&
MIDDLE EASTERN CHESSBOARD PART 2:
THE INVASION IRAQ

By: Paul Joseph Watson

Saddam Hussein may well have small stocks of chemical and biological 
weapons in his arsenal because we know from confirmed Senate 
reports that Donald Rumsfeld was dispatched as Ronald Reagan's 
envoy in 1983 to sell them to him. I have already covered how the 
U.S. government provided Saddam with the weapons they now use as a 
reason for wanting rid of him. My argument is not centered on whether 
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction because the war on Iraq is not 
about weapons of mass destruction and this is admitted by the 
government itself in its own policy documents.  

In the spring of 2002 many experts concluded that the war on Iraq 
would take place in the summer or at the latest the autumn of that 
year. Myself and others disputed this in stating that the war had 
been delayed until at least early 2003. How did we know?  

There is an internal fissure within the New World Order between what 
is known as the Anglo-American establishment and the European bloc. 
It is a contrast in ideology. The European power bloc, which is dominated 
by France and Germany, holds that a global government system can 
only be established without popular uprising in a piecemeal fashion. 
Policies and manufactured crises need to be broken down into bite-
sized chunks over a long period of time so as to gently acclimatize 
and lull people into accepting the New World Order. This is best 
represented by the European Union, which began as 'just a free trade 
zone' and over the course of time has slowly evolved into a giant 
centralized and unelected federal superstate.  

On the other hand you have the Anglo-American establishment 
dominated by Britain and America that seeks to forcefully impose the 
agenda swiftly and with an iron fist. They prefer to blow things up and 
immediately propose openly fascistic legislation crushing basic rights 
and liberties. The Europeans dislike this approach because they see it 
as rash and being more likely to stir up an awakening and a resistance 
to the agenda.  

The Europeans favour Aldous Huxley's Brave New World approach to 
conquering humanity, namely by conditioning the program into them. 
The Anglo-Americans favour the George Orwell 1984 approach, fear and 
terror to brutalize humanity into compliance. Both methods have been 
successful at different points in history and judging at what time to 
play which particular card is a constant headache to the Globalists. 
This is why there is often bitter infighting between the two factions 
and this inevitably spills out into the public arena.  

But the point to stress is that, despite there being two different 
strategy formats, the final goal is essentially the same. In the case 
of Iraq we had the Germans and the French supposedly "opposing" the 
invasion of Iraq and standing in the way of an American led attack. 
And yet if you took the time to read what the Germans and French were 
proposing, it was essentially the same as what the Americans and 
British were ultimately proposing, namely full scale United Nations 
occupation of the country. But before the occupation, the Americans 
and British wanted make a huge profit from sales of military hardware 
and equipment via Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Dick Cheney's Haliburton 
and of course they wanted full control of the oil fields. The Bush 
administration is awash with oilmen.  


This split within the New World Order was evident at the May/June 2002 
Bilderberg meeting. Veteran correspondent Jim Tucker of the American 
Free Press, utilized his informants within Bilderberg to ascertain that 
the war on Iraq had been postponed because it was considered to be 
too much of an impulsive manoeuvre,  

"The issue of America going to war in Iraq has been delayed, with the 
White House agreeing to wait at least until next year, instead of late 
summer or early fall, but many issues simmer at this year's secret 
Bilderberg meeting."

Bear in mind, this was at a time when the media were beating the war 
drums for a summer invasion. The amount of times these 'conspiracy 
theories' turn out to be accurate geopolitical forecasts is simply 
amazing!  

Tucker added further details about the role of Donald Rumsfeld in a 
subsequent report,

"Rumsfeld is known to have been summoned to reassure the Europeans 
there would be 'no immediate' U.S. invasion of Iraq as had been 
planned by the White House.  He was pressed, but refused to say, 
that the United States had no plans for future wars."

And so the timetable was set for a February/March 2003 war, which is 
precisely the time American and British forces were stationed and 
ready for a war. I repeated time and time again on my website that 
the war had been delayed while the media reported that the invasion 
was imminent. As I write in February 2003, the war has been delayed 
and might even be deferred beyond the March time frame.  

The decision to attack Iraq for the second time was made in September 
2000; even before the Bush administration came to power.  

This decision emerged from a report by the Project For a New American 
Century. THE PNAC describes itself as, "a non-profit educational 
organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that 
American leadership is good both for America and for the world; 
that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy 
and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders 
today are making the case for global leadership." After reading its 
proposals, I think they should carry a subtitle of, "we have no more 
enemies so to justify massively increased defense spending let's invent 
some". The organization and its goals are a precise example of the 
thinking behind the Anglo-American establishment bloc.  

The document is entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, 
Forces and Resources For a New Century" and was written for Dick 
Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. The participants of the 
project include Harvard University, John Hopkins University, the RAND 
Corporation and the Carnegie Corporation along with several military 
figures from the U.S. Naval War College. According to British Labour 
MP Tim Dalyell,  

"This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of 
their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans 
who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour 
Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this 
moral standing."

The report reads like a laundry list of imperial conquest. It calls 
for conquest of Iran, conquest of Syria, conquest of Libya, conquest 
of North Korea, militarization of space, "regime change in China", 
development of biological weapons to be used in war and a host of 
other colonial adventures which are summed up in their jargon as 
being 'simultaneous major theatre wars'.  

The most interesting section of the report relates to Iraq. The 
report states,

"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent 
role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with 
Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial 
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the 
regime of Saddam Hussein."

This is solid proof that the Bush administration's real intention 
behind invading Iraq is to impose its own geopolitical primacy and 
has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or the moral 
removal of Saddam Hussein. The report was picked up by the Sunday 
Herald and a handful of other news outlets but for some strange 
reason has received no attention in the mainstream American press.  

/CONT/

---