 6:04 PM ET)

 

(11) Looters Destroyed Priceless Cuneiform Archive

Eleventh, the Semite looters committed crime of Kulturcide when they destroyed the priceless pagan artifacts in Baghdad Museums.

 

Looters at Iraq's National Museum of Antiquities pillaged and, perhaps, destroyed an archive of more than 100,000 cuneiform clay tablets -- a unique and priceless trove of ancient Mesopotamian writings that included the "Sippar Library," the oldest library ever found intact on its original shelves. Experts described the archive as the world's least-studied large collection of cuneiform -- the oldest known writing on Earth -- a record that covers every aspect of Mesopotamian life over more than 3,000 years. The texts resided in numbered boxes each containing as many as 400 3-inch-by-2-inch tablets. The Sippar Library, discovered in 1986 at a well-known neo-Babylonian site near Baghdad, was one of the archive's crown jewels. Dating from the sixth century B.C., it comprised only about 800 tablets, but it included hymns, prayers, lamentations, bits of epics, glossaries, astronomical and scientific texts, missing pieces of a flood legend that closely parallels the biblical story of Noah, and the prologue to the Code of Hammurabi, the ancient Babylonian lawgiver. "This is the kind of discovery that one waits 100 years to see," said Yale's Benjamin Foster, curator of the Yale Babylonian Collection. "And now we'll never have another chance. It's a tragedy of the first order." Foster said only about two dozen of the Sippar Library tablets have been fully analyzed and published. UCLA Assyriology Robert Englund noted that while some of the Sippar material was similar, at least in part, to works in earlier finds, "the vast majority of at least 100,000 texts in the archive are unique, very poorly documented and barely studied, if at all. I'm more fearful for these losses."

 

Cuneiform, a Latin derivative meaning "wedge-shaped" began between 3,500 B.C. and 3,000 B.C. as a sign language in which one picture denoted one object. Over the next 3,000 years, it evolved so that symbols -- wedges, cones and nail-shapes carved with a stylus -- could also signify ideas, syllables, vowels and other orthographic elements. Cuneiform was the written language of the Sumerians, who dominated Mesopotamia until the Akkadians replaced them around 2,500 B.C. and eventually adopted their script. Cuneiform also used by other peoples of the region, before finally being superseded by Aramaic around the time of Christ. Because different populations used cuneiform, scribes routinely produced bilingual and even trilingual texts and glossaries. "This was the key to translation, and linguists began deciphering the tablets in the 19th century. Because the ancient scribes fired the clay after inscribing it, the amount of surviving material is both vast and all-encompassing, covering everything from creation myths to household expenses. "Probably about one million texts have been dug up, and 90 percent deal with the mundane details of everyday life. "They even used the discarded ones to build up walls and as fill for floors. "Until the completion of the National Museum in the 1920s, most Iraqi cuneiform was spirited out of the country and added to big international collections in Berlin, London, Istanbul and, in the United States, at the University of Pennsylvania. The new museum then began to accumulate tablets under a "50-50 split program" with excavators that lasted until the end of World War II. Since then, the museum has been taking everything found. "They had a stellar cross section of everything ever written in Mesopotamia in several languages about every imaginable subject," said Stephen Tinney of the Pennsylvania Cuneiform Dictionary Project. "You name it was there." Scholars agree that Iraqi authorities readily granted access to the collections and kept them well-catalogued and cared-for but the material remained largely unstudied. One reason, noted Yale's Foster, was that wars beginning in the 1980s closed the museum for years at a time. Also unexamined were thousands of modest lots of material excavated from sites slated for inundation by hydroelectric projects. These tablets were hurriedly gathered and stowed in Baghdad to be analyzed during quieter times that never came.

 

After the first Persian Gulf War in 1991, Iraqi scholars began leaving the country, drying up the pool of on-site expertise. Had that not been the case, scholars agreed, examination of a spectacular find such as the Sippar Library would have proceeded much more quickly. Iraqi archaeologists found the library in a previously unexcavated section of temple ruins at Sippar, 20 miles southwest of Baghdad. "The room is approximately 4.5 meters [15 feet] by three meters [91/2 feet], lined with sets of pigeon holes" along the floor, said Jeremy Black of Oxford University's Oriental Institute. "The tablets were still in the pigeonholes, intact and in place. We'd never found such a thing before. "Black, working mostly from photographs, is one of three researchers who have published studies of the library tablets. He acknowledged that "we don't know how much there is left to look at." And scholars may never know. "It's very hard to absorb what has happened here," said Johns Hopkins University Assyriology Jerry Cooper. "It as if the entire Mall the National Archives and the Smithsonian had been looted, along with the Library of Congress." Englund, who is halfway through a project to digitize 130,000 early Sumerian texts, has suggested that scholars everywhere pool their photographs, drawings and descriptions of the museum's artifacts and cuneiform archives to create an electronic "virtual museum" from the wreckage of the old. And although U.S. officials have said the United States will help recover and restore the collection, it may be too late. Stone noted that cuneiform tablets, for all their longevity, do not travel well. "You put these things in the back of a truck and drive over a bumpy road, and pretty soon you have a sack full of dust." (Guy Gugliotta, Washington Post Staff Writer, Friday, April 18, 2003; Page A23, Correspondent Robert J. McCartney in Paris contributed to this report.)

