Oil & zionism; oil & Iraq: the chicken & egg problem. Which came first?
There is a plausible line of thought that the Rothschild vision for israel included a vital interest in the oil biz that began to unfold in the Middle East. Certainly in 1916-17 when the Balfour Declaration was being negotiated the M.E. was known to be rich in oil. While all sorts of rationalizations may have been argued for putting izzy where izzy is, somehow oil biz must have come into the calculations of whether the effort was worth it.
Then Iraq. The British regarded Iraq as the jewel in the Arab crown, with its water, oil, heritage and creative intelligent people. So that Iraq would not have everything that a rich country needed, the Brits carved off Kuwait taking with it Iraq's natural water frontage onto the Persian Gulf.
The zionists with their fanatical visions saw Iraq as a natural enemy standing in the way of eretz izzy. Included in this hatred of Iraq was its oil wealth. The izzies arranged or encouraged their yankee pitbull to raze Iraq.
It seems to me that the izzy-oil mixture can't be separated into either/or components. Noam is wrong to blame yankee oil barons (who would happily buy the stuff from arabs) for the mess in Iraq. Of course, now that the oil is seemingly up for grabs, grabbing is in order and the izzies & barons are doing that for sure.
Same for the Iran situation. Oil, Iran & izzies. Izzie hegemony is driving the story.
How has Israel subordinated itself to Washington's basic demands? It seems to me to be the case rather that the US has subordinated itself to Israel's.
Certainly in 1916-17 when the Balfour Declaration was being negotiated the M.E. was known to be rich in oil.
Not sure about this; T.E. Lawrence writes in Seven Pillars of Wisdom something to the effect that "fortunately for the Arabs, their lands were exclusively agricultural and pastoral, with no mineral resources, otherwise we should have had to move in and administer them." There's irony for you.
zionist neo-con thugs like chomsky make me sick.
Basra oil? I seem to recall the Brits occupied Iraq during WWI and were well aware of the oil there.
Maybe T.E.L. was thinking of somewhere else in Arabia.
History of Oil – Rob Newman
Firstly, he traces the history of nearly a century of Iraq policy. He tells the astonishing statistic that in the 95 years since oil was discovered in Iraq and a telegram was sent to the Glasgow office of Burma Oil saying “see psalm 104 verse 15 line 3” (“that He may bring forth out of the earth, oil, to make a cheerful countenance”) the United Kingdom has been at war with or occupying that particular country for 45 of them.
His contention that World War 1 should be taught in our schools as an invasion of Iraq seems outlandish at first but he is extremely convincing.
“I am sure many of you, like me, have never been entirely satisfied with the standard explanation we were given at secondary school for the causes and origins of WW1… the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand…I mean, NO ONE is that popular…The war breaks out, and remember it’s a war to defend plucky Belgian neutrality while the Belgians are pluckily defending Congolese rubber and ivory. The FIRST British regiment to be deployed in the First World War, the Dorset regiment, goes to…. Basra, 1914, where it is joined by 51 other British divisions.
“Therefore I think we can conclude that had Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon fought by the Tigris or the Euphrates instead of the Somme we would never have heard of them.
More:
http://www.spinwatch.org/content...t/view/3298/24/
That seems conclusive! Thanks, righteo.
Yeah, he's a devilish genius! 
He learned that from his father, the Devil!
No, I think Chomsky writes in good faith. He understands that Izzy has no right to exist, but cannot bring himself to face the fact that it is the nerve-centre of criminal empire, rather than just its servant.
Securing access to oil was too easy, rather than too difficult. It failed to produce the opportunity for wreaking havoc in the near east, so the jews had to find another way to wreak the havoc. That's happened over and over again.
U.S. Syria raid killed 80
07/17/03
http://tinyurl.com/6sr5o
A UPI report contends that the raid into Syria was set up by the Israelis in order to disrupt the cooperation between U.S. and Syrian intelligence agencies.
The report quotes serving administration officials and ex intelligence officers, in the now familiar pattern of leaks designed to embarass Rumsfeld and the Office of Special Plans.
One former senior CIA official with access to current intelligence information said he believed the source of the intelligence was Israel, which for months has said either Saddam or weapons of mass destruction were being smuggled into Syria.
[snip]
Serving and former U.S. intelligence officials attributed a political motive to the attacks, alleging they were designed to disrupt cooperation between the CIA and Syrian intelligence.
