Skip to content

Unexplainable.net

Watching The World Change

  • Shinto Ceremonies and Festivals Religion Articles
  • Ancient Religious Sites , Pisidian Antioch II Ancient Civilizations
  • Ancient Egyptians Believed Soul, Body and Linen Go To Kingdom Of Afterlife Ancient Civilizations
  • “Crashed Saucer” in India Causes Commotion UFOs and Aliens
  • Dream Interpretations 14: Sports Meditation And Spirituality
  • The Nibelung of Saturn – Part II Information and Theories
  • What is Inhumation? Information and Theories
  • Foods of the Bible: Figs, Grapes, Raisins, Barley Religion Articles

Gulf War-PRODUCING THE PROPER CRISIS

Posted on March 26, 2005 By jim No Comments on Gulf War-PRODUCING THE PROPER CRISIS
Mooker

PRODUCING THE PROPER CRISIS
                   a speech by Philip Agee, formerly of the CIA.
                            from Z magazine, Oct.  1990

       On the eve  of  Philip Agee’s 20-city tour to campuses and community
       groups throughout the U.S. the Nicaraguan  foreign  ministry revoked
       his Nicaraguan passport preventing him from traveling  freely.  Jean
       Caiani of Speak  Out!, who organized his tour, is helping coordinate
       a national campaign  to  regain  his  original  passport  which  was
       revoked in 1979  on  the grounds that Agee’s writings  and  speaking
       pose “a serious  threat  to  the  national  security  of  the United
       States.” Following is the speech  that  Agee  planned to give at his
       scheduled engagements.
       ——————————————————————–
       Sooner or later it had to happen: the fundamental transformation  of
       U.S. military forces   was   really   only   a   matter   of   time.
       Transformation, in this sense, from  a  national defense force to an
       international mercenary army for hire.

       With a U.S national debt of $3 trillion, some $800  billion owned by
       foreigners, The United States sooner or later would have to find, or
       produce, the proper  crisis – one that would enable the president to
       hire out the armed forces, like a national export, in order to avoid
       conversion of the  economy  from   military  to  civilian  purposes.
       Iraq’s invasion of  Kuwait,  encouraged,  it  seems,   by  the  Bush
       administration, is the necessary crisis.

       Not long after  the invasion, I watched on Spanish television Bush’s
       call to arms, when he said “our way  of life” is at stake.  For days
       afterwards I kept  watching  and reading for news  of  the  tens  of
       millions of people in this country, who would take to the streets in
       joy, in celebration   that  their  days  of  poverty,  homelessness,
       illiteracy and uncared-for illness  might  soon  end.   What  I  saw
       instead, like most of you, was the Bush “way of life” – fishing,

                                      Page 1

       boating, and golfing  on  the  coast  of  Maine like any respectable
       member of the  Eastern elite. Bush’s  military  machismo  of  recent
       weeks reminded me of what General Noriega said about  Bush  a couple
       of years ago,  before  Bush  decided to smash Panamanian nationalism
       for the foreseeable future. You remember?   Noriega  told his deputy
       in the Panamanian Defense Forces, who later made it public, he said,
       “I’ve got George Bush – by the balls.”

       When I read  that, I thought, how interesting – one  of  those  rare
       statements that contain  two revelations. Back in the 1970s, when he
       was director of the CIA, Bush tried  to  get  a  criminal indictment
       against me for  revelations  I was making about CIA  operations  and
       personnel. But he couldn’t get it, I discovered later in documents I
       received under the  Freedom  of Information Act. The reason was that
       in the early 1970s the CIA had committed  crimes  against me while I
       was in Europe writing my first book. If they indicted and prosecuted
       me, I would learn the details of those crimes, whatever  they  were:
       conspiracy to assassination,  kidnapping,  a  drug  plant.  So  they
       couldn’t indict because the CIA under  Bush,  and  before  him under
       William Colby, said the details had to stay secret. So what did Bush
       do? He prevailed  on  President Ford to send Henry  Kissinger,  then
       Secretary of State,  to  Britain  where I was living, to get them to
       take action. A few weeks after Kissinger’s  secret  trip a Cambridge
       policeman arrived at my door with a deportation notice. After living
       in Britain nearly five years, I had suddenly become  a threat to the
       security of the  realm.  During  the  next  two years I was not only
       expelled from Britain, but also from  France, Holland, West Germany,
       and Italy – all under U.S. pressure. For two years I didn’t know
       where I was living, and my two sons, then teenagers,  attended  four
       different schools in four different countries.

       The latest is  the  government’s attempt to prevent me from speaking
       in the U.S now. Where this will end, we still don’t know.