 

(12) Our Heritage Is Finished' At Baghdad's Antiquities Museum

At the National Museum of Antiquities, where priceless artifacts had been wrapped in foam and secured in windowless storage rooms to protect them against U.S. bombs, an army of looters perpetrated what war did not: They smashed hundreds of irreplaceable treasures, including Sumerian clay pots, Assyrian marble carvings, Babylonian statues and a massive stone tablet with intricate cuneiform writing. As employees returned today to survey the damage at one of the world's greatest repositories of artifacts, they encountered devastation that defied their worst expectations. The floor was covered with shards of broken pottery. An extensive card catalog of every item the museum owns, some of which date back 5,000 years, was destroyed. A cavernous storeroom housing thousands of unclassified pieces was ransacked so badly that an archaeologist predicted it would be impossible to repair many of the items.

 

"Our heritage is finished," lamented Nabhal Amin, the museum's deputy director, as she surveyed a Sumerian tablet that had been cracked in two. "Why did they do this? Why? Why?" As throngs of angry and impoverished Iraqis sack government offices and private businesses, making away with everything from porcelain bathtubs and police uniforms to forklifts and ambulances, it has become increasingly clear that the looting that was sparked by the fall of Saddam Hussein's government largely unchecked by U.S. forces -- has wreaked more damage on Iraq's civilian infrastructure and economy than three weeks of U.S. bombing.

 

The damage could have a significant effect on the Bush administration's military and political goals in Iraq, complicating efforts to win the trust of ordinary people, return cities to normalcy and eventually reconstruct the country. Many here feel U.S. forces in the city -- Army units on the western side of the Tigris River and Marines on the eastern side -- could and should be doing more to crack down on looting. As the mayhem continues, they have begun shifting blame for the lawlessness from their fellow countrymen to U.S. troops.” If there were five American soldiers at the door, everything would have been fine," Amin said about the museum. "They're supposed to be here to protect us. They should be protecting us." U.S. bombardment largely targeted centers of Hussein's power his palaces, intelligence offices and military installations. But the thievery that has enveloped the capital and other cities across the country, from Mosul in the north to Basra in the south, has resulted in broader, more indiscriminate destruction.

 

At the National Museum of Antiquities, Amin said she wanted American soldiers and lots of them. As she led a small group of journalists through the museum, five looters armed with an ax sneaked into one of the rooms, prompting several of the journalists to give chase. "They will keep coming here until there is nothing left to take. For the past 70 years, the museum has served as the showcase for records and collections of art and artifacts from the beginnings of ancient Sumer in 3,500 B.C. to the end of Islam's Abbasid Caliphate in 1258 A.D. "There are thousands of one-of-a-kind objects," said John Russell, an archaeologist and art historian at the Massachusetts College of Art. "This material is absolutely irreplaceable." Many of the museum's most valuable pieces had been moved to another location before the war, but items that were too big, such as marble statues and reliefs left in place and covered with foam and lined with sandbags." We were ready for the bombs, but "Not the looters." As she quickly walked through more than three dozen rooms. There was just too much. But every few minutes, she would stop in front of an empty pedestal or a decapitated statue. "This was priceless," she sobbed as she pointed to two seated marble deities from the temple at Harta that had been defaced with a hammer. Later, after observing more damage, she broke down again. "It feels like all my family has died," she wept. Even storage rooms and workshops were trashed. An old Babylonian wooden harp was broken in two and its gold inlay scraped off. But most inexplicable to her was the destruction of rooms that contained no artifacts, just archaeological records and photographs. "I cannot understand this," she said. "This was crazy. This was our history, our glorious history, Why should we destroy it?" (Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Our Heritage Is Finished' At Baghdad's Antiquities Museum, Washington Post Foreign Service, Sunday, April 13, 2003; Page A01, Staff writers Mary Beth Sheridan in Baghdad and Guy Gugliotta in Washington contributed to this report.)

 

(13) Pentagon Was Told Of Risk to Museums

U.S. was urged to save Iraq's historic artifacts. A sarcophagus is among many artifacts broken or missing after looters ransacked Iraq's National Museum of Antiquities in Baghdad. Scholars had urged the United States to protect Iraq's archaeological heritage. In the months leading up to the Iraq war, U.S. scholars repeatedly urged the Defense Department to protect Iraq's priceless archaeological heritage from looters, and warned specifically that the National Museum of Antiquities was the single most important site in the country. Late in January, a mix of scholars, museum directors, art collectors and antiquities dealers asked for and were granted a meeting at the Pentagon to discuss their misgivings. McGuire Gibson, an Iraq specialist at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute, said yesterday that he went back twice more, and he and colleagues peppered Defense Department officials with e-mail reminders in the weeks before the war began." I thought I was given assurances that sites and museums would be protected," Gibson said. Instead, even with U.S. forces firmly in control of Baghdad last week, looters breached the museum, trashed its galleries, burned its records, invaded its vaults and smashed or carried off thousands of artifacts dating from the founding of ancient Sumer around 3,500 B.C. to the end of Islam's Abbasid Caliphate in 1258 A.D. When asked about the looting of the museum, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld blamed the chaos that ensues "when you go from a dictatorship" to a new order. "We didn't allow it. It happened," Rumsfeld said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "There's a transition period, and no one is in control. There is still fighting in Baghdad. We don't allow bad things to happen. Bad things happen in life, and people do loot." Although the National Museum may have been the biggest prize, Iraq also has 13 regional museums at risk, including another world-renowned facility in the northern city of Mosul, as well as thousands of archaeological sites, ranging from the fabled ancient cities of Ur, Nineveh, Nimrud and Babylon to medieval Muslim villages abandoned in the country's vast western reaches.