"Syria has given us invaluable help on hunting down members of al-Qaida, and they were instrumental in ex-filtrating some major Iraqi fugitives back to Baghdad," one former senior CIA official said. "That is not to everyone's liking."
[snip]
The CIA was also grateful to Damascus for giving early warning of a planned al-Qaida attack on U.S. installations in Bahrain, using an explosives-laden glider, which would be invisible to radar, according to these sources.
Senior Pentagon leaders, who administration officials describe as being very close to Israel, have been unhappy with the increasingly close CIA-Syria ties and used the June 18 attack to disrupt the CIA-Syrian intelligence relationship.
The most fundemental decision/event in thew creation of Israel(in my opinion)was (I think) in 1897 when
Baron Rothschild persuaded/coerced the British to change from Coal to Oil as fuel for the Royal navy after this was done it was only a matter of time..
Conversion of a battlefleet to oil has advantages over coal, so Rothschild wouldn't have had much persuading to do.
Righteo
"It seems to me that the izzy-oil mixture can't be separated into either/or components."
You betcha'. We have Pat Buchanan's pre-war "gotcha'" exposing the Tel Aviv emananting lies re WMDS via Dough Feith's OSP, "Whose War?"
still googleable in American Conservative Magazine.
We do not have similiar from
"fu__ the Jews" Jim Baker and daddy
Bush's Oil Lobby wing of the American
Establishment, all we have are
mumbled worries about what might go wrong from such as Scowcroft.
They abetted, they did not oppose.
Some history of Iraqi oil & UK & US imperial interests:
http://libcom.org/history/1904-2...history-of-
iraq
http://libcom.org/history/1904-2...history-of-
iraq
I agree that Chomsky vastly underplays the influence of the Israeli lobby.
Putting that aside, Chomsky's articles always contain something eye-popping, even for the informed among us:
For example, it’s widely reported when Ahmadinejad says that Israel shouldn’t exist-but there is silence when Khamenei says that Iran “shares a common view with Arab countries on the most important Islamic-Arabic issue, namely the issue of Palestine,” which would appear to mean that Iran accepts the Arab League position: full normalization of relations with Israel in terms of the international consensus on a two-state settlement that the U.S. and Israel continue to resist, almost alone
a short note about Syria - don't they want the Golan Heights back? (Which, by the way, won't happen anytime soon)/
Isn't that what Chomsky refers to when writing that they have failed to subordinate themselves to Washington's basic demands?
Golan is half of the problem. The other half is Syrian support for Palestinian resistance groups.
"Washington's basic demands" are:
1. Eliminating demands of compensation for Israeli crimes
2. Cutting off political and military support to the Palestinians
I only read the first two paragraphs. Over the last week I have spoken to a Syrian and a Jordanian. Both agree, that ""ALL"" Middle East leaders (inc Iran) are there at Washingtons`s behest.
This is much more conspiritorial than my own perspective. The only conclusion that I can come to, is that these leaders have a hard time doing what the NWO wants and what their peoples expect.
In order to secure Israel`s future, all local countries/peoples must be "converted".
This is what is happening in Iraq. Huge swathes of Iraqi men are being murdered by the NWO. Water, electricity and petrol are being witheld and it is now reported that 40% of Iraqi`s survive on less than $1.00 per day...Iraq has been privatised, its oil lies in US hands and through a program of assassination...all intellectual opposition has been removed. The NWO did the same in Indonesia by murdering 500,000!!
The same thing is happening in Gaza. The heart is being ripped out of local populations. Saddam did the same and he has likely retired to a US Mid-West ranch with his sons and a none stop supply of girls.
These Middle East leaders know the prize...a life of luxury in the US Mid-West.
Another example I can give you is Europes position over the Iraq invasion. We are led to believe certain European states were against the invasion of Iraq. I contend that this was just the public diet and I support this, knowing that many/most European states are in, just as deep as the US in its programme of "extraordinery rendition", torture and MK Ultra mind-control manufactured terrorists...
...we the questioners, must stop thinking its the US, UK and Israel only.
This is not to say that Iran won`t hit Israel with a nuke...this being the "classic" NWO sacrifice. Iran is leading Hamas to slaughter and they haven`t a clue whats going on.
Look at the chaos in Pakistan...why is this happening? Could it be that Musharraf has done his bit and needs a break...RETIREMENT...PAYOFF? Musharraf has done all he can to link Pakistanies with MI5/MI6 false flag attacks in the UK.