       How many of you have friends or relatives  right now in Saudi Arabia
       or the Persian Gulf area? I wonder how they feel, so close to giving
       their lives to protect a feudal kingdom where women  are  stoned  to
       death for adultery,  where  a  thief  is punished by having his hand
       amputated, where women can’t drive  cars or swim in the same pool as
       men? Where bibles  are  forbidden  and  no religion  save  Islam  is
       allowed? Where Amnesty   International   reports   that  torture  is
       routine, and that last year 111 people  were  executed,  16  of them
       political prisoners, all but one by public beheading.   And  not  by
       clean cut, with  a  guillotine, but with that long curved sword that
       witnesses say requires various chops.

       Not that Saudi  Arabia,  or Kuwait  before  the  invasion,  are  any
       different in terms of political repression than any  number of U.S.-
       supported allies. But  to  give  your life for those corrupt, cruel,
       family dictatorships? Bush says we’re “stopping aggression.” If that
       were true, the  first  thing  U.S.  forces  would  have  done  after
       landing, they would  have  dethroned  the  Gulf emirs,  sheiks,  and
       kings, who every  day  are carrying out the worst aggression against
       their own people, especially women.

       Mainstream media haven’t quite said  it  yet,  as far as I know, but
       the evidence is  mounting that George Bush and his entourage  wanted
       the Iraqi invasion  of  Kuwait,  encouraged  it, and then refused to
       prevent it when they could have.  I’ll get back to Bush later, but

                                      Page 2

       first, a quick  review of what brought on this crisis. Does the name
       Cox bring anything special to mind? Sir Percy Cox?

       In a historical sense this is the  man  responsible for today’s Gulf
       crisis. Sir Percy Cox was the British High Commissioner  in  Baghdad
       after World War   I   who  in  1922  drew  the  lines  in  the  sand
       establishing for the  first time national  borders  between  Jordan,
       Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. And in each of these  new states the
       British helped set  up  and  consolidate  ruling  monarchies through
       which British banks, commercial firms, and petroleum companies could
       obtain monopolies. Kuwait, however,  had  for  centuries belonged to
       the Basra province of the Ottoman Empire.

       Iraq and the  Iraqis never recognized Sir Percy’s  borders.  He  had
       drawn those lines,   as  historians  have  confirmed,  in  order  to
       deliberately deprive Iraq of a viable  seaport  on the Persian Gulf.
       The British wanted  no  threat from Iraq to their dominance  in  the
       Gulf where they  had converted no less than ten sheikdoms, including
       Kuwait, into colonies.  The divide  and  rule  principle,  so  well-
       practiced in this country since the beginning. In 1958  the British-
       installed monarchy in  Iraq was overthrown in a military coup. Three
       years later, in 1961, Britain granted  independence  to  Kuwait, and
       the Iraqi military  government massed troops on the  Kuwaiti  border
       threatening to take the territory by force.  Immediately the British
       dispatched troops, and Iraq backed down, still refusing to recognize
       the border. Similar Iraqi threats occurred in 1973 and 1976.

       This history, Saddam Hussein’s justification for annexing Kuwait, is
       in the books  for  anyone  to see. But weeks went by as I waited and
       wondered why the International Herald Tribune, which publishes major
       articles from the Washington Post, New York Times and wire services,
       failed to carry the background. Finally, a month after the invasion,
       the Herald Tribune  carried  a  Washington   Post   article  on  the
       historical context written by Glenn Frankel.  I’ve  yet to find this
       history in Time or Newsweek.

       Time, in fact,  went  so  far as to say that Iraq’s claims to Kuwait
       were “without any historical basis.” Hardly surprising, since giving
       exposure to the Iraqi side might  weaken  the  campaign to Hitlerize
       Saddam Hussein. Also absent from current accounts is  the CIA’s role
       in the early  1970s to foment and support armed Kurdish rebellion in
       Iraq. The Agency, in league with  the  Shah  of  Iran,  provided $16
       million in arms and other supplies to the Kurds,  leading  to  Iraqi
       capitulation to the  Shah  in 1975 over control of the Shat al Arab.
       This is the estuary of the Tigris  and  Euphrates, that Iraq invaded
       Iran to redress the CIA-assisted humiliation of 1975,  and to regain
       control of the  estuary,  beginning  the  eight year war that cost a
       million lives.

       Apart from Iraq’s historical claims  on  Kuwait  and  its  need  for
       access to the sea, two related disputes came to a head  just  before
       the invasion. First  was the price of oil. OPEC had set the price at
       $18 per barrel in 1986, together with  production quotas to maintain
       that price. But  Kuwait  and  the  United  Arab  Emirates  had  long
       exceeded their quotas, driving the price down to around $13 in June.
       Iraq, saddled with  a  $70  billion debt from the war with Iran, was
       losing billions of dollars in oil  revenues  which  normally account
       for 95 precent   of  its  exports.  Meanwhile,  industrialized   oil
       consumers like the United States were enjoying the best price in 40

                                      Page 3

       years, in inflation-adjusted dollars.