 

"To the extent possible, and as soon as though it were yesterday, someone needs to post border guards to intercept antiquities as they try to leave the country," said archaeologist and art historian John Russell, of the Massachusetts College of Art. "There is a smuggling network in Iraq, and there could have been professional thieves among the looters." Scholars first sounded a public alarm about the possible destruction of Iraqi antiquities in January, when a statement from the Archaeological Institute of America called on "all governments" to protect cultural sites during an expected conflict and in its aftermath. Gibson and others said they were especially concerned because of the example provided by the 1991 Gulf War. Allied forces had scrupulously avoided targeting Iraqi cultural sites during the bombing of Baghdad 12 years ago -- one attack put only a shrapnel dent in the National Museum's front door even as it leveled a telecommunications facility across the street. The end of that war kicked off a looting rampage, and eventually allowed systemic smuggling to develop. Artifacts from inadequately guarded sites were dug up and hauled away during the 12 years between the wars.

 

"They said they would be very aware and would try to protect the artifacts," Gibson said, recalling January meetings with Pentagon officials charged with target selection and the protection of cultural sites. "We told them the looting was the biggest danger, and I felt that they understood that the National Museum was the most important archaeological site in the entire country. It has everything from every other site." Pentagon officials knowledgeable about those meetings referred questions to the public affairs office, which said the military has tried to protect the sites. Indeed, since the 1920s, Iraq has required that anyone digging within its borders file a report with the museum. In more recent years, expeditions had to submit all excavated material to the museum for formal cataloguing after each year's digging "season." Looters apparently burned or otherwise destroyed most of those records last week, but Gibson suggested that scholars worldwide could duplicate the archive by copying their own files and reports and resubmitting them to Iraqi authorities. The museum's artifacts, however, are another matter. Although the damage done is almost certainly catastrophic, Russell said, "it's going to be a matter of weeks or months before we're going to be able to identify any particular thing."

 

The possibilities are almost infinite. Iraq is the home of ancient Mesopotamia and has a cultural heritage that extends for thousands of years and encompasses the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Parthians, Sassanids and Muslims, to name only the best-known civilizations." There are thousands of unique items," said Boston University archaeologist Paul Zimansky. "If somebody walks off with those things, we'll never see them again. It is a disaster of major proportions." The museum houses the 5,000-year-old alabaster Uruk Vase, which shows a procession entering a temple -- the earliest known depiction of a ritual. Also from Uruk is the "White Lady," the stone face of a woman that looks as if it was carved during the Greek Classic period but is 5,500 years old, one of the earliest known examples of representational sculpture. The bust of an Akkadian king, dated 2300 B.C., is the earliest copper casting ever found. The Neolithic collection, of items about 9,000 years old, includes small sculptures of birds' heads from Nemrik, north of Mosul.

Russell said the museum staff attempted to pack up all the portable items on display and stash them in vast below-ground storage rooms and vaults, but looters found them. The museum also contained a spectacular cache of gold artifacts from the burial tombs of Assyrian queens in Nimrud. "They were sent away to the Central Bank, and I told the Pentagon about those, too," Gibson said. "But I hear they looted the Central Bank as well." Zimansky said Iraq's isolation during Hussein's rule meant that a great deal of material had remained unstudied and uncatalogued for years. An as-yet unresearched Sippar library of cuneiform clay tablets lay in the museum's basement and -- if it survived -- may contain the missing pieces of the Gilgamesh Epic, a heroic tale conceived by the Sumerians and written and rewritten in Mesopotamia for more than 1,000 years." I wasn't there [when the looting took place], and I don't know what the situation was, but I do know what's at stake," Russell said. "The need for policing should have been obvious. If it was impossible to do, then I'm sympathetic; if it wasn't, then I'm really irritated." (Guy Gugliotta, Pentagon Was Told Of Risk to Museums, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, April 14, 2003; Page A19)

 

(14) US accused of 'Crime of the Century'

US troops committed the "crime of the century" when they failed to protect priceless Iraqi artifacts from looters and likely trampled archeological sites. "With what I'm expecting has happened in the sites in the field and what happened to the Iraq museum, I would say it's the crime of the century because it is really affecting the heritage of mankind," said the head of the National Archaeological Museum in Baghdad, Donny George. It looks like there was an action and there were other priorities (for the United States) besides the Baghdad museum. Much of the looting of the museum carried out by organized gangs who traffic in works of ancient art. Among the items lost was a collection of around 80,000 cuneiform tablets that contain examples of the some of the world's earliest writing. A 5,000-year-old Sumerian Alabaster vase, known as the Warka vase also disappeared. Much of the looting of the museum carried out by organized gangs.