The extent on NWO control, is being "UNDER-PLAYED" by the alternative media...maybe they are in on the plot?
As to Chomsky, I have never trusted a word he has said or written...MIT in house prat!
"This is much more conspiritorial than my own perspective."
Writes also for Onion.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/20...007/
073007.html
The NYT's New Pro-War Propaganda
By Robert Parry
July 30, 2007
No need to wait until September. It’s already obvious how George W. Bush and his still-influential supporters in Washington will sell an open-ended U.S. military occupation of Iraq – just the way they always have: the war finally has turned the corner and withdrawal now would betray the troops by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
By the way, I'd like to let others know that when I posted my comment above (comment #2) my browser crashed. Funnily enough, whenever I post comments about Zionism/Israel my browser always seems to crash, either right then or when I try to return to the same page later. This is almost the only time my browser ever crashes.
How do you think the Zio-despots manage this?
Consider China who happily buys oil from Iran, etc. Oil-rich countries need to sell their oil, but since America has the monkey Israel on its back, the American government fears that countries will not reliably fill our oil needs unless we have troops in the area. In other words, a lot of them hate us. Of course, the hatred is compounded by our troops in the area. China, which is not saddled with the Israel monkey, and which is gleefully lending us hundreds of billions to fight the unnecessary unending wars (to benefit Israel) feels no need for Chinese troops in the area. Since the Israel Lobby controls the American media and the US politicians, the American public is unaware of the obvious solution, namely dissociating ourselves from Israel unless she agrees to a just solution, such as the Arab League Peace Plan, bringing about peace.
Re Giordan Smith saying his browser crashed while trying to post a comment to Xymphora, YES about a month ago for 2 weeks, each time I came to Xymphora, I could see the first screen but then I could not scroll or page down! I'd have to terminate that browser window (IE6 on a Windows XP Pro PC).
From today's Electronic Intifada:
...Perhaps the most tendentious of Olmert's promises is the "land for peace" deal with promises made and nothing delivered. Just more of the same. Sharon was a master at such dissembling tactics -- going along with the Quartet's Road Map for peace while he furiously and illegally engaged in new and expanding Jewish settlement building in the West Bank. The settlers he pulled out of Gaza in his much-lauded unilateral disengagement project are even now being re-settled illegally in the West Bank. Olmert's own propensity for such deceit on the settlement project was exposed last month in a Jerusalem Post news report that quoted a senior Israeli diplomat stating: "We are being sent abroad, quite simply to lie" and Peace Now Secretary-General Yariv Oppenheimer said that Olmert's government "had built more settlements than any previous government."
It is the ordinary people who are suffering nearly every human rights violation imaginable at the hands of Israel's army, the fanatical Jewish settlers and Israel's policy makers and spin doctors who have never seen the Palestinians as human beings. The world media fail to report Israel's crimes although it is absolutely clear that Israel has breached and continuous to breach international law. For the Palestinians living this cold and brutal reality, Israel's true intentions are very apparent.
One might have thought the appalling cruelty and bone-deep racism of the genocidal Zionist enterprise would attract some notice in the West, but apparently not.
A Clean Break (Protocols of the Dumb-ass Juniors of Zion) is my 2nd favorite forgery.
Giordan Smith | 07.31.07 - 9:24 pm
Take a look at Haloscan's cookies after a long session.
Xymph gets carried away here. Chomsky doesnt say half the things that Xymph claims. He doesnt say that Iranian rockets are the reason that Israel aattacked Lebanon. He says that's one of the "pretexts" that collapses upon examination. He doesnt say that Iran has started a nuclear weapons program; he says the US "instructed" Iran to do so by its own threats of attack. "Instructed" is typical Chomskian irony that anyone should recognize.
Chomsky doesnt "lead the reader away from the truth"; he simply has a different explanation for events, based on a broader sampling of the facts.
Xymph's usual sharp analysis abandons him here as he resorts to distortions and flimsy logic in order to attack an opponent.
close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and particularly Israel
Imo, another one of Chomskian linguistic contortions; why not close by are nuclear-armed Israel and Pakistan?
Because the Likudnik-at-large doesn't want to commit to truth:
1) Israel is nuclear-armed, and
2) Israel is the main, in fact, the only regional threat to Iran (and if USA were a sovereign nation, the only threat, full stop).