       Iraq’s other claim against Kuwait was theft. While Iraq was occupied
       with Iran during  the  war,  Kuwait  began  pumping from Iraq’s vast
       Rumaila field that dips into the disputed border area. Iraq demanded
       payment for oil taken from this  field  as  well  as  forgiveness of
       Kuwaiti loans to Iraq during the war with Iran.  Then  in July, Iraq
       massed troops on  the  Kuwaiti  border  while  OPEC ministers met in
       Geneva. That pressure brought Kuwait  and  the  Emirates to agree to
       honor quotas and OPEC set a new target price of $21,  although  Iraq
       had insisted on  $25  per  barrel.  After that Hussein increased his
       troops on the border from 30,000 to 100,000.

       On August 1, Kuwaiti and Iraqi negotiators, meeting in Saudi Arabia,
       failed to reach agreement over the  loans, oil thefts, and access to
       the sea for  Iraq.  The next night Iraq invaded.  Revelations  since
       then, together with  a  review  of  events  prior  to  the invasion,
       strongly suggest that U.S. policy was to encourage Hussein to invade
       and, when invasion was imminent,  to  do  nothing to discourage him.
       Consider the following.

       During the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s, the U.S. sided  with Iraq and
       continued this policy right up to August 2, the day of the invasion.
       In April, the Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, John
       Kelly, testified before  Congress  that  the  United  States  had no
       commitment to defend Kuwait. On July 25, with Iraqi troops massed on
       the Kuwait border, the U.S. Ambassador  to  Iraq, April Glaspie, met
       with Hussein. Minutes of the meeting were given by the Iraqis to the
       Washington Post in mid-August.

       According to these  minutes,  which have not been  disputed  by  the
       State Department, the  Ambassador  told  Hussein  that  Secretary of
       State James Baker had instructed  her  to  emphasize to Hussein that
       the U.S. has “no opinion” on Iraqi-Kuwait border disputes.  She then
       asked him, in  light  of  Iraqi troop movements, what his intentions
       were with respect to Kuwait.

       Hussein replied that Kuwait’s actions  amounted to “an economic war”
       and “military action against us.” He said he hoped  for  a  peaceful
       solution, but if  not,  he  said, “it will be natural that Iraq will
       not accept death…” A clearer statement  of his intentions would be
       hard to imagine, and hardly a promise not to invade.  The Ambassador
       gave no warning  from  Baker  or  Bush that the U.S. would oppose an
       Iraqi takeover of Kuwait. On the contrary she said, “I have a direct
       instruction from the President to seek better relations with Iraq.”

       On the same day Assistant Secretary  of State Kelly killed a planned
       Voice of America broadcast that would have warned Iraq that the U.S.
       was “strongly committed” to the defense of its friends  in the Gulf,
       which included, of  course,  Kuwait.  During  the  week  between the
       Ambassador’s meeting with  Hussein   and   the  invasion,  the  Bush
       administration forbade any warning to Hussein against  invasion,  or
       to the thousands of people who might become hostages. The Ambassador
       returned to Washington  as  previously  scheduled for consultations.
       Assistant Secretary Kelly,  two  days  before  the  invasion,  again
       testified publicly before Congress to the effect that  the  U.S. had
       no commitment to  defend Kuwait. And, according to press reports and
       Senator Boren, who heads the Senate  Intelligence Committee, the CIA
       had predicted the invasion some four days before it happened.

                                      Page 4

       Put these events  together,  and add the total absence of any public
       or private warning by Bush to Hussein  not  to invade, together with
       no U.S. effort to create international opposition  while  there  was
       time. Assuming the  U.S. was not indifferent to an invasion, one has
       to act whether Bush administration policy was in effect to encourage
       Hussein to create a world crisis.

       After all, Iraq  had chemical weapons  and  had  already  used  them
       against Iran and  against  Kurds  inside Iraq. He was  known  to  be
       within two to  five  years  of  possessing  nuclear  weapons. He had
       completely upset the power balance in the Middle East by creating an
       army one million strong.  He aspired to leadership of the Arab world
       against Israel, and he threatened  all the so-called moderate, i.e.,
       feudal regimes, not  just  Kuwait. And with Kuwait’s  oil  he  would
       control 20 percent  of  the  world’s  reserves,  a  concentration in
       radical nationalist hands that would be equal, perhaps to the Soviet
       Union, Iraq’s main arms supplier.  Saddam  Hussein,  then,  was  the
       perfect subject to allow enough rein to create a crisis,  and he was
       even more perfect   for   post-invasion  media  demonization,  a  la
       Qaddafi, Ortega, and Noriega.

