Bil Browning

Rice: Anti-war is pro-slavery

Filed By Bil Browning | September 07, 2006 12:34 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags:

Okay, seriously. What the hell. Did logic and common sense just walk out the damn door while I was off in the other room? No? It's still the same?

Then what the hell possessed Condi Rice to tell Essence magazine that being against the Iraq war was comparable to allowing slavery during the Civil War? What was she thinking? Smoking? Snorting?

You know, the arguments against Ms. Rice's ridiculous race-baiting are numerous and overwhelming. From "Slavery wasn't the only issue why the Civil War was fought" to "We lied to get a reason to go to war with Iraq whilst the succession of half the Union was pretty clear cut," we could go on and on. But what interests me is "Why would an intelligent woman like Condi Rice say something like this?" (And you have to give it to Condi - she may work for ShrubCo, but she is whip-smart.) As far as I'm aware, Condi's never tried to play the race card before.

Now granted, this is an interview to an African-American aimed magazine, so we know racial issues will obviously be spoken about. Later in the interview, Rice "bristles" when speaking about Hurricane Katrina and the allegation that the response time was slow due to racial prejudices. Fine. Defend your record and the record of your employer. I'd expect that. And it adds to the public debate - one side says X while you counter with Y. A discussion. Facts that prove or disprove arguments.

But a blatant attempt to smear anyone against the war in Iraq as a racist? Too damn far. The topics for comparison are apples and oranges. The whole thing is just propaganda of the nastiest sort.

If you're against the war in Iraq, you might as well consider yourself pro-slavery, according to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

In a recent interview with Essence magazine, Rice said that Blacks folks might have been enslaved much longer than they were if the North decided to end the American Civil War earlier than it did.

"I'm sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold," she told the magazine.

"I know there were people who said, 'Why don't we get out of this now, make peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves?'"


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Sheila Kennedy | September 7, 2006 1:13 PM

This is a particularly offensive argument in light of the fact that the young men and women who are dying in this ill-conceived exercise of "cowboy machismo" are disproportionately black. How would "whip smart" (I have my doubts about that)Condi Rice react to the assertion that the war, like Katrina, is evidence of either massive indifference to the well-being of the African-American community, or to outright racism?

In order to work for this administration, you evidently have to be shameless. The motto must be "Check your integrity at the door before entering..."

Bil, you got it correct.

Evidently, in this administration, to publicly demonstrate your allegiance to King George, here's watcha do:

1. Everything--repeat EVERYTHING--is about The War on Tara.

2. Repeat No.1

3. Attend weekly meetings of The Group, where you will be required to submit to brainwashing. Top prize each week is to the Cabinet official who uses the most-ridiculous comparison to Iraqi war opponents. Last week, it was Rumsfeld...the Hitleresque nonsense. This week it's Condi.

I fear America will get swept into this mind-numbing rewrite of history.

Oppose the King's new POW invterview process? Communists!

Oppose the wiretapping by NSA? Treason!

Reagan began this "agree with me or you're unAmerican" crap. Remember many of these modern-day leaders were around then: Rummy, Chaney, et al

The seeds planted two decades ago changed our tolerance levels, and now we're all paying.

I must be going nuts.

Just when I thought we had heard/seen it all...I am constantly amazed at what comes out of our elected officials mouths these days!!

WHY INDIANS LIKE DR. CONDI RICE?
(1) Forbes magazine rightly selected Dr. Condi Rice as the 2nd most powerful woman in the planet earth. Indians call her the most competent woman on planet earth. Kalki Gaur likes Condi Rice and wants her to be the Vice Presidential ticket on the Republican presidential front-runner, Republican nominee in 2008 Elections. During last 1000 years there has never been a black woman more powerful that Secretary Condi Rice, the Secretary of State in the most powerful sole super power of the world in 21st century. Secretary Rice fill the vacuum created in Black leadership by the death of former secretary Brown in the Clinton Administration. Indians like Condi Rice because she signed the Nuclear deal with India and treated India as a Global Power. Indians like Condi Rice because she turned upside down the foreign policy agenda of Secretaries Kissinger, Brzezinski and Albright, et al. Indians like Condi Rice because she is pro-India and second Bush Administration is pro-India. Indians like Dr. Condi Rice, because she is more competent and more enlightened, more patriotic American than secretary Kissinger, secretary Brzezinski and secretary Albright. Indians like Condi Rice because she does not belong to Christian Religious Right Conservative Conspiracy. Indians like Condi Rice because she is a Black Woman born in American and not an immigrant with split loyalties to some foreign Potentate. Ms. Condoleezza Rice is the secretary of state for the most powerful country in the world. She is without doubt one of the brightest, most talented woman on the planet earth, who just happens to be black.