 

31(iv) Conclusion

(1) Semite Role in Loot of Museums

There are concerned Americans who feel that the policy coming from the Bush administration is one endless wars and bloody struggle after another, because presidential advisers Paul Wolfowitz promoted the idea of Iraq and Syria invasion to protect Semite Israeli Jewish interests, and vice president Dick Cheney promoted American oil colonialism war to protect the Semite Saudi Wahhabi interests in the non-Semite Iraq, the cradle of Civilization, where Jews spent their Babylon Captivity as slaves. Semite Jews, Semite Muslims and Semite Oil Colonialism used force to conquer and destroy the successors of Babylon Civilization that enslaved Jews and expelled Jews from Jerusalem. Semite Jews, Muslims and Americans celebrated the return of Semite Jews to Israel by engineering the American conquest of the Arabian Peninsula to impose the domination of Semite Wahhabi Islam. Semite Jews and Semite Jews converted in Islam entered into pact with Semite oil interests to buy political influence over Christian Republican Neo-conservatives, to restore the domination of the Arabian Peninsula to the iconoclast monotheist Semite race of Muslims and Jews.

 

The pillaging of the Baghdad museum represented far more than an Iraqi loss. It was a blow to "the world's human history. Noting that the museum's collection included some of the earliest examples of mathematics and some of the first legal codes ever written. It was a truly a world heritage loss.

 

Why the cultural identity of Iraq is being erased? Semite Jews, Semite Saudis and Judeo-Christians burnt the Museum to erase the cultural identity of Iraq. Why? Who set these fires? For what insane purpose is this heritage being destroyed? Again, standing in this shroud of blue smoke and embers, Robert Frisk asked the same question: why? The answer is very simple: The barbarians invaded Iraq to destroy the cultural history of Hindu Iraq, which boasted advance rich wealthy Goddess worshipping civilizations at least 20,000 years before the ancestors of nomadic Semite Jews and cave-dwelling Christians became civilized or learnt to speak or write. The America’s war on Iraq is it Clash of Races, the War in which barbarian Semite Saudi Wahhabi Muslims and Semite Israeli tribes joined forces to destroy the Hindu traditions of Iraq, which for thousands of years worshipped Hindu Gods and Goddesses. The Ancient Kingdom Of Mittani worshipped Hindu gods of Varuna and Indra. Kali and Durga were the main reigning goddesses of Babylon revered as Goddess Innanna and Astarte. What should be the military response of Hindu India, Buddhist China and Japan to the Semite destruction of cultural identity of Iraq? What role iconoclast Semite conquest of non-Semite Iraq play in the Global Clash of Races, and Wars of Religions and the Clash of Civilizations in the 21st Century?

 

Is this Crime of the Millennium, the destruction of the pagan cultural heritage during Iraq War 2003, ten times more heinous than Nazi Holocaust of Jews during Second World War? Should WASPs dispatch the religious and political leaders of Mecca-Vatican-Jerusalem Axis of Iconoclast Intolerance to International Criminal Court at The Hague? Why should non-Semite Civilizations, the Protestant WASPs and secular American imperialist forces take the blame committed by Semite Jews, Semite Wahhabi Muslims, Semite Judeo-Christians and Bolshevik Jews? The rape of Iraqi cultural treasures has lots in common with the rape of Russian hard currency wealth by Bolshevik Jews? The Semite Neo-conservatives inflicted the religious iconoclast monotheist blow to the otherwise secular imperialist war on Iraq for Iraqi oil, to transform the Protestant America’s war on oil-rich Iraq, into the Semite war to impose Wahhabi Islamic fundamentalism on Iraq, and to destroy the non-Semite cultural history of Babylon, to punish Iraq for the Babylonian Captivity of Jews by the Assyrians. Semite Neo-Conservatives transformed Protestant’s Oil war on Iraq into Semite religious wars to destroy records of entire non-Semite history of the mankind.

 

(2) US Committed Crime of the Century

US troops committed the Crime of the Century when they failed to protect priceless Iraqi artifacts from looters and likely trampled archeological sites. It's the crime of the century because it is really affecting the heritage of mankind.

 

Pentagon is responsible for the Crime of Kulturcide committed by the foreign looters, the iconoclast monotheist intolerant looters that came in their trucks and carried them away with the full knowledge of the American occupation troops.

 

U.S. was urged to save Iraq's historic artifacts. A sarcophagus is among many artifacts broken or missing after looters ransacked Iraq's National Museum of Antiquities in Baghdad. Scholars had urged the United States to protect Iraq's archaeological heritage. In the months leading up to the Iraq war,

 

US political leaders are “destroyers of civilization” like Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane, said Hamid Dabashi of Columbia University. They are barbarians whose criminal neglect makes them comparable to Nero, said Michael Sells of Haverford College. The US government’s war crime renders it akin to the Mongols who sacked Baghdad in 1258, said Arjomand of the State University of New York, Stony Brook.