       Why would Bush seek a world crisis?  The  first suggestion came, for
       me at least,  when he uttered those words about “our  way  of  life”
       being at stake.  They  brought to mind Harry Truman’s speech in 1950
       that broke Congressional resistance to Cold War militarism and began
       40 years of Pentagon dominance of the U.S. economy.

       It’s worth recalling Truman’s speech  because  Bush is trying to use
       the Gulf crisis, as Truman used the Korean War, to justify what some
       call military Keynesianism

                     as a solution for U.S. economic problems.

       This is, using enormous military expenditures to prevent  or rectify
       economic slumps and  depressions, while reducing as much as possible
       spending on civilian and social programs.  Exactly  what  Reagan and
       Bush did, for example, in the early and mid-1980s.

       In 1950 the Truman administration adopted a program to vastly expand
       the U.S and  West  European  military  services  under   a  National
       Security Council document  called  NSC-68.  This  document  was  Top
       Secret for 25 years and, by error,  it  was  released  in  1975  and
       published.

       The purpose of military expansion under NSC-68 was  to  reverse  the
       economic slide that  began  with  the  end  of  World War II wherein
       during five years  the  U.S.  GNP   had   declined  20  percent  and
       unemployment had risen  from 700,000 to 4.7 million.  U.S.  exports,
       despite the subsidy   program  known  as  the  Marshall  Plan,  were
       inadequate to sustain the economy,  and  remilitarization of Western
       Europe would allow  transfer  of  dollars,  under so-called  defense
       support grants, that  would  in  turn generate European imports from
       the U.S.

       As NSC-68 put the situation in early  1950:  “the  United States and
       other free nations  will  within  a period of a few  years  at  most
       experience a decline  in  economic  activity  of serious proportions
       unless more positive governmental programs are developed…”

                                      Page 5

       The solution adopted  was  expansion of the military. But support in
       Congress and the  public at large  was  lacking  for  a  variety  of
       reasons, not least the increased taxes the programs would require.

       So Truman’s State Department, under Dean Acheson,  set  out  to sell
       the so-called Communist  Threat  as  justification,  through  a fear
       campaign in the media that would create  a permanent war atmosphere.
       But a domestic  media  campaign was not enough. A  real  crisis  was
       needed, and it  came  in  Korea.  Joyce  and Gabriel Kolko, in their
       history of the 1945-55 period, “The  Limits of Power”, show that the
       Truman administration manipulated this crisis to overcome resistance
       to military build-up  and  a  review of those events  show  striking
       parallels to the  Persian  Gulf  crisis of 1990. Korea at the end of
       World War II had been divided north-south along the 38th parallel by
       the U.S. and the Soviets.

       Five years of on-again, off-again  conflict continued: first between
       revolutionary forces in the south and U.S. occupation  forces,  then
       between the respective  states established first between the U.S. in
       the south, then by the Soviets in  the north. Both states threatened
       to reunify the  country by force, and border incursions  with  heavy
       fighting by military  forces  were  common.  In June 1950, communist
       North Korean military forces moved  across  the border toward Seoul,
       the South Korean capital.  At the time, the North  Korean  move  was
       called “naked aggression”,  but  I.F.  Stone made a convincing case,
       in his “Hidden History of the Korean  War”,  that  the  invasion was
       provoked by South Korea and Taiwan, another U.S. client regime.

       For a month  South  Korean  forces  retreated,  practically  without
       fighting, in effect inviting the North Koreans to follow them south.
       Meanwhile Truman rushed  in  U.S.  military  forces  under  a United
       Nations command, and he made a dramatic appeal to Congress to for an
       additional $10 billion, beyond requirements  for Korea, for U.S. and
       European military expansion. Congress refused.  Truman  then  made a
       fateful decision. In  September  1950,  about three months after the
       conflict began, U.S., South Korean,  and  token  forces  from  other
       countries, under the United Nations banner, began to  push  back the
       North Koreans.

       Within three weeks  the  North  Koreans had been pushed north to the
       border, the 38th parallel, in defeat.  That  would have been the end
       of the matter,  at  least  the  military  action, if  the  U.S.  had
       accepted a Soviet  UN  resolution for a cease-fire and UN-supervised
       country-wide elections. Truman,   however,  needed  to  prolong  the
       crisis in order to overcome congressional and public  resistance  to
       his plans for   U.S.   and  European  rearmament.  Although  the  UN
       resolution under which U.S. forces  were  fighting in the north, and
       rapidly advanced toward  the Yalu River, North Korea’s  border  with
       China where only  the  year  before  the communists had defeated the
       U.S.- backed Kuomintang  regime. The  Chinese  communist  government
       threatened to intervene,  but  Truman had decided to  overthrow  the
       communist government in  North Korea and unite the country under the
       anti-communist South Korean dictatorship.

