In an article in the Sunday, 7 April 2002, Observer Worldview, Nick Cohen proposes that, regarding the Arab world: "It's the oil, stupid. Anyone with half a brain knows that," and then procedes to debunk that myth but then goes even further to suggest that, well, maybe it is the oil after all. Or something like that.

I can sympathize.
 

Questions like . . .

Why, back in 1990, did the US ambasador to Iraq, April Glaspie, tell Saddam that the US was disinterested in any attack of Kuwait by Iraq? What possible reason could the US have for setting Saddam up for a fall??
    This may seem to be a minor detail, but it keeps bubbling to the surface. A year after the story was first published Ms Glaspie finally took the time from her busy schedule to deny it, and on 23 June 2002 -- 12 years later -- Alastaire Cooke dredged it up again on BBC Radio 4, this time rewriting Glaspie's statement to include a demand for a peaceful negotiations by Iraq.
    Still, the question remains. Why Iraq? It's easy enough to understand the US making trouble in South America, or even Africa, but the motive for fomenting unrest in the Middle East remain opaque.

What was the moral imperative for the US attack on Yugoslavia when there were so many other attrocities not, the least of which was the Rwandan massacre? Isn't that odd? A million dead in Rwanda and nobody in the US, a country bubbling with moral imperatives, even noticed but 38 dead in Yugoslavia is called "genocide."
   According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute there were 25 official wars going on at the end of 1998, and by December 1999, according to the Seattle Time, that number had increased to 28. But Yugoslavia was not listed. So where does the moral imperative come from.

And what is it with the US push to expand NATO? This is so bizarre that it provoked Molly Ivins flip out and write in 1998,  "This is so simple it's painful. Why are we expanding NATO at the very time when the reason [the fall of Russia -- Russia joined NATO in 1986] for its existence in the first place has disappeared? Hello? ... there's not a military reason in the world to expand NATO."

Curious isn't it? NATO was conceived as a defensive pact, not an aggressive pact. Yet since 1995, the US has furnished military aid to 19 countries in preparation for NATO expansion. Who is the enemy. Where is the agresor?

Why is it that the US is willing to spend, according to the Congressional Budget Office, $11.8 billion on NATO expansion with no agressor in sight? It was, after all, in 1951 that Eisenhower said that NATO "will have failed" if U.S. troops were in Europe a decade later. So now we're expanding?

When Russia fell the US press chattered relentlessly about the "Peace Dividend," because there were no enemies remaining. But within days suddenly the chattering stopped. What happened? Just as suddenly there's a need for yet more stealth bombers that the Pentagon didn't want, cost more than their weight in gold, have no mission, can't fly in the rain, and have to be stored in special climate-controlled hangars in Virginia.
    And then there's Star-Wars. Why the huge military buildup?

And why is it that after 9-11, "president" Bush demanded and got some $87 billion to fight "terrorism" ? How can this money fight "terrorism" if the most of it simply went to pay off old Pentagon bills? Is there another reason, like, the money was just one more in a long string of bailouts needed to prop up an economy perpetually on the edge of collapse and the "terrorism" excuse was invented as a political expedient? Could it be that "terrorism" is predicted to be a perpetual battle because the constant bailouts are a perpetual need?
 

Well, if you have these niggling questions, here's a url to brighten your day.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP111B.html
 

This one article finally put all pieces of the Americanization (usually inappropriately called Globalization) puzzle together for me. It is a review of a 1997 book by Zbigniew Brzezinski. It helps if you know who he is but the book reviewer explains the details. Briefly, he's the guru of US foreign affairs.

In 1963, just five years after becoming a US citizen (from Poland) Brzezinski was selected by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as one of America's Ten Outstanding Men and he's been in government, unelected, ever since. Read all about him at:
http://speakers.com/zbrzezinski.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brzezinski/

Want to know how and why he started the Russian/Afghan war?:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ac/11sept2001/amerika55.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/0198brzez.htm

The book, "The Grand Chessboard ? American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives," Basic Books, 1997, is Brzezinski's outline for US world domination. Here are some citations that the reviewer took from the book:
 

          ------ start citations ------

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book." (p. xiv)

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is EurasiaÉ and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained." (p.30)

"A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;É second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the aboveÉ (p. 40)

"ÉTo put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

"Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p. 124)

"Kazakhstan is the shield and Uzbekistan is the soul for the region's diverse national awakenings." (p.130)

"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130) "Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people. (p.132)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacyÉ" (p. 198)

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

          ------ end citations ------
 
 

Is this a conspiracy theory?

No, it's a conspiracy fact. It's hard to taunt people with jeering about "Conspiracy Theories" when the conspiacy is all mapped out by the conspirator himself.

So how is the Brzezinski plan working out?

According to information in an article by William Blum, it's doing well so far:
    "Following its bombing in Iraq, the US wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar.  Following its bombing of Yugoslavia, the US wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.  Following its bombing of Afganistan, Washington appears on course to wind up with military bases in Afganistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajkistan, Kyrgyzstan and perhaps elsewhere in the region."

If you plot these countries out on a map and add the19 new NATO countries, it's clear that the US has surrounded the Iraq/Iran area specifically and more generally, the Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan/Kazakhistan area. It would apper that the military is in place and the fireworks are about to commence. While the world sits, slack-jawed, and watches. This should be a definite boost to the US economy.
 

John Pilger: "There are many blueprints for the new imperialism, but none as cogent as that of Zbigniew Brzezinski,. . ."
    "Brzezinski's followers include John Negroponte, the mastermind of American terror in Central America under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, now Bush's ambassador to the United Nations. It was Negroponte who first warned the world, after September 11, that the US planned to attack any country it wished."
    "That the US in the only state on record to have been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism (in Nicaragua) and has vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on governments to observe international law, is unmentionable."
    "There is no terrorist sanctuary to compare with Florida, currently governed by the President's brother, Jeb. In his book Rogue State, former senior State Department official Bill Blum describes a typical Florida trial of three anti-Castro terrorists who had hijacked a plane to Miami at knifepoint. 'Even though the kidnapped pilot was brought back from Cuba to testify against the men,' he wrote, 'the defence simply told the jurors the man was lying, and the jury deliberated for less than an hour before acquitting the defendants.' "

Blum's book, Rogue State can be found at:
http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm
 
 

Thoughts?

Go to:
Walt's Page
Synergy Essays
Synergy Home