Thursday, June 05, 2008

Bush: Seleucus VII Petro-Euergetes

My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger...

George W Bush, March 19, 2003: Address to the American People

Those words, uttered over five years ago, form the basis of the Bush Doctrine or orthodoxy with respect to Iraq. Note we were going to disarm a tyrant and free Iraq's people. Not to stay and occupy into the foreseeable future, rather to provide a future for Iraqis they were not going to have otherwise. It was not about oil, it was not about geopolitical considerations it was about weapons of mass destruction and freedom for the Iraqis. Indeed the operation was monikered "Operation Iraqi Freedom", one of those nonsensical names that governments and their Military arms are so fond of.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

George W Bush, March 19, 2003: Address to the American People.

That is a line that has been run many times since in one guise or another. This is the religious ritual of the occupation: it is all in the name of Iraqi freedom; the spreading of democracy; the right of "ordinary" Iraqis' rights to live as they choose and without fear of persecution; that "ordinary" Iraqis might choose their own destiny and enjoy the freedoms that we in the west take for granted. We know, we know - we've heard many times and in many forms.

God forbid that it was ever motivated by the current world hegemon to secure its access to that resource which drives its industrial economy. Nor that it was ever motivated by that hegemon's geopolitical concern for a "landed" or "rooted" presence in a vitally strategic area of the world. Never let it be stated that the world hegemon might have driven this policy for resource and political security concerns. that might be too frank by far.

Today's Independent (Patrick Cockburn - a journo who has done a hell of a job these five over years) is reporting the leaking of the terms of the Bush White House's "Strategic Alliance" that it is currently forcing upon the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. A government hobbled within and without Iraq due to its zimmer-frame reliance upon US backing and increasingly viewed as "puppet" in nature. Should this deal be signed that view will be confirmed as if raised upon a new ziggurat in Babylon.

Essentially this is requiring the signing off for the continuation of the US presence in Iraq, operating from over fifty bases, for the foreseeable future. Too, it will require the Iraqi government to cede its control of Iraqi airspace (below 29,000 feet) to the US as well as to allow it to carry on its war on terror from the bases already mentioned. There is more, to quote Cockburn:

American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

This is, for all intents and purposes, what currently obtains in Iraq. Interesting that US forces should require such "immunity". The demands that the current mercenary - and lets be real here: "contractor" is simply a tasteless euphemism for those used to fight for pay in Angola and elsewhere - forces in the country want similar are absolutely unsurprising and raises serious ethical issues.

Should the Iraqi government sign this - and the pressure before the Us election will be immense - it will consign itself to the vassal status that this province has enjoyed under so many hegemonic and imperial boots in its past. The Persians set the table and the Macedonians wrote the cookbook: the locals are there to serve their implanted betters and their governments, whilst tolerated, are merely vassal or client in status.

We can then welcome, for a short time (nothing new there) the latest Seleucid Emperor: Seleucus VII Bush Petro-Euergetes ("Euergetes" in the Greek being "preserver")

Labels: ,


Anonymous justice_via_truth said...

fact vs. lies ...

 .. goodies vs. bad


G'day Damian(and others; see below),

 .. and what a fine kettle of (rather stinky[1]) fish you refer to!

Without naming names - it's not *who* says it, so much as *what* is said, with the refinement that it's not only *what* is said but also heavily *how* - I'd like to reflect a bit, on the 'state of play.'


In the beginning was the revulsion, as the US planned "Shockin' whore" for Iraq was revealed.

Then came the howls of protest: "Leave it to Blix!" "No war!" - "Not in my name!"

But we the sheople®, our fine democracy's voters were spurned, called a mob.

And so the awful witnessing began; who knows how many murdered ('obliterated'), and others' lives destroyed, and how many hapless collaterals 'only' terrorised? But they are 'the other,' so little respected that (this time around) no body counts are revealed, if any done at all.

We 'tracked' the invasion (illegal), as it was morphed into occupation (brutal), we saw Bremer's orders promulgated and now we await the 'oil-law' (patrimony) and 'security pact' (sovereignty) to complete the stage-setting for the ultimate oil-theft. Of course it wasn't *only* oil - undeniable though it is but still a major key (aka war must pay); it's inseparable from the not-so-small matter of permanent military bases, and last but certainly not least, the Zionist (filthy, wet) dreams of a "Greater Israel." But what we see is what we're gunna get, and that is the Middle East dominated by the wannabe hegemon, its illegal sprog and poodle with dag hanging on.