(2) Condi Rice correctly argued recently that Slavery in South would have lingered on longer had North not invaded South during Civil War. Black Haiti was a first independent country in the New World and black Haiti was richer than White United States in 1802. Abraham Lincoln fought Civil War to end the continued importation of Blacks from Africa because Blacks outnumbered Whites at the time of the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln feared that if Black slaves of USA aligned with American Indians then Whites might have to leave New World and Black-Indian government would have ruled the United States. The American Civil War was fought to keep Blacks from taking over the United States as Blacks outnumbered Whites at the time of the Civil War and Black-Indian Alliance would have ended the White Rule in the United States.

(3) Condi Rice?s ancestors were brought to the United States as slaves, when Arab Muslim Slave harvesters that captured and destroyed their ancestral villages and sold the blacks slave cargo to white Christian slave ship owners on West coast of Africa. Semite Arab Muslims conquered Black lands and sold blacks to white Christians and took over the black lands of Mediterranean North Africa and Africa South of Sahara. East European and Russian Jews immigrants to USA similarly sidelined Black leadership of the Democratic Party especially in New York.

(4) Jewish lobby led by Kissinger-Albright-Clinton conspiring to sabotage the Bush Administration?s wise policy of petro-imperialism in Iran, by playing the wild Israeli card in diplomacy. Jewish lobby is very unhappy that black woman Secretary Condoleezza Rice like her predecessor Secretary Colin Powell has replaced Ashkenazim foreign policy put into place by secretaries Kissinger, Brzezinski and Albright that purposely sidelined pro-WASP American national interests to promote the hidden agenda of pro-Papacy Judeo-Christian religious right conservative conspiracy.
(5) Geopolitical Doctrine of Secretary Rice states that the national interests of the United States should be defined to promote the civilization interests of Reformed Christianity and American civilization and economic interests of the Yankee petro-colonialism. The Christian religious right conservative conspiracy and President Jimmy Carter installed Ayatollah Khomeini and ultra-conservative theocracy in Iran replacing modern secular Pahlevi Monarchy. The Kissinger-Albright-Clinton conspiracy seeks to sabotage Yankee invasions of Iran to perpetuate the Theocracy in Iran.

(6) The artificial states of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan were created by British and American secret services on grounds of religion simply to control the Islamic world and the oil reserves of the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. Israel is important for Protestant USA not because it is Jewish State, but because it crucial for Yankee domination of Middle Eastern oil and gas reserves for Yankee Petro-Colonialism. It means that Israel must not do anything that might jeopardize the geopolitical interests of Yankee Petro-Colonialism. In the event Israel becomes a liability for Yankee petro-colonialism than the White House should not mind throwing the baby Israel along with the towel to the wolves.

(7) If Israeli invasions of Lebanon were a Yankee ploy to tempt Iran to invade Israel to justify Yankee invasions of Iran for establishing petro-colonial empire in Iran, then this Israeli invasion of Lebanon makes sense and American must support it as a diplomacy of deception. However, if Israeli invasion of Lebanon are part of an Ashkenazim Kissinger-Albright Conspiracy to discredit black woman secretary of state Dr. Condoleezza Rice then the White House should use the Big Stick to keep Israel in line.
It is deplorable that Israel?s Lebanese attacks causing diversion to Yankee war on Islamic terrorism and war on Iranian theocracy and war on Islamic nukes. It was plain stupid on the part of Israel to vacate Southern Lebanon after decades of Israeli occupation in 2002, when the United States had declared war on Islamic terrorism after September 11, 2001 attacks, and it might have been part of a Kissinger-Albright plot to undermine Bush?s wars for petro-colonialism and war on Islamic terrorism.

