Hail D.R.:.. . . . As you say, the ZOG may have achieved its real objectives by trashing Iraq. An Israeli writer predicted that the Jews would like to see The Middle East revert to its tribalism of pre-World War I, rather thin maintain Arab states, for tribes are easier to divide and rule, as they were under the Turkish Empire. The ZOG's petroleum prize may become a liability if the resistance continues, as I suspect it will, on behalf of religious and foreign interests. Resistance groups can be supported, covertly, from external sources, as well as internal ones, so my estimation is that these forces may be able to make Iraq too hot to handle for the ZOG's Iraqi puppets and the ZOG's merc-thugs. Who might have an interest in supporting opposition to Z0G rule in Iraq? This question involves interests on the part of people who perceive the ZOG's imperial over-reach as their window of opportunity to free themselves from ZOG rule materially and strategically. Who might have such interests? China, definitely; Europe, definitely; Moslem countries, definitely, and perhaps the rump states of former Red Russia, to name a few who would likely have motives for supporting resistance against the U.S. occupiers and their puppets. ZOG knows corruption reigns in our multi-mafia world, so the oil-drug-arms nexus would serve as convenient and covert means for waging war by remote control, with plausible deniability, just as intelligence agencies do.
. . . . I agree that many of the bombings directed at Iraqis, as opposed to their occnpiers and collaborators, serve ZOG interests as a means of sowing dissension within the resistance. It is aiso likely that the Mossad plays a part in such actions, so as to discredit the resistance in the eyes of the masses, as with the recent "Shia versus Sunni" incidents in Pakistan. The Moslems are very good at asking "cui bono?" and when they perceived that internecine strife was not in their interests, but in the ZOG's interests, the crisis was defused. Americans have not learned to ask "cui bono?" as our post 9-11 reactions prove.
. . . . Iraq could become another Lebanon, which would not be of much value to the jews who want its water and oil for Israel, at U.S. expense in lives and money. As we know, pipelines are hard to defend.
. . . . The idea of destabilizing Saudi Arabia does sound tempting for the ZOG and for Israel, but the billions of U.S. dollars in Saudi hands may be poison bait, for zogbucks are symbols of wealth, and not wealth per se. Another case of U.S. banditry, as occurred to the tune of billions of dollars in Iraq, might undo the world's confidence in the U.S. dollar, although robbery may be less dangerous than repudiation of our Jew I.O.U.s from the Federal Reserve Racket. Trade is trending toward gold and Euros, according to the latest financial reports. The jews' motives, on behalf of Greater Israel, would be to secure oil and territory, but the presence of Arabs makes such acquisitions unprofitable, as oilfields, pipelines, refineries and ports are easily sabotaged and put out of action. It would seem that the task of ridding Arabia of Arabs would be within the purview of Mr. Cohen's fabulous neutron bomb; so where is it? I have never heard that it was ever tested, and it may not even exist. Stay tuned!
. . . . It is notable that Fallujah got quiet when the U.S. forces pulled out. Perhaps this rule might apply to Iraq as a whole, but then, we would need another puppet like Saddam to hold this multi-national, misbegotten state together. My modest proposal to faster peace in Iraq is to dissolve Iraq. The Kurds want their own nation-state. Kurds occupy Iraq, Turkey and Iran. Why not solve the Kurdish problem by aliowing Iraqi Kurds to annex some portions of Turkey and Iran which contain Kurds? This would result in a viable Kurdish nationstate. But this is not a zero-sum game. Iran could annex the Shia portion of Iraq, including Basrah, so Shias would be under Shia rule in a contiguous nationstate. The Arabs would not lose not, for they would have their present territory, with the option of joining Jordan. The two oilfields of Kirkuk and Mosul could become Kurdish and Arab, respectively, so each nation would have their own oil-field, including the Shias, who woull have the oilfields around Basrah. The Turkomen, who also claim the northern oilfields, could be relocated into former Kurdish territory in Turkey, but no one would lose out, for mere ownership of oilfields is useless without pipelines, refineries and parts, which would occupy all the parties' territories. With the dissolution of Iraq, I would recommend the unification of the oil industry on a profit-sharing basis, which would benefit Turks, Arabs, Shias and Kurds. This happy solution is possible, only if the ZOG and the Israelis were out of the picture, and if they were not vicious gangsters, such a solution would even be advantageous to them, for former Iraqi oil would be available in quantity. The Turks would most likely supply Israel with their share of former Iraqi oil, in view of their cozy relationship with the hebes. Of course, Israel might have to rethink its relations with the Arabs, but sometimes dreams can lead to better realities, especiaily if the U.S. people can throw off the Zionist banksters' yoke and behave like people, rather than sheeple.
Over to DOWZ.net
Back to The DOWZ-Net Mirror Index
Back to The Thought 4 The Day
Back to Stuff I Wish I Had Written -- But Didn't -- Resistance Columnists
Back to Patrick Henry On-Line or www.martinlindstedt.org
.