       As predicted, the Chinese entered the war in November and forced the
       U.S. and its allies to retreat once  again  southward. The following
       month, with the  media  full  of  stories and pictures  of  American
       soldiers retreating through  snow and ice before hordes of advancing
       Chinese troops, Truman went on national radio, declared a state of

                                      Page 6

       national emergency, and  said  what Bush’s remarks about “our way of
       life” at stake recalled.  Truman mustered  all  the hype and emotion
       he could, and said: “Our homes, our nation, all the  things  that we
       believe in, are in great danger. This danger has been created by the
       rulers of the  Soviet  Union.”  He  also  called  again  for massive
       increases in military spending for  U.S.  and European forces, apart
       from needs in Korea.

       Of course, there was no threat of war with the Soviet Union at all.

       Truman attributed the Korean situation to the Russians  in  order to
       create emotional hysteria,  a false, threat, and to get the leverage
       over Congress needed for approval  of the huge amounts of money that
       Congress had refused.

       As we know, Truman’s deceit worked. Congress went along  in  its so-
       called bi-partisan spirit, like the sheep in the same offices today.
       The U.S.  military budget more than tripled from $13 billion in 1950
       to $44 billion  in  1952,  while U.S. military forces doubled to 3.6
       million. The Korean War continued  for  three  more  years, after it
       could have ended,  with  the final casualty count in  the  millions,
       including 34,000 U.S. dead and more than 100,000 wounded. But in the
       United States, Korea  made  the permanent war economy a reality, and
       we have lived with it for 40 years.

       What are the parallels with the current Gulf crisis?

             First, Korea in June 1950 was  already a crisis of borders and
                    unification demands simply waiting for escalation.
             Second, less than six months before the war began Secretary of
                    State Dean Acheson publicly placed South  Korea outside
                    the U.S.   defense perimeter in Asia, just as Assistant
                    Secretary Kelly denied  any U.S.  defense commitment to
                    Kuwait.
             Third, the U.S. obtained quick UN justification  for a massive
                    military intervention, but only for repelling the North
                    Koreans, not  for conquest of that country.  Similarly,
                    the UN resolutions call  for  defense  of Saudi Arabia,
                    not for military conquest of Iraq – contrary to the war
                    mongers who daily suggest that the U.S. may be “forced”
                    to attack  Iraq,  presumably  without  UN  sanction  or
                    declaration of war by Congress.
              Fourth, both  crises came at a time of U.S. economic weakness
                    with a recession or  even  worse  downturn  threatening
                    ahead.
              Fifth, and  we  will  probably see this with  the  Gulf,  the
                    Korean crisis  was  deliberately  prolonged in order to
                    establish military expenditures  as  the  motor  of the
                    U.S. economy. Proceeding in the same manner  now  would
                    be an adjustment to allow continuation of what began in
                    1950. NSC-68  required  a  significant expansion of CIA
                    operations around the  world  in  order  to  fight  the
                    secret political  Cold  War  – a war against  socialist
                    economic programs,  against  communist parties, against
                    left social  democrats,   against  neutralism,  against
                    disarmament, against   relaxation  of   tensions,   and
                    against the  peace  offensive  then  being waged by the
                    Soviet Union.

                                      Page 7

       In Western Europe,  through  a  vast network of political action and
       propaganda operations, the CIA was  called  upon  to  create  in the
       public mind, the specter of imminent Soviet invasion  combined  with
       the intention of  the  European left to enslave the population under
       Soviet dominion. By 1953, as a result  of  NSC-68, the CIA had major
       covert action programs  underway  in  48  countries,  consisting  of
       propaganda, paramilitary, and  political action operations – such as
       buying elections and subsidizing political parties.

       The bureaucracy grew accordingly:  in mid-1949 the covert action arm
       of the CIA  had  about  300  employees  and  seven   overseas  field
       stations. Three years  later there were 2,800 employees and 47 field
       stations. In the same period the covert action budget grew from $4.7
       million to $82 million.

       By the mid-1950s the name for the  “enemy”  was  no  longer just the
       Soviet Union. The wider concept of “International Communism”  better
       expressed the global  view of secret conspiracies run from Moscow to
       undermine the U.S. and its allies.

       One previously secret document from 1955 outlines the CIA’s tasks:

           “Create and  exploit  problems   for   International  Communism.
            Discredit International Communism and reduce  the  strength  of
            its parties and organization.
            Reduce international  Communist  control  over  any area of the
            world…  specifically such operations shall include any covert
            activities related to: propaganda,  political  action, economic
            warfare, preventive  direct action, including  sabotage,  anti-
            sabotage, demolition,   escape   and  invasion  and  evacuation
            measures; subversion  against   hostile   states   or   groups,
            including assistance   to  underground  resistance   movements,
            guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, support of indigenous
            and anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free
            world; deception  plans and all compatible activities necessary
            to accomplish the foregoing.”