(8) Christian enemies of the United States had published Prophets Cartoon to sabotage earlier sanctions on Iran. The Israeli actions in Lebanon are simply part of a conspiracy hatched by Jewish insiders and Kissinger-Albright group to discredit black woman Secretary Rice. No one can accuse blacks born of slaves to have any extra-territorial loyalties or loyalty to any foreign potentate or any foreign nation. It stands to reason that the geopolitical assessment of Secretary Rice regarding national interests of the United States are more profound and more logical than the rival assessment of US national interests defined by former secretaries Kissinger, Brzezinski and Albright.

(9) Former speaker professor Newt Gingrich wisely declared that World War Three has started. The goal of every world power in the World War Three shall be to invade, occupy and colonize leading OPEC oil and gas producers. The World War Three is not a war among world powers, but a war waged by world powers to invade and colonize OPEC oil producers. The Israeli attacks on secular liberal Lebanon threatens the implicit agreement among top world powers to bring leading OPEC nations under the colonial occupation of the world powers in the first quarter of the 21st Century. The purpose of the World War Three is to Partition OPEC nations into spheres of influence of colonial empires led by Six world powers, namely, USA, India, China, Russia, European Union and Japan. The 21st Century shall resemble the colonial 19th Century because of the fight for the oil and gas reserves. United States must invade neither secular liberal Lebanon nor secular liberal Syria, as it would be a foolish diversion from Yankee war on Islamic terrorism and war for petro-colonialism. Israel is important only so long as it helps create sustain and establish Yankee petro-colonial empire in the Middle East.

(10) It is in the national of interest of the United States during second Bush administration, when the United States enjoyed the unchallenged hegemony and military preponderance as the sole super power. Any delay in the start of the World War Three, beyond 2008 would only harm the national interests of the United States. The Allied Powers led by United States, India and Britain guaranteed to win the World War Three.
The World War Three shall be fought for Middle East Oil. Had Hitler attacked Syria and Iraq instead of Libya and Africa or had invaded Iran after the conquest of Stalingrad rather than Moscow, Hitler might have won the World War II.

Diplomat Kalki Gaur

Uh, Kalki, history just called...it wants its facts back.

Revisionist history at its best.

Condi Rice is an unindicted co-conspirator, nothing less. She has been an apologist for this senseless war, and she has little, if any, appeciation of real history (history, as opposed to the drivel posted above).

The fact she's a minority woman doesn't make it any different.

She ought to be ashamed. But she's not.

She's an enabler. I think that without her, Bush's policies would be harsher in appearance. She softens up his image.

Bil, Sheila, Rick, and Sacred Cow have just had a fabulous time spewing emotional but not factual vitriol against Dr. Condoleeza Rice. Read the interview (if possible) without a hysterically hate-filled pre-disposition to be outraged at anything she says on any topic. ALL OF YOU set up a STRAW MAN to KNOCK DOWN by putting words in her mouth that were not there, because of your own personal biases against her, against the Bush Administration more generally, against Republicans more generally, etc. etc.
You know, if you didn't MAKE UP STUFF TO BE MAD ABOUT, you'd be much more likely to INFLUENCE the course of history.

Bil's argument that Dr. Rice equated the liberation of Iraq with the liberation of American slaves, and in the process, minimized the wrong done to American slaves is a false representation of the point she was making. Further, she NEITHER SAID NOR IMPLIED that a person taking an anti-war view was pro-slavery. She SAID that people got tired of the war and felt like giving up.
1. She used both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War to make the point that during wars that cost us dearly, there has never been UNIVERSAL agreement about the INITIATION, nor the CONTINUATION of the conflict. However, both of these PREVIOUS cases resulted in an outcome, eventually that we look back upon now as an IMPROVEMENT over the previous status quo. One that was worth the price we paid.
Perhaps you disagree; you think we should NOT have fought for 5 years, among ourselves as much as against the British, to found an independent, representative democracy in America? What should have happened instead, please?
Perhaps you disagree that preventing the spread of slavery in America to the Midwest and West, and preventing a slave-based separate country on our southern border to exist was wrong, and we should today have a slave-based economy in Illinois if folks so wish? (Ever heard of the Dred Scott decision, that the Supreme Court, in violation of Illinois state law by vote of the people of Illinois, said you can't own slaves, but since Dred Scott's owner brought the property from the South, he could keep Dred as property. An early example of Legislation from the Bench by a court dominated by Southern judges, including the Southern judge who wrote the majority opinion for a court that Southern Presidents had been stacking with pro-slavery hacks for decades.)