So. Throughout, I have maintained that I am a seeker of truth; the idea being to expose the lies, reveal the truth, and thereby to seek the justice owing to all. Back now, to the kettle of rather stinky fish; I (as others) have encountered opposition during my quest for justice via truth, and it's always puzzled me, Q: "What's in it for them?"

Seems to me there are two possible answers:

A1: Money. (This involves corruption; any in this 'bucket' would naturally deny it, and feign outrage.)

A2: Not money, in which case, what then? Before we attempt an answer here, recall that as a seeker of truth, I claim to have discovered much, the largest aspect (IMHO) being 'murder for oil,' the others being mentioned above. So now, any (A2) answer involves lies (to spell it out, lies in opposition to my discovered truth), and I posit that only (erroneous!) ideology fits. But whatever. Here is a quote - thanks to Bob Wall and g'day! The quote is a bit long:

  «“They are so frightened of their own complicity in bringing death, disaster, destruction and ungodly sorrow to Iraq that they can now only resort to astonishing levels of self-delusion to maintain their sanity.”

America, and likely the human race, is undergoing a polarization today that looks suspiciously like the way cellular material gathers at both ends of its capsular playground just prior to mitosis. One camp is making the evolutionary bet that a cooperative enterprise, based on a recognition of universal rights and collective effort, is the way to go. Such beings display qualities of conscience: altruism, responsibility, even guilt. The other camp remains committed to the law of fang and claw, betting that their survival is best vested in dominance and destruction of their competitors i.e. everybody not themselves. We are in an ongoing process of speciation, which is to say that given time, we will evolve into two distinct animals unless one of us proves unviable. It will be easier to tell us apart when we become morphologically distinct and unable to exchange genetic material.

My point is that the belligerents of group 2 are congenitally without conscience or remorse for the sorrow and destruction they cause. It just isn’t in them. When you talk to them about these things - the plight of Mexican immigrants, the suffering of Palestinians, the victims of the Iraq occupation - you may get some boilerplate arguments and justifications, though these are oddly unaccompanied by even a hint of empathy or concern for their fellow man. Such concern is mere poetry to them. Hippie nonsense. They do not struggle with this, or repress their complicity or sandbag themselves behind delusional ideation. They sleep like babies. This is the sign of true monstrosity, that you do not know you are a monster. You go down to the mead hall, eat a half dozen vikings, then go back to your cave for a nice nap.»

[voxclamantis June 6th, 2008 1:58 pm]


So now we know some critical things about the anti-truth opposition - or at least, we can get a good idea from that quote. Following on from «eat a half dozen vikings», it may be worth something at this point to look up 'blood libel.' Although this in turn may well spur a few rants on anti-Semitism, it is not so meant; rather to fix/enhance the context which is criminal, bloody murder. Further: I make no accusations that do not automatically follow from that which is directly observable, which in this case is murder for spoil; i.e. murder for oil by the US in Iraq (Iran next?) - and murder for land and water by Israel in and around the now sadly, mainly ex-Palestine.

IF we have criminal, bloody mass-murder going on (I say directly observable) THEN who will bring the perpetrators to justice? UN? France? Germany? They all seem to have piked, but if it's not one of those three, then who?

I see only one real possibility: people-power. But then, see the referred-to opposition. Boo! Hiss!


To come full circle, and return to the fine kettle of stinky fish, I have a quote and a challenge:

1. Quote: «...old chap, does it matter if PM is JW? After all JW was a non de plume as well.»

2. You know who you are, so to the challenge:

a) IF this statement is not truthful, THEN you are a liar. (Add own qualifiers, i.e. filthy, bloody etc..)

b) IF it is the truth (my 'tip'), THEN how do you know, and what *else* do you know?

So which it? Note: I do not expect an answer; IF the person were at all honest THEN s/he would'a cleared this up looong ago - or perhaps the whole sad story may never even have happened. The quote shows an utter liar (unlikely, why lie at all? Why this lie?) - or someone up to their armpits in a conspiracy; we know where that conspiracy originated, and where it was played out. I bring it up for the specific purpose of illustrating the gross ethical failures that *swamp* 'that other place, over there.'



[1] «or a fine kettle of fish! - meaning that some awkward state of affairs has arisen.»

[cross posted]

8/6/08 5:27 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home