So, instead we get:
1) Pakistan is nuclear-armed, and
2) Israel is also a threat, btw.
He pretends to be a thinker, logician and liberal, all the while blowing air kisses to Meir Kahane's world.
Had Pat Tillman ever made it to the cherished meeting with Chomsky, he would have got 3 intellectual bullets, leaving him permanently brain damaged.
If the British hadnt changed from coal to oil perhaps
the last hundred years would have been fundamenmtally different.. if more research had been done on Coal perhaps Iraq would have had a much easier time of it and "Izzy" might not exist..
You can only look at it in a context of then and not now... Once oil became the key to world domination
Israel became the excuse to take control of it..
And the holocaust became a stunningly convenient way of settling it as European jews(before WW2))had no interest in going to the "desert" as they were much too well off...
Lobro
Chomsky's syntax is correct and means Israel is also nuclear-armed. When he
inserts particularly it also
emphasizes it.
It is only to be hoped Sunni/Shia rivalry is as benign as you paint it, during the period of Israel's existence.
chomsky: "when all others have deserted israel, i will be the last man standing with her."
i'm an amurderkin ranger
diving from the sky
i'm an invading stranger
killing for the lie
i'm an ignorant fool
raping for their rule
i'm a seeker of hate
rushing the armageddon date
wait
tillman, 3 to the head
for traitors we bled
wake up
sacrifice a jewcon
on an iraq hardon
chomsky: "get it out of your mind. forget it. this war is for oil. not for or because of any country (israel)."
jeremiah: "they (jewry) are skillful liars."
rumsfeld to congress re tillman:
"yes, we had him killed. he was becoming a problem. from hero to critic of our war. he saw through our lies. we could not let him continue and possibly undermine our brainwashing efforts against american troops. iraq was destroyed but needs to be kept in choas. this is the israeli plan. we carried it out. tillman and others are collateral."
chaos
This article proves what deep down we all really know: the only good kike is a DEAD one -and that very much includes Chomsky. We must locate these parasitical vermin wherever they "work" and live and give them the truly "FINAL" solution that they so richly deserve!
SAVE HUMANITY: KILL ALL JEWS!
Not so Ken.
Chomsky is a skillful image manipulator.
In his "correct" syntax, he uses 2 terms as a defensive buffer between his beloved Izzy and "nuclear-armed": "Pakistan" and "particularly".
It can easily be construed that
1) Pakistan is the only regional nuke power, and
2) Pakistan is the #1 threat (due to its nukes) but just possibly, Izzy may be more immediate (particular) threat.
Note that Pakistan presents absolutely no threat to Iran (let's see you argue that one Ken), so why mention it at all in the same breath as Izzy, if not to dilute and divert the focus?
As I said, this is typical Chomskian MO, obfuscate till the cows come home or IDF strikes, then pretend outrage in the best tradition of Jew theatre, screaming, beards and hair standing on end, bulging eyes while playing footsie under the table.
I note in passing that another poster figured that US instructed Iran to build a bomb as an example of Chomskian humor.
Maybe, but there is another view.
He may be implying that American anti-semitic Establishment, through its invasion of Iraq, against wishes of Chomsky, Perle, Feith and united Jewry, forced Iran into accelerated bomb building to spite Izzy and check its power.
That, imo, is vintage Chomsky, and if America is moronic enough (never underestimate their stupidity) to attack Iran, the blueprint for Jews washing hands of Persian blood - "we never, ever wanted this to happen".
With regard to the controversy over whether Israel or oil are the primary motivating factors: in 1948 both Secretary of State George Marshall and Secretary of Defense James Forrestal opposed Truman's decision to support the Zionist state because they knew that access to oil in Arab lands was of utmost importance. Unfortunately Truman, facing a tough election against Thomas E. Dewey, needed Jewish campaign contributions. See www.dundeesblog.blogspot.com blog entry"The Specialization of Politics" 6/24/07
Eleanor
But the current Secretaries did not oppose the Iraq War. And I wonder who can name the oiligarch who came to Pat Buchanan's defense when he cited
the Israeli connection in "Whose War?"
Lobro
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/04...osc.html?
page=3
Just one area of Pakistan-Iranian dispute. You're reaching.
http://www.acpr.org.il/English-N.../bogdanor-
4.htm
Schlomos
poets are given license to invent quotes?