 

Iraqi didn’t burn the Baghdad Museums. The French did not sack the Louvre in 1944. The Japanese did not burn their national library in 1945. Panamanians did not destroy their archives in 1990. Kuwaitis did not destroy their historic Korans in 1991. Semite Jews and Semite Wahhabi Saudi Muslims and Semite Catholic iconoclast fundamentalists indulged in the unchecked frenzy of cultural theft.

 

The looting of the Baghdad Museum was a War Crime, because the foreigners looted the Museums and transported the goods by trucks out of Iraq, and no way the America occupation forces could claim innocence. Looting of Iraqi museums not done by Iraqi nationals. It was well planned, well targeted War Crime against Iraqi cultural heritage.

 

United States Armed Forces didn’t protect the Museums, even when they were told in advance about the threat to the Museum, because they may have played a part in the looting of the priceless artifacts of the Iraqi Museums. United States was guilty for the crime of looting Iraqi Museums.

 

(3) Wahhabi Looted the Museum

The Saudi Semite Wahhabi Sunni fundamentalists looted the Baghdad Museums, just as they and looted the Kabul Museums, both to further their iconoclast religious agenda and to make money. The iconoclast Semite Wahhabi terrorists looted Kabul Museum, and Baghdad Museums.

 

Semite Saudi Wahhabi iconoclasts got the keys of the Museums and burnt them. There are three suspects for the Museums thefts. First, Saudi Wahhabi Fundamentalists are the prime culprits as they had earlier destroyed the Bamian Buddhas in Afghanistan. Second, the iconoclast Catholic fundamentalists are prime suspects, as they had destroyed the Vishnu statues in the Angkor War temples in Cambodia. Third, the Semite Israeli Jews are prime suspects as Hellenic Jews had destroyed the Hindu temples in ancient Greece and Rome. The destruction of the Museums was definitely the work of foreign Semite iconoclast fundamentalists.

 

(4) World Heritage Loss a Kulturcide

The damages to the Baghdad Museums was truly a world heritage loss, and legally a War Crime, the Crime of Kulturcide, and the case should be tried at International Criminal Court, at The Hague. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican are the prime suspects. The Vatican-Mecca-Jerusalem Axis of iconoclast Monotheism and Intolerance organized this War Crime to destroy the cultural heritage of the Pagan world.

 

European Christian and Jewish looters representing organized crime and organized Church looted the historical artifacts at Baghdad Museums.

 

The damages done to the cultural heritage of Iraq is a War Crime and the leaders of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Vatican should face prosecution at the International Criminal Court, at The Hague. The destruction of the ancient history of Iraq is a War Crime and should be prosecuted as the War Crime at the International Criminal Court, at The Hague.

 

Christian and Semite thieves with the active consent of their respective governments stole these ancient artifacts to rob the Iraqi Museums and to enrich the Western Museums. The Christian and Semite looters caused the destruction of the Hammurabi’s Code to destroy the archaeological evidence that proved that Asia had been civilized thousands of years before West Europeans became civilized. The Semite looters committed crime of Kulturcide when they destroyed the priceless pagan artifacts in Baghdad Museums.

 

31(3) Conclusion

BigOil as Colonial Administrators

Just as Ottoman Turks established Ottoman Caliphate over Islamic world following 1258 Mongol invasions of Baghdad and 1401 Tamerlane invasions of Baghdad, similarly American Big Oil can establish American Caliphate after the President Bush’s invasions of Iraq. The white House should allow leading American oil companies to establish colonial rule over oil-producing countries, just as the CIA arranged covert operations to engineer the regime change. The Big Oil in 21st Century would establish colonial administration on behalf of colonial powers, just as the CIA encouraged coups to bring about regime changes for American government. Given the change and legal authority the Big Oil Multinational enterprises are better equipped to engineer the regime change in the hostile states, without causing too much opposition in the United Nations. In 1953, the CIA established its credentials as better equipped than even Pentagon to arrange regime changes in the Non Aligned world, without risking Soviet deterrence. Iranian Prime Minister Mosadegh nationalized Iran’s oil industry in 1951 and demanded the withdrawal of British troops protecting the oil complex at Abadan. Great Britain no longer felt strong enough to undertake military action so close to the Soviet border without American support, which was not forthcoming, and Britain withdrew to Suez Canal, which it thought was a fallback position in its major base along the Suez Canal. The challenge posed by Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh ended two yeas later in 1953, when the CIA with the full backing of the United States encouraged and mobilized the military coup to overthrow and kill Mossadegh and install the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as Emperor of Iran. In those days, and even now, White House considered the CIA-led covert operations more legitimate and less risky than military intervention in the Cold War. Great Britain’s preeminence was never restored.