2. Sheila jumps from this thread, worthy of discussion, to a different attack, claiming that "cowboy machismo" (what is that, by the way? A cowboy was a teenage, uneducated immigrant from Europe or Mexico who didn't even speak enough English to get a better job, and a large percentage of them were also freed slaves in the same boat--uneducated but willing to do hard physical work on the prairie to earn a living and begin to live the American dream--hardly Bush's life story, or Cheney's or Dr Rice's)... is causing a disproportionate number of blacks in the military to be injured or killed during the Iraq war. This is the same old factually untrue liberal myth fed to the public as during the Vietnam war, when we had draftees as well as enlisted troops. FACT: the number of fallen servicemen and women to date in Iraq, including the 545 in NON-COMBAT ACCIDENTS is 2,676 killed, = less than the number of Americans killed in terrorist attacks worldwide since 1993. The number of WIA not returned to duty within 72 hours is 9,158. GUESS WHAT, the PERCENTAGE BY RACE IS LESS THAN THE PERCENTAGE OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN population for the USA. The African Americans are, if you want to make an ISSUE of RACE rather than military rank or branch of service or technical specialty -- UNDER represented in the Casualty Lists. Something to feel lucky about, I should think, rather than telling lies about that you are simply repeating because some demagogue included it in his speech.
I DOUBLE-DARE YOU TO START PRESENTING FACTS TO BACK UP YOUR SCREEDS.

3. Rick is the worst- WHICH ELECTED OFFICIAL, OR OFFICIAL CONSERVATIVE PARTY SPOKESPERSON, called people who oppose the military's POW interview process COMMUNISTS? Provide a link to the verbatim quote, with the date and venue. You know, REPUBLICANS, the Hon. Sen. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, are opposed to the military/administration's current revision of procedures that have been in the War Manual through 4 DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST OBJECTION OF ANY DEMOCRAT.

4. Sacred Cows, please note that the "DR" of Rice's name was earned in the process of becoming an INTERNATIONALLY RENOWNED EXPERT in Soviet history, geo-political historical conflicts, and international political-military Cold War issues. You would be well-advised, perhaps even inspired, to read her biography, beginning with her childhood. Then please be specific in your EXPERT reply, as to her LACK OF APPRECIATION OF "REAL" HISTORY. Which "real history" is that? The one she has lived, the one she has studied all her life, or the one you are making up in your own head from snippets of speeches from demagogues?

Genuine criticism is constructive. Perpetuating negative myths of ANY kind about ANY political perspective or history is destructive. Begin, folks, like Kalki tried to do, with FACTS both sides can agree upon.

This postscript is for Rick, who apparently knows no US or World history, whatsoever. When he bashes Rumsfeld in Point 3, it is evident he neither saw, heard, or read Rumsfeld's speech.

Rumsfeld DID NOT call the OPPONENTS of the War on Terror or the War in Iraq "Hitleresque" (a term meaning "like Hitler" that can be generalized from the person of the fascist dictator to those who subscribe to nazism, a specific political ideology.) On the contrary, he is pointing out that we must not want peace "at any price" and peace so desperately, that we embolden the enemy, as the European leaders emboldened Hitler in the run up to WWII. Remember Chamberlain proudly declaring, after Hitler invaded Checkoslovakia, "I have guaranteed us [The UK] Peace in Our Time!" ? Remember our Charles Lindbergh's admiration of Hitler because in Germany, when Lindbergh visited, the secret illegal build up of submarines and munitions, was at full tilt and naive Lindy was impressed that "Well, he's got the trains running on time!" These people were ostriches with their heads buried in the sand. But there was a reason they did not want to believe they were on the brink of the bloodiest War ever --- WWII.