       Another document on CIA operations  from  the  same  period said, in
       extracts:

           “Hitherto accepted norms of human conduct do not apply…
            long-standing American   concepts   of  fair   play   must   be
            reconsidered…
            we must  learn to subvert, sabotage, and destroy our enemies by
            more clever, more sophisticated and more effective methods than
            those used against us.
            It may  become  necessary that  the  American  people  be  made
            acquainted with,  understand,  and  support this  fundamentally
            repugnant philosophy.”

       And so, from  the  late 1940s until the mid-1950s, the CIA organized
       sabotage and propaganda operations  against every country of Eastern
       Europe, including the Soviet Union.  They tried to forment rebellion
       and to hinder   those   countries’  effort  to  rebuild   from   the
       devastation of World War II.  Though unsuccessful against the Soviet
       Union, these operations  had  some  successes  in  other  countries,
       notably East Germany. This was the  easiest  target  because, as one
       former CIA officer wrote, before the wall went up  in  1961  all  an
       infiltrator needed was good documents and a railway ticket.

                                      Page 8

       From about 1949,  the  CIA  organized  sabotage  operations  against
       targets in East Germany in order to slow reconstruction and economic
       recovery. The purpose was to create  a  high  contrast  between West
       Germany, then receiving billions of U.S. dollars for reconstruction,
       and the “other Germany” under Soviet control.

       William Blum, in  his  excellent  history  of  the   CIA,  lists  an
       astonishing range of destruction:

             “through explosives,   arson,   short  circuiting,  and  other
              methods, they  damaged  power  stations,  shipyards,  a  dam,
              canals, docks,  public  buildings,  petrol  stations,  shops,
              outdoor stands,  a  radio  station,  public transformation…
              derailed freight trains…   blew up road and railway bridges
              used special acid to damage vital factory machinery… killed
              7,000 cows… added soap to powdered milk destined  for  East
              German schools,”

       and much, much  more.  These activities were worldwide, and not only
       directed against Soviet-supported governments.

       During 40 years, as the east-west  military standoff stabilized, the
       CIA was a  principle weapon in waging the north-south  dimension  of
       the Cold War.  It  did  so  through  operations  intended to destroy
       nationalist, reformist, and liberation  movements  of  the so-called
       Third World, through   political  repression  (torture   and   death
       squads), and by  the  overthrow  of  democratically elected civilian
       governments, replacing them with military dictatorships.

       The Agency also   organized   paramilitary   forces   to   overthrow
       governments, with the contra operation in Nicaragua  only  a  recent
       example. This north-south dimension of the Cold War was over control
       of natural resources,  labor, and markets and it continues today, as
       always.

       Anyone who thinks the Cold War ended should think again:

            the east-west dimension may  have  ended  with  the collapse of
            communism in  Eastern  Europe,  but the north-south  dimension,
            which is  where  the fighting really took place, as in Vietnam,
            is still on.
            The current Persian Gulf crisis  is  the latest episode, and it
            provides the   Bush   administration  with   the   pretext   to
            institutionalize the  north-south dimension under the euphemism
            of a “new international order,” as he calls it.

       The means will  be a continuation  of  U.S.  militarism  within  the
       context, if   they   are   successful,   of   a  new  multi-lateral,
       international framework. Already  James  Baker  has been testing the
       winds with proposals for a NATO-style  alliance in the Gulf, an idea
       that William Safire aptly dubbed GULFO.

       The goal in seeking and obtaining the current crisis  stops short, I
       believe, of a shooting war. After all, a war with Iraq will not be a
       matter of days  or  even weeks. Public opinion in the U.S. will turn
       against Bush if young Americans in  large  numbers start coming back
       in body bags.  And  Gulf  petroleum  facilities  are  likely  to  be
       destroyed in the process of saving them, a catastrophe for the world
       economy. Nevertheless, press accounts describe how the CIA and U.S.

                                      Page 9

       special forces are  organizing  and  arming  guerrillas,  said to be
       Kuwaitis, for attacking Iraqi forces.  These  operations provide the
       capability for just the right provocation, an act that  would  cause
       Hussein to order defensive action that would then justify an all-out
       attack.

       Such provocations have  been  staged  in  the  past.  In  1964,  CIA
       paramilitary forces working in tandem  with  the  U.S. Navy provoked
       the Tonkin Gulf incidents, according to historians  who now question
       whether the incidents,  said  to be North Vietnamese attacks on U.S.
       ships, even happened.  But Lyndon  Johnson  used  the  events  as  a
       pretext to begin  bombing  North Vietnam and to get  a  blank  check
       resolution from Congress to send combat troops and escalate the war.

