COMMENT: "US and Israel's 'common cause'" COM_002-01Mar2003.html Wednesday, 19-Mar-2003.

This comment was provoked by a BBC news analysis article called "US and Israel's 'common cause'". You can find the article published in "daybydaywithVOA_4-01Mar2003.html" under the March listing in the World News Section of this web site.

Although there is a strong effort on objectivity in this BBC news analysis article it fails to hide the disapproval of the writer that peace through force and occupation is always wrong. Although the writer does not say this, the article exposes this bias by what it does not say that is highly relevant to the issues at stake in both Palestine as well and Iraq. Often the real or core issues as oppossed to the issues set out for the public are at stake. The public may not understand or even believe the real or core issues but they might be more comfortable with the secondary issues which form a subset of the core issues.

There are issues in life that if compromised end up in the long term negatively affecting human survival, progress, and well-being. The UN is unable to deal with many of these core issues because of conflicting agendas that the nations of the world bring into the UN. The present scope of the UN is now a mutation of the original purpose. The original purpose was to maintain the status quo and prevent rogue nations from establishing sufficient power to be world threats such as what happened with Nazi Germany. But this foundation was badly flawed and so have been any efforts to revise this foundation.

The UN has now become a place where nations and blocs of nations attempt to move world opinion and action on their behalf. It is this inherent inability to resolve major issues on a global scale that accounts for the demise of the UN. There are those in the UN that believe that discussion and negotiation involving compromise will solve all human problems. These people are fools, what I mean is that I don't think they know what they are talking about. Unfortunately the only language some people and nations do undertand is the language of violence and force that they practice on a daily basis. These tyrants such as Saddam Hussein use discussion and negotiation involving compromise in order to pave the way for their own form of aggression while calling their opponents aggressors. This helps to confuse the general public. And this is the behavior of Iraq under the regime of Suddam Hussein.

If the regime in Iraq is not deactivated it will become another Nazi Germany bent on world domination through force and intimidation. Laugh if you will. Before it lost the war after invading Kuwait it had one of the biggest armies in the world which it paid for from it's oil revenues. It had the resources but not the military experience to win that war. It was badly outclassed by the USA. But another Nazi Germany is almost guaranteed by the social mindset in Iraq as programmed into that society by an evil and ruthless regime.

Iraq has the second and possibly the largest resource of oil in the world. That promises in the future great wealth and power to whatever government controls Iraq. The regime of Saddam Hussein is self perpetuating. We are talking about enough wealth to rival the economy of the USA and Europe put together. The oil reserves in Iraq will outlast those everywhere else in the world unless new major reserves are discovered. In this case the entire economy of the world would be at the mercy of Iraqi oil prices under control of an evil and ruthless regime.

For certain the USA and UK would be on the Iraqi hit list. The Iraqi government could through preferential trading practices bring down the economies of the USA and UK and any other country that got in their way. We are talking here of war through economic manipulation. This is also why France, Germany, and Russia have been busy in bartering and making multi billion dollar agreements with Saddam Hussein while the Americans and British were making sacrifices by protecting the no fly zone.

This trio of France, Germany, and Russia betrayed the USA and UK in an effort to launch an EU under their control and which would eventually in conjunction with Iraqi oil price manipulation sink the American and UK economies leaving this trio as the world power. France and Germany masked their real agenda of economic dominance in collusion with Iraq and pretended to the world that they were only interested in peace. And they appealed to the widespread notion that compromise and negotiation will virtually solve every problem. That made war sound evil and non justifiable unless a response to aggression. This is a big lie as the trio knew. Also, they were able to use the UN inspectors inability to find major weapons of mass destruction as a way of getting Iraq off the hook.

Obviously if Iraq were to disarm as resolution 1441 required then it could never be in the position of becoming a major world power using the wealth of its oil reserves but it could still practice manipulation of world economies through preferential oil pricing. Iraq could compete with the present oil cartell or even dominate that cartell but not with the Americans or British interfering with their growth as a nation.

Saddam Hussein miscalculated that there would be sufficent will from any country, including the USA, to go the distance and get rid of his regime. France made explicit efforts to weaken the internationl threat of force by publically stating to the world and to Iraq that they would veto any action of force. Not only this, but because the international position was so weakened the Security Council had opened themselves to two different and irreconcilable agendas. France began to lobby other nations around their position and so did the USA and the UK. While doing this France continued to assure Iraq that UN intervention by force had no chance of occuring. This was not only a betrayal on the part of France it was also a skillfully manipulated effort at ensuring the oil resources of Iraq would flow to the EU and not to the USA or UK. In addition, France, Germany, and Russian economies would benefit by major development projects planned and some underway, with Iraq.

Most of the world sensed in some way that oil was at the root of this conflict. It is but not in a way most people can appreciate or even believe. That is why such agendas as just explained are secret. How did all of this escape this analysis in this BBC analysis report? This is the problem with biased reporting. The reporters get emotionally involved and their mindset affects what they can see and limits how far they can see.

Unfortunately, the world has geared itself to oil in order to power industry. China, Japan, Korea, and virtually all the countries in the world rely heavily on oil. Therefore, making compromises today with the Iraqi regime will in the long term mean the destruction of some of the major societies of the world by the hand of the Iraqi regime.

And if we now turn to the case of Palestine, making compromises with those bent on the destruction of Israel consists of the same kind of long term foolishness. Compromise has its place but it also does not have a place on major issues that affect overall social well-being.