 

Wahhabi Yankee Oil Colonialism

President Bush’s war on Iraq represented the joint invasions of Iraq by forces of Wahhabi fundamentalism and American Oil Colonialism. Christian President Bush waging war on apostate, secular, liberal Iraqi Islam to eliminate the challenge the Second Baghdad Caliphate might present to the rise of Second Mecca Caliphate. American Oil Colonialism sealed the Faustian Pact with the Wahhabi clergy that sought to reestablish Second Mecca Caliphate after the downfall of the secular Ottoman Caliphate. President Bush’s war on Iraq is not the war of Christian Crusades against Islam, but the war on behalf of Wahhabi Jihad against secular, liberal Iraqi Islam. Iraqi secularism, liberalism and feminism presented greater threat to the 2nd rise of Mecca Caliphate or Wahhabi fundamentalism than Protestant American Oil Colonialism.

Yankee Gazi warriors raised the banner of Mecca Caliphate to impose Wahhabi rule over secular liberal Baghdad and established Yankee Oil colony over world’s second largest oil reserves in March ’03. Saudi Wahhabi clergy should honor President Bush with the tile of Great Gazi for eliminating the greatest threat new Mecca Caliphate faced from secular Baghdad Caliphate. President Bush could be doing the dirty job for the Wahhabi clergy in secular Iraq. President Bush’s war on Iraq definitely not the war of Christian Crusades on Islam’s citadel Baghdad. President Bush’s war on Iraq could turn out to be the war of Wahhabi fundamentalism over secular Islam, fought by hired Christian American soldiers, hoodwinked by American oil colonialism.

 

New Age of Oil Colonial Empires

President Bush changed history. The 2003 America’s war on Iraq is as prophetic and a turning point in history as 1501 Vasca da Gama naval invasion of India. The year 1501 heralded the new age of European maritime colonial Empires, in search of spices and gold. The year 2003 heralded the new age of Colonial oil Empires, and before 2010 all OPEC nations and most mineral-rich nations would come under the colonial occupation of great powers.

 

Clash of Religions or Clash of Powers

The world order became bipolar world order again in 2003, and United States and France emerged as the two poles of the new world order. President Bush’s war on Iraq split world powers into two hostile camps, the imperial group led by United States and the counter-group led by France and Germany, Russia and China. The world became Bipolar again by America’s war on Iraq. The absence of media opposition to President Bush’s war on Iraq, reminded the non-white world about the mass support wars of colonial expansion enjoyed in the Western World from 16th to 19th Century. Every white Christian applauded the Belgium King’s massacre and tortures of blacks in Congo as correct acts for promoting Christianity. The adamant French opposition to the American invasions ruled out the general conspiracy of the white races to occupy Iraqi oil fields. America’s war on Iraq is not the wars of White race on brown Arab race. The Wahhabi regimes of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and Kuwait rejoiced over America’s war on Iraq. The Ruler of Abu Dhabi advised Saddam Hussein to abdicate and allow the armed forces of Arab League nations to enter Iraq and rule and govern Iraq for some years before the political power in Iraq could be transferred to the democratically elected leaders of Iraqi people. The Wahhabi Saudi Arabia hoped that American military occupation of Iraq might result in the Wahhabi government in Iraq, after the gap of four decades, after Wahhabi King Faisal II murdered in military coup in 1958. America’s war on Iraq is not Christianity’s war on Muslim Iraq. America’s war on Iraq could turn out to be the war on behalf of fundamentalist Wahhabi theocracy over liberal, secular, modern Iraq. America invading Iraq to promote the Second Mecca Caliphate and to undermine the threat Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran represented to the Mecca Caliphate for the coveted post of the new Islamic Caliphate after the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate after the First World War. Protestant Christian America helping Wahhabi Mecca Caliphate crush the rival centers of Islamic powers in Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran. America’s war on Iraq could be termed as war for Mecca Caliphate and Wahhabi Islam. By no stretch of imagination, the war against Iraq, waged by Protestant religious right conservative conspiracy, Neo-conservatism and American Oil colonialism, could be denounced as Catholic Christian Crusades against Islam. American oil colonialism would conquer, colonize and occupy Islamic Arab world and establish American oil colonies by virtue of the pact Wahhabi clergy signed with the American colonialism, to transfer all Arab oil resources to America in exchange for Wahhabi clergy’s totalitarian rule over Mecca and Medina. Wahhabi Mecca would rejoice over the downfall, subjugation and colonization of secular, liberal and modern Iraq. So long as America would allow Wahhabi clergy totalitarian religious powers and power to subjugate women, Wahhabi clergy would consent for the subjugation of the Arab nation states to American colonialism.