Mossad did 7-7. MI-6 is british branch of Mossad. carl Jones needs 2 be rectified!!!
Ken, Balochistan rebels are funded by Mossad-CIA and their separatism is the cause of the problem. ALL Pakistanis I know have told me that AQ Khan and others were helping Iran with the development of nuclear energy. Nuclear weapons is not needed by Iran as the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini claimed that it was against Islam.
Ken, here is the $$ quote from your link, read carefully:
Tehran has also blamed Washington for the violence, drawing upon ABC and other media reports that have suggested secret US backing. Whether the reports are true or not, American analysts have long advised that Baloch separatists are a viable option to be used for exerting diplomatic pressure on Tehran.
As some of us here realize, Washington is a suburb of Tel Aviv.
Certainly, people in Tehran and Islamabad realize fully the nature of the beast.
You're not telling me anything I didn't know, Lobs.
I evidently am telling you something
you didn't know, which is with or without manipulation, there is still
innate possibility of warfare between Iran and Pakistan.
By the way, how difficult do you believe it would be to find Chomsky backing you on Empire meddling
with the Baluchis?
Salman Hossain | 08.01.07 - 6:24 pm
There is dispute,however, whether he was acting with or without government permisssion.
Lobro Salmanizing
"He may be implying that American anti-semitic Establishment, through its invasion of Iraq, against wishes of Chomsky, Perle, Feith and united Jewry, forced Iran into accelerated bomb building to spite Izzy and check its power."
Unfortunately, Perle is on record as supporting what Feith particularly lied about in supporting.
Pakistan and Iran have always had excellent relations, no reason to fight and many to cooperate.
Ken, you are blind to the reality of Chomsky being on the same side of the fence with Feith and Perle.
This type of hedging the bets has been practiced by the banking race for centuries so don't act like it is something unusual.
If there was an all star Zionist team, Chomsky would be the goalkeeper (and don't ask who the right wingers are).
Typically, after browbeating the Idiot In Chief to invade and dismember Iraq, they now offer him as the human sacrifice to the gods of spin in order to clear their name in time for the next perfidy - attacking Iran.
And after that is over, they will replay the same old and the public will devour it with the same unquestioning trust.
You think Chomsky would ever allow Perle or Wolfowitz or Feith or Pipes, Ledeen, Derschowitz and other Jewcon crew to suffer the consequences?
Not so long as there are assorted Bushes, Rumsfelds, Cheneys, Giulianis and McCains to bleed for the cause.
So, yeah, it's the Goy American Establishment, hang them high and let my people go.
Wake up Ken and smell the gefilte fish.
Every word that Chomsky utters is designed to provide a bolt hole for the rats in the case of the sinking ship.
But of course, every ship they successfully infest is doomed to sink at some predetermined point (sort of like Silverstein saying "pull it"), so there must be someone on the shore tossing the life belts to the Chosen Survivors. And that is Chomsky.
By the way, how difficult do you believe it would be to find Chomsky backing you on Empire meddling with the Baluchis?
Ken Hoop
Easy, so long as it is American Empire, but you will never hear him say anything about the Empire of the Zion, whose agenda he "feithfully" serves.
I think that the following lays to rest the bullshit about how American Establishment (read: non-jews) and their oil greed are responsible for Iraqi genocide.
In short, Israel commanded its branch office (Washington) to issue an official request if Israel would please be so kind as to accept deliveries of Iraqi oil by way of pipeline into Haifa.
Moreover,
The Prime Minister's Office, which views the pipeline to Haifa as a "bonus" the U.S. could give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-led campaign in Iraq, had asked the Americans for the official telegram.
Got that?
We unequivocally supported your sacrificing thousands of young troops and blowing your economy and world standing to smithereens in order to kill over a million Arabs to serve our geopolitical needs, and we will kindly accept Iraqi oil as token of your gratitude, so long as the American establishment accepts all the blame.
Jews, as everyone knows are kind, suffering people.
http://www.democracynow.org/arti...7/04/17/
1327203
Lobro
Your incompetence at consistent
effective analysis is one hint at a diffused and inchoate citizenry which allows Zionists to overacheive.
And naturally rather than admit your own shortsomings you resort to hyper-conspiracism to explain them away.
shortcomings.
What's most pathetic about people like Lobro is the "browbeaten" George Bush would throw him to the wolves
as fast as the Zionists.
That was yours truly.
Here we go again - wrong, wrong, wrong.