Rumsfeld knew that his audience of veterans of foreign wars were keenly cognizant of the carnage of WWI, and how it, the "War to End All Wars" became known in a devastated, demoralized Europe as "The War That Was for Nothing" because of the Treaty of Versailles, and how the newly formed "League of Nations" to prevent all future wars failed completely.

Why did this happen? Not just Europe, but the world had paid a terrible price in WWI. Here is the casualty list, never fully completed, for WWI which involved 100 countries, and lasted 4 years. It helps explain why they so desperately did not want to believe another war was coming:

Casualties of the First World War
Country Mobilized Killed Wounded Total Casualties
Africa1 55,000 10,000 unknown unknown -
Australia 330,000 59,000 152,000 211,000 64%
Austria-Hungary* 6,500,000 1,200,000 3,620,000 4,820,000 74%
Belgium* 207,000 13,000 44,000 57,000 28%
Bulgaria* 400,000 101,000 153,000 254,000 64%
Canada 620,000 67,000 173,000 241,000 39%
The Caribbean2 21,000 1,000 3,000 4,000 19%
French Empire* 7,500,000 1,385,000 4,266,000 5,651,000 75%
Germany* 11,000,000 1,718,000 4,234,000 5,952,000 54%
Great Britain* 5,397,000 703,000 1,663,000 2,367,000 44%
Greece* 230,000 5,000 21,000 26,000 11%
India3 1,500,000 43,000 65,000 108,000 7%
Italy* 5,500,000 460,000 947,000 1,407,000 26%
Japan* 800,000 250 1,000 1,250 0.2%
Montenegro* 50,000 3,000 10,000 13,000 26%
New Zealand 110,000 18,000 55,000 73,000 66%
Portugal* 100,000 7,000 15,000 22,000 22%
Romania* 750,000 200,000 120,000 320,000 43%
Russia* 12,000,000 1,700,000 4,950,000 6,650,000 55%
Serbia* 707,000 128,000 133,000 261,000 37%
South Africa 149,000 7,000 12,000 19,000 13%
Turkey* 1,600,000 336,000 400,000 736,000 46%
USA* 4,272,500 117,000 204,000 321,000 8%

*. Statistics cited from The Longman Companion to the First World War (Colin Nicholson, Longman 2001, pg. 248);

Having lost "the flower of their youth", the European leaders refused to believe Hitler when he SPOKE and WROTE IN PRECISE DETAIL about EXACTLY what land he would conquer, which people were "subhuman" and must be enslaved or "eliminated". He said once Europe and Russia were subdued he must invade and conquer AMERICA because all the BEST AND BRIGHTEST AND MOST AMBITIOUS of the Aryan people were emmigrating to America. He was NEVER coy about his intentions. He believed it was possible because "America is a Paper Tiger," (Osama bin Laden used the same phrase in more than one Fatwa).

The European politicians and media and public at large refused to believe it, and engaged for several years of his Chancellory of Germany in ABJECT APPEASEMENT AND DENIAL. If only we let him take over Austria, he will leave us alone. If only we let him take over Chekoslovakia, he will leave us alone. If only we now let him take over Poland, he will leave us alone. If only we let him round up the communists, and put them in camps, he will leave us alone, If only we let him round up the gypsies, he will leave us alone ...

Rumsfeld is comparing that history, to the current history of Spain pulling their troops from Iraq following the Madrid bombing, the Italians allowing Muslim polygamy but not Italian polygamy, allowing Muslims to desecrate Catholic churches but make it a criminal offense to even write an article in the Opinion section of the local paper criticising Islam, and all the people who do not believe that Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, Abedenejab, and the now deceased al-Zarqawi, Sheik of al Qaeda in Iraq, have clearly said their intentions are. When the enemy tells you his plans, and he constantly demonstrates his dedicated intent to achieve them, you are a fool to ignore it or appease it or minimize it.

Now that you know this FACTUAL historical context, in which Rumsfeld spoke to veterans of the subsequent war that killed more millions, here is what he said, and I challenge you to find the line where he compared the people who oppose the Global War on Terror Hitler-like. I think you will find HE DID NO SUCH THING, NO MATTER HOW YOU MISREAD IT, or HOW HIS DETRACTORS MISREPORT IT IN FALSE HEADLINES:

"That year -- 1919 -- turned out to be one of the pivotal junctures in modern history with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, the creation of the League of Nations, a treaty and an organization intended to make future wars unnecessary and obsolete. Indeed, 1919 was the beginning of a period where, over time, a very different set of views would come to dominate public discourse and thinking in the West.