 

From Sumeria to Gulf War II

Protestant President Bush would do to Baghdad in 2003, what Buddhist Mongols did to Baghdad in 1258. America’s ruthless conquest of Iraq in 2003 would destroy the power of Iraq, just as the 1259 Mongol conquest of Baghdad destroyed permanently the Baghdad Caliphate. After the end of the Cold War in 1990, United States periodically attempted to establish oil colony over Iraq, just as British Empire in 1921, installed King Faisal I, as the puppet ruler of Iraq, and exercised economic, military and foreign policy control over Iraq. From 5000-3500 BC the story of Hindu goddess worshipping Sumerians, Babylonians and pre-Vedic Asura god worshipping Assyrians, developed phonetic writing, schools, libraries, medicine, glass, bridges, chariots, code of law and algebra. In 7th Century the magnificent Baghdad Caliphate arose with Baghdad as capital, which was founded in 762 AD, and remained capital of Islam for 500 years. In 1258 Buddhist Mongols from Asia conquered most of the Europe and Islamic world and executed Caliph and destroyed the power of Baghdad Caliphate, from which it could never recover. Iran’s Tamerlane attacked and sacked Baghdad in 1400’s. In 1535 Baghdad fell to the Ottoman Turks and thus began the four-century period of Ottoman rule in Iraq. In 1921, Iraq became a British colony under the nominal rule of King Faisal I. In 1932, Iraq became an independent kingdom. Iraq developed closer ties with Hitler’ Germany and after the War, Iraq became British Protectorate. Iraq would become American Protectorate in the event America won the 2003 Iraq war. However, if Iraq survived the American invasions, would doom the Wahhabi rule in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE and imperil American oil colonies in the Middle East.   

 

Artificial Muslim Nations

Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Iraq, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are artificial nations and they never existed as a nation throughout 2,000 years of human history, and these artificial states created by British and American secret services to establish American oil colonialism in Saudi Arabia, and British colonialism, by carving out multi-ethnic multi-religious Ottoman Empire and Indian Empire. Indian Empire ruled over Persian Gulf now knows as Arabian Gulf throughout 18th and 19th Century and pre-1947 20th Century. Indian Rupee continued to be the official reserve currency of Arabian Gulf States for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Oman and Trucial States, throughout 19th Century and in 20th Century as late as 1965. Bedouins of present day Saudi Arabia and Mecca & Medina played important role in the Islamic world only during Mecca Caliphate during the time of Prophet Mohammed until 639 AD. Bedouin of Arabia had limited role during Damascus Caliphate. Bedouins of Arabia lost all semblance of influence after 750 AD, when Islamic Caliphate shifted to Baghdad, and only after the inauguration of the Al Saud Wahhabi Monarchy in Saudi Arabia Arab Bedouin could regain any significant role in the Islamic world.

 

Predator Jewish Cabal

Jewish Cabal lobbied to propagate President Bush’s obsession to attack Iraq. Iraq was doomed the day George W. Bush got elected in the 2004 elections. It is stupid to argue that Jews Cabal decided the war on Iraq more than the American Big Oil. President Bush and Dick Cheney and not Jewish Cabal are responsible for America’s war on Iraq. President Bush and Dick Cheney are oil veteran and not impressionable kids or politicians for hire that Jewish Cabal could buy and fool to lead America to war on Iraq. Just as Bolshevik Jew Spymaster Lavrenti Beria profited by murdering 30 million Orthodox Russians on behalf of butcher Joseph Stalin, Jewish media whole heartedly supported war on Iraq, simply because supporting Administration’s imperial policies would help Jews increase their stronghold over America media. The Jewish philosophy of Communism influenced most of the 20th Century. The Jewish innovation of the Oil Colonialism would influence most of the 21st Century and herald the new age of colonial empires. President Bush is no puppet of Jewish Cabal, though he might have found it expedient to accept their wisdom that America, facing unprecedented economic downturn could enter the era of unprecedented prosperity by allowing American Big Oil establish direct colonial administrations over oil-producing OPEC nations in the Middle East, Africa and South America. Jewish lobby and Republican neo-conservatives have realized that War means profits and America’s colonial occupation of oil-rich Iraq to establish American Oil Colony over Iraq, would push Wall Street stock indices to unprecedented heights. Jerusalem Jews got Jesus Christ crucified and stoned to death Apostle James the elder brother of Jesus I 64 AD and other Christian Apostles and leaders. Hellenic Jews forced their entry into the early Christian churches and hijacked its leadership and imposed Oil Testament as part of the Christian Bible, even when Jesus, and Apostles had rejected the Jewish Law and Jewish scriptures. Hellenic Jews numbered 6 million people within Roman Empire and they joined forces with iconoclast Christian forces unleashed by Christian Roman Emperor (d. 395 AD) that rampaged and looted the gold and wealth of the pagan Hindu, Mazdaic, Zoroastrian temples in Greece, Rome, Egypt and Syria, in the fourth century, when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Damascus Jews financed the Muslim raiding parties that conquered and looted the riches of the Christian Civilization of Egypt, Libya and Syria during Mecca and Damascus Caliphate. Prophet Mohammed had earlier confiscated the assets of the Jews. Damascus Jews made the pact with Muslims and Muslims accepted the Jewish dietary practices and circumcision and Jews agreed to finance the Muslim raiding parties that would loot the wealth of the Christian Egypt and Syria in exchange for the share of the loot. Jews developed the doctrine of Communism and Bolshevik Jews use it to rape and loot the wealth of Czarist Russia and Central Europe. American Jews were second-class citizens in the United States as late as 1950s. However, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rise of Secretary Dr. Henry J. Kissinger gave great impetus to Jewish control over media and the Wall Street, when Jews signed the pact with the pro-segregation, anti-affirmative action, white American conservatives. The alliance of Jews with white conservatives made Jews the mainstream Americans as White conservatives realized that they are more conservatives than they are. Orthodox Jews cemented ties with Protestant fundamentalism to evolve Protestantism-Judaic orthodoxy axis to challenge the threat of Vatican-Mecca axis of Fundamentalist Monotheism. Jews cemented ties with Protestant fundamentalism to develop political ties of financial capitalism with oil colonialism. Wall Street Jews aggressively promoted the concept of American Oil colonialism to prove that America no longer needed to promote the interests of Wahhabi Arabs to secure oil. American oil colonialism realized that American economy would profit more if America directly established colonial control over oil-producing Arab world. Why should American Big Oil pay to the corrupt Arab rulers $20 or more per barrel, when they could take it for $ 2 per barrel if America exercised political and military control over OPEC nations.