Iran and Syria are alllies - mainly because the U.S has designs on 'regime change' in both countries.
And the war was about oil - that's obvious - as is the need for regime change in Iran - which will be done at some point.
How you can say such tripe and offer absolutely no evidence is astonishing
Does Chomsky like Israel- yes. Is he a zionist -no.
Get over it...
Your bit about Hezbollah and rockets is absurd - not Chomsky.
The claim that the first time we heard about an attack on Iran was after the failed Israeli war on Lebanon is sheer idiocy.
What evidence are you offering for the Iraq invasion having a negative effect on U.S control of Iraqi oil?
That's laughable. Iraq is the largest U.S military base in the world - smack in the middle and bordering Iran.
That's control....
Zionists are a serious impediment to changing U.S foreign policy - and theirs and the AE's are more less the same- the destruction of arab nationalism.
And yes Zionist influence is growing - but it wasn't the prime motivation behind the Iraq war despite their hands being on it. If it was - the destruction of Iraq would have sufficed and lets move on to immedietly bombing Iran and Syria...
Anybody care to provide something tangible other than this conspiratorial crap to back up Xymph's assertions?
To understand why we invaded Iraq it's important to appreciate who pushed for it. This is well-documented in James Bamford's "A Pretext for War" and other books which identify the Pentagon (etc)neocons who cherry-picked the fake intelligence and their past Zionist histories promoting war with Iraq (etc). If our policies were solely based on ensuring an oil supply we would dump Israel and befriend Iran, etc.
Stevieb
Please direct your comments to lobro specifically,so he will understand he has the imperative of answering you, if he can, rather than hope the reader confuses him with me.
You are right and wrong ,alternately.
You underestimate The Lobby's contribution to the war push, just as some underestimate that of the
Empire's oiligarchy.
Israel is Zionist. The area
in question,with a de-rabbinicized legal system would no longer be Zionist. Nor would be the same area with equal rights across the board for Palestinians.
You are right about Iranian war talk
being longstanding but wrong about the ultimate outcome of regieme change. Won't happen.
Wrong about the status of the war as it relates to oil control, as long as the insurgency exists and probably thereafter.
Wrong about America already leaving if Zionist control here was decisive;the region's instability poses potential threats to Israel.
jewcons and their neopets and misc. zionists invent quotes. i'm a reporter.
last man standing defending israel is a zionist.
covering for israel makes one a zionist. diverting blame from israel makes one a zionist
chomsky is a zionist and jeremiah knows his kind well.
Schlomos
I rather agree with Smek who said those who parrot defeatism are defeatists. And those who present
the retreating as cohesively formidable are leaning in that direction.
http://www.acpr.org.il/English-N.../bogdanor-
4.htm
and again, for the defeatists
5 dancing shlomos | 08.03.07 - 4:47 pm
Sclomos has come near Salmanizing the Anglo sector of the ruling elite as Zionists, as they have done all of the above.
5 dancing shlomos | 08.03.07 - 4:46 pm
Do you believe it will be Bush or his lonely pet Scottie, Barney?
Ray McGovern says, repeatedly, the war was for Oil, Empire and Israel.
Schlomos believes the impossible.
(You can't be a third Jewish.)
Chompsky is the name and disinformation is the game.
Everybody knows that. (except Hoop of course)
All of the Chompskey articles are Kol-Nidre prayers.
Juan overcompensating ethnically here? Or are you a pseudonym's psudonym?
whatever oil is for israel. the empire controlled by jewry.
if it is it is.
Whoever posits motives of oil and Israel as exclusively self-contained and hence contradictory, beneficially-wise,is fooling himself.
How blinkered you are about Chomsky!!
Syria would like nothing better than to subordinate itself to Washington?
Are you off your rocker?
You mistake YOUR OPINION and Bashir's POLITICKING for substance!!
For one, Syria's BANKING and people-state-owned industry are not submitting to Wall-street dictate..
Mate, like Chomsky, stay with the facts and don't fall for the talk!!
the war has gravely reduced American control over Middle East oil,
how so, Mister Chomsky-hater?
In my book the occupier of Iraq now has a mole inside OPEC. Wall street is now firmly emplanted in the region.
What do you dream at night? Chomsky will have you on toast, mate!
Go back to school!! Listen/read to a Noam Chomsky talk from 1970 CLICK HERE
Commenting by HaloScan