Over the next decades, a sentiment took root that contended that if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be accommodated, then the carnage and the destruction of then-recent memory of World War I could be avoided.

It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else's problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace, even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Winston Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.

There was a strange innocence about the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. senator's reaction in September of 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:

?Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!?

I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today -- another enemy, a different kind of enemy -- has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons.

We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:

With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?
Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?
And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world's troubles?
These are central questions of our time, and we must face them honestly.

We hear every day of new plans, new efforts to murder Americans and other free people. Indeed, the plot that was discovered in London that would have killed hundreds -- possibly thousands -- of innocent men, women and children on aircraft flying from London to the United States should remind us that this enemy is serious, lethal, and relentless.

But this is still not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there's more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats. "

A very salient point, Mr Secretary. Less energy should be spent ripping ourselves (America) to absolutely NO positive effect, and more spent trying to thwart the efforts of the terrorists, who are killing as many Muslims as they are non-Muslims in their crazed ideological quest.

*****
I also submit to Rick about his Point 3 the following logical argument:

If you have risen to be a chosen member of the small "Group" as you refer to the Cabinet of Secretaries of the President of the United States, don't you already agree, in principle, with most of the policies of that President, therefore also the rest of the "Group" (word obviously intended to imply some sinister cabal of witches). Didn't FDR, Truman, JFK, Carter, and Clinton, chose Secretaries that would SUPPORT and try to IMPLEMENT the policies that GOT HIM ELECTED? If so, then why, please, dear, would they need to BRAINWASH one another?

Your hysterical paranoia is too illogical for words. You must hate those people very very very passionately.

Now, is there anything that is not A FANTASY you would like to complain about?

We are listening

This is for the Honorable Kalki Gaur, self-styled "Diplomat" and author of his own Indian neo-con blog:

I commend your factual statements that begin your points #1 and #3 above concerning Secretary Rice and the history of the slave trade of the 1600's to 1800's.

Unfortunately, you leap from the facts to the absurd assertion that white colonists and pioneers fought the Civil War to prevent black slaves from overpopulating the United States and thus wresting control of it from their white masters. Since they OWNED the slaves, why didn't they just kill the babies to control the population, instead of spending millions of dollars over 4 years to kill 620,000 Union and Confederate soldiers, not including wounded, missing, and the civilian casualties? Americans are often naive and idealistic, I'll grant you, but you ascribe to them a stupidity beyond measure and at odds with the phenomenal success of the country in virtually every other sphere of human endeavor.

The rest of your points devolve into conspiracy theories of an improbable and, arguably, impossible magnitude of world-domination. Fun to fantasize about, fun to write novels about, but utterly unsupported by any facts, and plenty of conspiracy theorists have been digging for supporting evidence for decades and come up with nothing.