       I think the  purpose  is not a shooting war but a crisis that can be
       maintained as long as possible, far  after  the Iraqi-Kuwait problem
       is resolved. This will prolong the international threat  –  remember
       Truman in 1950  –  and  allow  Bush  to prevent cuts in the military
       budget, to avoid any peace dividend,  and  prevent conversion of the
       economy to peaceful, human-oriented purposes.

       After all, when  you count all U.S. defense-related  expenses,  they
       add up to  more than double the official figure of 26 percent of the
       national budget for defense – some  experts  say  two-thirds  of the
       budget goes for defense in one way or another.

       The so-called national security state of the past 40 years has meant
       enormous riches, and power, for those who are in the  game.   It has
       also meant population  control  –  control of the people of this and
       many other countries. Bush and his  team,  and those they represent,
       will do whatever is necessary to keep the game going.

       Elitist control of  the  U.S. rests on this game. If  anyone  doubts
       this, recall that   from   the   very   beginning  of  this  crisis,
       projections were coming out on costs,  implying  that  Desert Shield
       would last for  more  than  a year, perhaps that large  U.S.  forces
       would stay permanently in the Gulf. Just imagine the joy this crisis
       has brought to  U.S.  military  industries that only months ago were
       quaking over their survival in a post-Cold War world.

       Not six weeks passed after the Iraqi  invasion  before  the Pentagon
       proposed the largest  arms  sale  in history: $21 billion  worth  of
       hardware for defense  of  the Saudi Arabian throne. Very clever when
       you do the sums. With an increase  in price of $15 per barrel, which
       had already happened,  Saudi  Arabia stands to earn  more  than  $40
       billion extra dollars  during the 14 months from the invasion to the
       end of the next U.S. fiscal year.

       Pentagon calculations of Desert Shield costs come to $18 billion for
       the same 14 months. Even if the Saudis  paid  all  that,  which they
       won’t because of other contributors, they would have  more  than $20
       billion in windfall  income left over. O.K., bring that money to the
       States through weapon sales. That,  I suppose, is why the Saudi Arms
       sale instantly became known as the Defense Industry  Relief  Act  of
       1990.

       As for the price of oil, everyone knows that when it gets above $25-
       30 a barrel  it  becomes  counter-productive  for the Saudis and the
       Husseins and other producers. Alternative energy sources become

                                      Page 10

       attractive and conservation   again   becomes  fashionable.   Saddam
       Hussein accepted $21 in July, and  even  if, with control of Kuwait,
       he had been able to get the price up to $25, that  would  have  been
       manageable for the  United  States  and  other industrial economies.
       Instead, because of this crisis,  it’s  gone  over  $35 a barrel and
       even up to $40, threatening now to provoke a world  depression. With
       talk of peaceful  solutions,  like  Bush’s  speech to the UN General
       Assembly, they will coax the price  down,  but  not  before Bush and
       others in the  oil  industry  increase  their  already  considerable
       fortunes.

       Ah, but the  issue,  we’re  told,  is  not  the  price  of  oil,  or
       preservation of the  feudal  Gulf  regimes.  It’s  principle.  Naked
       aggression cannot be allowed, and no one can profit from it. This is
       why young American lives may be sacrificed.

       Same as Truman said in 1950, to justify dying for what was then, and
       for many tears  afterwards,  one  of  the  world’s  nastiest  police
       states. When I  read  that  Bush was putting out that line, I nearly
       choked.

       When George Bush attacks Saddam Hussein  for  “naked aggression”, he
       must think the world has no knowledge of United States  history – no
       memory at all.

                One thing we should never forget is that a nation’s
                foreign policy is a product of its domestic system.

       We should look  to  our domestic system for the reasons why Bush and
       his entourage need this crisis to  prevent  dismantling the national
       security state.

       First, we know  that  the  domestic  system in this  country  is  in
              crisis, and  that throughout history foreign crises have been
              manufactured, provoked, and  used  to  divert  attention from
              domestic troubles – a way of rallying people  around the flag
              in support of the government of the day.
              How convenient  now  for  deflecting  attention  from the S&L
              scandal, for example, to be  paid  not  by  the crooks but by
              ordinary, honest people.

       Second, we know that the system is not fair, that about one in three
              people are economically deprived, either in  absolute poverty
              or so close that they have no relief from want.
              We also  know  that  one  in  three Americans are illiterate,
              either totally or to the degree  that they cannot function in
              a society based on the written word.
              We also know that one in three Americans does not register to
              vote, and of those who register 20 percent don’t vote.
              This means  we  elect a president with about  25  percent  or
              slightly less  of the potential votes. The reasons why people
              don’t vote are complex, but  not  the  least  of them is that
              people know their vote doesn’t count.

       Third, we know  that  during  the  past  ten  years  these  domestic
              problems have  gotten  even  worse  thanks to the Reagan-Bush
              policy of  transferring  wealth  from  the  middle  and  poor
              classes to  the  wealthy,  while  cutting   back   on  social
              programs.