 

Counter Measures of Great Powers

Secular Hindu India should oppose imperial America’s war on Iraq, because of the closer ties of the American Oil colonialism with Sunni Wahhabi fundamentalism and Islamic militancy. India’s national interests conflict with the national interests of Sunni Wahhabi fundamentalist nations worldwide. Rather than imposing Turkey’s secular liberal Western system over Saudi Arabia, American oil colonialism would impose Wahhabi fundamentalism over Iraq, Turkey and Pakistan. United States might prepare Islamic Turkey to rule over oil-producing Arab nations to permanently secure the economic interests of American Oil Colonialism in the Middle East. Secular India must not allow America to impose Wahhabi fundamentalist regime in secular, liberal Iraq, even if it meant going to future wars in the Middle East on the side of Shiite Aryan Iran, in the post-Saddam era. American oil colonialism might consent to support the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist attacks on India, in exchange for establishing American oil colonies in Iraq, and rest of the Middle East. Persian Gulf or Arabian Gulf had been an Indian Lake dominated by the Navy of Indian Empire in 18th and 19th century. The Indian Rupee had been the reserve currency of the central banks of Arabian Gulf nations as late as 1964. Nuclear India, representing one-sixth of the world population, would emerge as the economic super power whenever it gains control over the oil and gas resources of couple of Arab oil-producing nations in the Arabian Gulf. America’s establishment of the oil colony over Iraq created right under customary international law, allowing great powers to exercise control over the oil and gas reserves of the oil-producing nations.

 

Oil Lust Lured Anti Bush Camp

All great powers are naked and ruthlessly colonialists and imperialists in the showers of oil colonialism. Great powers fought with America not to protect the sovereignty and independence of victim nation of oil colonialism, but to secure their fair share of the oil loot. All nations that supported President Bush’s imperialist war on Iraq, namely, Britain, Spain, Japan, South Korea and others did it with an eye on the loot of the Iraqi oil and the lucrative contracts in power war Iraq. All nations that opposed President Bush, namely, France, Germany, Belgium Russia, China and India did it with an eye to secure their fair share of the oil loot and to get recognition of their right to establish oil colonies of their own. The America’s war on Iraq, Britain and Spain’s support to America on the war, as well as France, Germany, Russia and China’s opposition to American invasion of Iraq, all stem from the same basic premises of the economic effects of America’s threatened control over Iraqi oil resources. America’s War on Iraq is the war for oil colonialism as well as French opposition to the war on Iraq. The lure of Iraqi oil riches determined the support or opposition to the America’s invasions of Iraq. Money, of course, isn't the only thing driving Russia and France. Geopolitical influence is also an important factor; both nations regard the Middle East as firmly within their sphere of influence. But the bottom line is, well, the bottom line.

 

Permanent Oil Colonies in OPEC World

Iraq would become the permanent oil colony of America and American Colonial Administration would continue to exploit the oil riches of Iraq for decades to come and may other OPEC nations may meet the similar fate in very near future. Like the gold of Fort Knox, the oil wealth the proverbial black gold of Iraq, is too tempting for President Bush to let go. President Bush believes that once Iraq brought under control of American Oil colonialism, the greed of oil would force France and Germany and other members of the European Union, and China to queue up for America’s dole of lucrative contracts. Bush Administration believes that incomes of Iraqi oil would pay for the entire cost of Iraqi war and the subsequent cost of administering Iraq as oil colony of American Big Oil. Once, United States established a profitable oil colony in Iraq, and loot of Iraqi oil paid for the budgets of the Pentagon and the CIA then American lawmakers would clamor for establishing more American oil colonies in other oil-producing countries.

 

Had Bush called of the war against Iraq, would have made United States look damn stupid. After having dispatched troops to Gulf there was no way the war could have been averted. Had Bush called off the war against Iraq, it would have damaged the concept of oil colonialism and sabotaged the return of the new age of Colonial Empires. The effect of America's backing down would have demoralized Israel and expedited the Palestinian uprising and carved out the sovereign state of Palestine. Much of Israel's deterrent capability depends on the deterrent capability of the United States, and if American deterrence is affected, Israeli deterrence will suffer immediately. Pentagon’s war on Iraq to establish American oil colony in oil-rich Iraq, is about who runs the world, to whom these new OPEC rulers are accountable to, and how other great powers might influence these new world rulers.