Israel was NOT created by American secret service agents who wanted to control mid-East oil. Israel was officially created on May 15, 1948 by the United Nations, including the Soviet Union (at that time the arch-enemy of the US and competing toe-to-toe for influence in the Middle East). It is a country the size of New Jersey, with a paucity of water resources (which means desert, mostly) few natural resources (practically NO oil, just a little natural gas, which was not yet discovered in 1948). Only 17% of the land is arable. The fractured American secret service agengies (there were 22 of them) were busy in post-War Germany, and Asia fighting the Cold War against the Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe and the Chinese communist run at all of Asia. Millions of documents in the US archives are available on the covert operations of America, and were declassified in the 1980's (America declassifies its spy stuff after 40 years, much earlier than Britain and other countries who wait 75 years.) America's records contain files received from allies and enemies secret services as well. There is NoTHING there to suggest even a hint of the conspiracies you assert. Further, the power, cleverness, money, lack of infiltration by moles from enemies, long-term connections to local potentates, and underground groups that would have been REQUIRED to accomplish this by a bunch of bungling agents who were, we now know for a fact, riddled with Communist moles planted by Philby (British famous counter-spy who wrecked British intelligence). Your assertions are impossible. Further, the Middle Eastern TRIBES that controlled portions of the Saudi peninsula, land of the two rivers, Iranian hinterlands, Soviet Muslim balkanlands, etc. were too loosely and temporarily allied when not squabbling amoung themselves and slitting each other's throats in raids to form cabals with Americans. Why on earth, if we wanted to control Middle Eastern oil (which we were already being paid to explore for) would we create a JEWISH state in a NON-OIL section that was so SMALL, even if we COULD "secretly" create a NATION anywhere? That is an absurdly illogical concept. The Jews of Morrocco, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Iran that emigrated to Israel were not diamond merchants, bankers or powerful wealthy landowners in their former Arab/Muslim/Persian controlled lands. They were paupers, rag-pickers, small shop keepers, because they weren't allowed to hold other jobs. Few were farmers, since they had not been allowed to own land elsewhere. True, some were educated, and had been allowed to hold low level beaucratic government jobs, because you have to be able to read to be a paper pusher. But that hardly qualified them to run a country that was going to 'CONTROL THE MIDDLE EAST ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN MASTERS TO CONTROL THE OIL.' And guess what, Kalil, who lives in Texas and should know better, we controlled our own oil at the time, and were being PAID to DEVELOP THEIRS FOR THEM, as were the BRITISH in IRAN (THE ARGUMENT THERE WAS OVER THE SIZE OF THE IRANIAN ROYALTIES,the Persians wanted 98%, and the British couldn't make any profit at all in that case). America did NOT depend on FOREIGN OIL until Jimmy Carter SCREWED UP and PREVENTED us from building any more refineries or doing any more drilling in and around our own country. Were it NOT for the Carter Administration (one of the 2 WORST Presidents in American history, 2nd only to Filmore) we would not EVER depended on FOREIGN OIL for up to 20% of our consumption (its historical high point.)

I get really tired of all this 'CONTROL THE OIL' nonsense. America and England find something valuable in these backward countries of squabbling illiterates who still live the way they did 5,000 years ago and think children get sick if you compliment them (you have cast the EVIL EYE on them!). We develop it for them so they can export it and make money to educate, provide healthcare, document and venerate their history, pave their roads, provide electricity so they can run fans in 120 degree heat and heaters in the winter, and have toilets and books and magazines and radios, and maybe trucks to get to town. What do they do with the money? Build palaces for their corrupt officials and buy munitions to keep those guys in power, and kill each other in border and religious wars. They can't read or write or provide clean water to the villages, but every 12 year old boy with time on his hands is armed to the teeth and taught to hate America, while coveting Levi jeans and toothbrushes and boomboxes.

Stop blaming us for absurd conspiracies that no one could have kept secret or pulled off. Put some effort of that creative brain of yours into figuring out how these two diametrically opposed world views can co-exist. Because the clash that is in progress, that the Islamists started and are pursuing with much greater vigor than the West, is going to be a WINNER TAKE ALL scenario, the way it is headed.

The terrorists are going to do a few more outrageous things to attempt to enslave the world, and someone, maybe the ruthless Chinese, is going to nuke them. The Chinese won't mind a few million of their population dying. They always operate with the philosophy "we've got plenty more where they came from". America is unlikely to want to waste a city of civilians. Gee, half our population is crazed with anger over the loss of less than 5,000 in a 4year double front war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the LEAST COSTLY war we have EVER fought, statistically.


Iranian dissidents in the '60s preferred "Voice of Moscow" over "Voice of America" (only 2 Iranian stations and they didn't have the signal to extend beyond Tehran). Why? Because when they presented the "news" it was colored dramatically with inflamatory propaganda, and, culturally, a man that doesn't yell and use extreme hyperbole to make his point is not adequately passionate about it, and therefore, it is less true. Wild gestures, crying, stamping your feet, etc. to accompany speeches are a sign of belief in your topic. Standing poised at the podium and delivering your points in measured calm tones, respectful of the other party's sensitivies is a sign of weakness. Many professional anthropologists, born of these cultures, have confirmed this phenomena.

There is your "clash of civilizations" between the Islamic east, the West, and the Buddist East.
What we perceive as respectful dialog, the Islamists and fascists perceive as weakness and lack of belief in your argument or cause.