← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hilaire Belloc

American Soldiers: Who Are They Fighting For?

Thread ID: 12644 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2004-03-04

Wayback Archive

Hilaire Belloc [OP]

2004-03-04 04:15 | User Profile

[url]http://www.exilemm.com/e-sub-soldiers.shtml[/url]

American Soldiers: Who Are They Fighting For?

“The Middle Eastern conflict carries in itself the seeds of world war” - Historian Arnold Toynbee, 1972

As hundreds of American soldiers are now dying on foreign soil and thousands more are being placed in harm’s way, - the question must be asked and answered - who, or what, are they fighting for?

The federal government tells them that they are “serving their country” by fighting the “war on terror.”

To say that soldiers are “serving their country” should mean that they are defending the United States and its Constitution. Officers and enlisted men of the Armed Forces must take an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Therefore, a soldier’s “serving his country” should consist of defending the Constitution against its enemies.

The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war (Article 1, Section 8). But for decades, in violation of the Constitution, the President has decided when soldiers go to war.

According to the President, who are the enemies of the United States? Bush I sent American soldiers to war in Iraq and Somalia. Clinton sent American soldiers to war in Bosnia and Yugoslavia. Bush II sent American soldiers to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

None of those countries attacked the people of the United States or their Constitution. None of those countries should be considered our enemies.

But one organization has attacked the United States on two known occasions over the past ten years - the al Qaeda organization headed up by Osama bin Laden. On September 11, 2001, his organization killed over three thousand innocent American civilians. Bin Laden is an indiscriminate murderer, a true terrorist and enemy of the United States.

But so far, the search for bin Laden has been less than a sideshow in the “war on terror.” How could this happen if bin Laden is the only true enemy of the United States?

Bin Laden and his organization are from Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the nineteen September 11 hijackers were from Saudi Arable.

Yet, in the “war on terror,” Saudi Arabia is almost the only Middle Eastern nation against which the Bush II administration has not made or threatened war. In fact, the reverse has occurred. Months ago, Donald Rumsfeld ordered that American troops already stationed in Saudi Arable be withdrawn and moved to Qatar.

And Osama bin Laden has somehow eluded capture since his first attack on the United States in 1993. Even though the United States occupies the first nation where he sought refuge - Afghanistan. Even though Donald Rumsfeld knew the precise location of his second in command, Mullah Omar, in Afghanistan. Even though the other nation where he may have sought refuge - Pakistan - is run by Bush II’s supposed best Muslim ally, General Pervis Musharraf.

Are American soldiers really fighting the ‘war on terror” in order to capture bin Laden and punish any government that supported him and al Qaeda?

To say that the the Bush II administration is uninterested in capturing bin Laden would be to overstate the case. But it would be fair to say they have reasons for not trying.

The Bush II “war on terrorism” is serving other agendas that take precedence over the search for bin Laden. These agendas have nothing to do with protecting the United States and defending its Constitution.

Let’s take a look at the real agendas behind the war on terrorism, the real reasons why American soldiers are dying on foreign soil.

1. Zionism: Due to strong Zionist influence in “both major parties”, Zionism is the most powerful force behind the “war on terror.”

In the Republican Party, this influence is exerted by the so-called “neo-conservatives”, a code word for Zionists. Also, the Republican Party’s Christian base includes some strong supporters of Zionism. While the “left behind” crowd has had little or no success persuading the Republican party to implement a pro-life agenda, it has provided popular support and a populist cover for the “neo-conservative” agenda.

In the Democratic Party, Zionist influence is exerted by the many American Jews who traditionally exercise leadership roles in that party. An example is Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos, who has publicly consoled Israelis by assuring them that the American military will avenge attacks on Israel.

Bush II recently admitted that he had no intelligence (the CIA kind) that Saddam Hussein assisted in the September 11 attacks against the United States. So how did the search for bin Laden in Afghanistan become the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?

Zionists in the Bush II administration replaced the war on terrorists who attacked the United States with a war on terrorists who attacked Israel. While no evidence linked Saddam Hussein to bin Laden and al Qaeda, plenty of evidence showed that Saddam Hussein supported and rewarded Palestinian terrorism against Israel.

The enmity between Saddam Hussein and Israel is long-standing. Many Americans remember that in 1983, Israel itself attacked and destroyed a nuclear power plant in Iraq using American made fighter jets.

Less well known is the fact that many Zionists harbor territorial ambitions to Iraq. The father of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, believed that the modern State of Israel should extend to the West Bank of the Euphrates River, located in Iraq. The Zionist interest in Iraq can be traced back to the substantial and prosperous Jewish community in Babylon, part of modern day Iraq. The first version of the Talmud, Judaism’s Holy Scripture, was compiled there.

Iran and Syria are two other nations that, as far as we know, did not assist bin Laden and al Qaeda. Nor is there evidence that either nation harbors “weapons of mass destruction.” But both nations are right at the top of Bush II’s hit list in the ‘war on terror.” The same two nations top the Israeli hit list as well. Last week, Israel bombed Syria.

Bush speechwriters included North Korea with Iran and Iraq on the famed “axis of evil”. But this appears to be a rhetorical tactic designed to deflect criticism that the “war on terror” is a “war on Islam”. Bush II has shown little or no interest in confronting North Korea even though North Korea recently announced that it is actively pursuing nuclear missile capability. The rest of the Republicrats and the media also appear to be ignoring North Korea.

They are ignoring North Korea because American soldiers aren’t being deployed to protect Americans from terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. American soldiers are being deployed to protect Israel, and Zionists don’t give a hoot about North Korea.