                                      Page 11

              Add to  this  the  usual  litany of crises: education, health
              care, environment, racism,  women’s  rights,  homophobia, the
              infrastructure, productivity,  research,  and   inability  to
              compete in  the  international  marketplace,  and  you  get a
              nation not only in crisis, but in decline as well.

       In certain senses that might not be  so bad, if it stimulates, as in
       the Soviet Union,  public  debate on the reasons.  But  the  picture
       suggests that continuation  of  foreign threats and crises is a good
       way to avoid  fundamental  reappraisal   of   the  domestic  system,
       starting where such a debate ought to start, with the  rules  of the
       game as laid down in the constitution.

       What can we  do?  Lots.  On  the  Gulf  crisis, it’s getting out the
       information on what’s  behind  it,  and  organizing  people  to  act
       against this intervention  and possible war. Through  many  existing
       organizations, such as  Pledge of Resistance, there must be a way to
       develop opposition that will make  itself  heard  and  seen  on  the
       streets of cities across the country.

       We should pressure  Congress and the media for answers  to  the  old
       question: During that week between Ambassador Glaspie’s meeting with
       Hussein, “What did  George know, when did he know it, and why didn’t
       he act publicly  and  privately  to  stop  the  invasion  before  it
       happened?” In getting the answer to that question,  we  should  show
       how the mainstream  media, in failing to do so, have performed their
       usual cheerleading role as the government’s information ministry.

       The point on the information side  is  to show the truth, reject the
       hypocrisy, and raise the domestic political cost to  Bush  and every
       political robot who  has  gone  along with him. At every point along
       the way we must not be intimidated  by those voices that will surely
       say: “You are helping that brute Saddam Hussein.” We are not helping
       Hussein, although some may be.

       Rather we are against a senseless destructive war based on greed and
       racism. We are for a peaceful, negotiated, diplomatic  solution that
       could include resolution   of  other  territorial  disputes  in  the
       region.  We are against militarist intervention and against a crisis
       that will allow continuing militarism  in  the United States. We are
       for conversion of the U.S. and indeed the world economy to peaceful,
       people-oriented purposes.

       In the long  run,  we  reject one-party elitist government,  and  we
       demand a new    constitution,    real    democracy,   with   popular
       participation in decision-making. In short, we want our own glasnost
       and restructuring here in the United  States.  If  popular movements
       can bring it to the Soviet Union, that monolithic tyranny, why can’t
       we here in the United States?

Information and Theories

Post navigation

Previous Post: Organ malfunction, a potential cause of disease
Next Post: 1989 BrainTheory Proven True

Related Posts

  • Creepy Crawly Facts , Large Insects Information and Theories
  • Owning a Piece of a Historical Death Information and Theories
  • Peak Oil : When Oil Crashes, Oil wil bring down the world Information and Theories
  • Warning: Scalar / Tesla experimentation health risks Information and Theories
  • Religious and Magical Uses of Vervain Information and Theories
  • Color theory explains what color is Information and Theories

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • Mahavatar Babaji: The Yogi alive for 2000 years
  • Spirituality and science conflict
  • Conspiracies and myths about spirituality
  • Know your Ki: Reiki
  • 10 amazing plants to promote spirituality and positivity

Recent Comments

No comments to show.

Archives

  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • May 2020
  • June 2018
  • February 2018
  • July 2016
  • May 2016
  • February 2016
  • September 2015
  • July 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • July 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003

Categories

  • Ancient Civilizations
  • Benjamin Fulford Story
  • Cryptology and Monsters
  • Eating Healthy
  • Ghost And Demons
  • Information and Theories
  • Mars Coverage
  • Meditation And Spirituality
  • Mysteries
  • NASA Articles
  • Other Exciting News
  • Personal Accounts
  • Pictures And Multimedia
  • Political Conspiracies
  • Recent Submissions
  • Religion Articles
  • Self Improvement
  • Simply Unexplainable
  • Space and Astrology
  • Technology Articles
  • True Stories
  • UFOs and Aliens
  • Unexplainable Video Library
  • Unexplainable Weather
  • Hot Dogs And Sausage Cause Cancer.. WHAT??? Meditation And Spirituality
  • The Ender Saga: A Noteworthy Science Fiction series Information and Theories
  • UFO Adbuctee Report UFOs and Aliens
  • Creature Discovery News of August 2010 Other Exciting News
  • Aromatics of the Ancient Egyptians Ancient Civilizations
  • What is Scrying? Meditation And Spirituality
  • The Shag Harbor UFO Incident UFOs and Aliens
  • Sleep Paralysis Information and Theories

Copyright © 2023 Unexplainable.net.

Powered by PressBook News Dark theme