1. Oil

Oil companies set the second most influential agenda behind the “war on terror.” Paul Sperry’s new book, Crude Politics, describes the close ties between the oil industry and the Bush I and II administrations. Sperry demonstrates that the Bush II campaign in Afghanistan was more concerned about opening up Caspian Sea oil reserves than capturing Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. But Sperry’s book does not examine Israeli influence in the war on terror because his book’s publisher, World Net Daily, is owned and operated by ardent Christian Zionists.

Being the world’s largest and “friendliest” petroleum exporter accounts for why Saudi Arabia is not targeted for the “war on terror,” despite being home to bin Laden, al Qaeda and fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. The Saudi royal family has long-standing business relationships with American oil and financial companies going back to the 1930s, when it granted oil development right to Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company. Today, the Saudi oil company Aramco teams with Texaco, Chevron, Shell, Mobil and other American-based oil companies to refine and market Saudi oil. Financial elites have a large stake in maintaining “friendly” relations with Saudi Arabia. Saudi influence has been especially acute in the three Ford/Bush administrations, in which Nelson Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger have played prominent roles.

Naturally, the oil industry, like the Zionists, is uninterested in North Korea. Thus, the “war on terror” is busy ignoring the only nation that it is fact being run by a madman equipped with weapons of mass destruction.

1. New World Order

Underlying the particularized agendas of Zionism and Oil are the more generalized imperatives of the emerging New World Order. The New World Order believes that fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity pose similar threats to its agenda of population control. This agenda relentlessly seeks to legalize and promote contraception, abortion and homosexuality. This agenda also seeks to undermine women’s traditional roles of motherhood and childbearing and to substitute “feminist” ideals of “women’s liberation” and “women in the workplace.”

Devout Christians, Jews and Muslims oppose this population control agenda as violative of God’s law. At United Nations conferences, the Catholic Church and various Islamic countries voiced joint opposition to this population control agenda.

The deChristianization of Europe has lowered birthrates to below the replacement rate. But birthrates in Muslim nations still remain high. United Nations statistics project that Iran and Iraq will grow from 90 million in 2000 to 136 million in 2025. The same statistics project that Muslim nations in Central Asia, including Afghanistan, will increase from 78 million to 117 million. The New World Order wants to put on the brakes.

Notwithstanding its many protests to the contrary, the “War on Terror,” is in truth a war on fundamentalist Islam. Bush II declared victory in Afghanistan not after capturing bin Laden, but after “liberating” Afghan women from the Taliban. And in Iraq, his puppet government has already appointed that nation’s first female police officers, a move that has angered potentially friendly Shite clerics.

Preparations are underway for the delivery of anti-Islamic propaganda. Last week, “Operation Iraqi Freedom” pulled the plug on al Jazeera broadcasts in Iraq, and announced they would be replaced with our own federal government’s “Middle Eastern Network.”

Conclusion:

Bin Laden remains at large and continues to threaten United States citizens in videotapes and through spokesmen. But neither the media nor the Republicrats seem particularly interested in hunting him down. He appears to be too useful for them as bait - attracting public support for a “war on terror” that masks agendas otherwise incapable of commanding public support. Elites know that the American people, even in their currently propagandized and dumbed downed state, will not voluntarily go to war for Zionism, Oil and Population Control.

If bin Laden were to be captured tomorrow, how would our rulers rally public support for these agendas? How could they persuade Americans to register for and support the coming military draft unless a menace to public safety such as bin Laden continues to be on the loose? The “weapons of mass destruction” approach has already been tried, and has failed. And the “enforcing U.N. resolutions” approach holds scant appeal for most Americans.

So if these agendas are to be served, the ‘war on terror” must continue. And an uncaptured Osama bin Laden is the truly indispensable man in the ‘war on terror.”

**American soldiers - Who are they fighting for? Not for their country, not for their Constitution. Not even to protect their families and friends. They are dying to protect Israel. They are dying to make the Middle East and Central Asia safe for oil development. They are dying to further the atheistic, population control agenda of the New World Order. **

Why should Christians voluntarily serve in the United States Armed Forces, Reserves, or National Guard?

Why should Christians fight and possibly die for these agendas?

Why shouldn’t Christians fight for Jesus Christ?

X - In Hoc Signo Vinces

Luke Exilarch - [email]luke@eXilemm.com[/email] October 10, 2003

Franco

2004-03-04 05:18 | User Profile

Good post.

JoseyWales

2004-04-05 00:04 | User Profile

here here !

xmetalhead

2004-04-05 12:56 | User Profile

Excellent post. As we've been all saying here since before the war in Iraq, our despicable government LIED to it's people about going to war against Saddam. Like this article says, and subsequent testimonies from insiders (eg. Clarke), Saddam's crime was support for Palestine, therefore a problem for ISRAEL. Our demented government could never sell that war on those reasons. Some people have debated with me saying "well, the gov. had serious reasons for waging that war, and they can't say it out loud but they had their reasons"....and I say, "bullcrap, not when men are dying, losing limbs, families destroyed for reasons the gov. can't or won't tell us?!?!?!?! I thought this country was by the people, for the people?!?"

The United States (in service to Israel) is an ubelievable disgrace in the world today. We are going to be shamed in Iraq to an extent that makes the Vietnam debacle look honorable.

Sing with me people, "Bye, bye Miss American Pie/drove my chevy to the levee but the levee was dry/them good ole boys were drinking whiskey and rye/singing this'll be the day that I die"

JoseyWales

2004-04-07 03:49 | User Profile

xmetalhead - that picture in your sig line is quite a distraction.i have trouble concentrating after i see your post.