Michael Neumann
Sooner Rather Than Later
Neumann: One good thing about the argument is it captures the only good reason the US ever had for invading Iraq. Oil was a terrible reason, as events have shown. Profiteering was a terrible reason too: real defense companies learned long ago that you can make just as much money selling the government expensive stuff that shuffles off into obsolescence without ever being used. Much the same goes for other corporations. Halliburton has lost money every year of the war. Bechtel, the giant construction firm, has just cut and run itself. WMDs, no, not a great reason. Fighting terror, no, not a great reason either. The best reason for invading Iraq was the simplest, and probably the real reason. The US wanted someone, preferably 'Arabs', to fight. They couldn't find them in Afghanistan, so it seemed a good idea to put on a big show in Iraq. Why was that a good reason? Because the US, having been attacked very successfully on its own territory, had to scare off its enemies. It had to show it was strong, that it could crush, well, if not its attackers, at least someone, some country larger than Granada. Otherwise America's enemies would know it was not strong, but weak, and move in for the kill.
My Response: I am shaking my head in disbelief! This member of the International Jew is attempting to spin it so that in the end the reason for the war in Iraq that has claimed over one million lives and at least four million people left homeless is due to no reason at all, according to this so called 'Philosopher'. His statements are the kind where one is tempted to just shred the paper into pieces and dump the shreds into the dumpster. Is something wrong with the man? Is he that desperate to shield his tribal people, those that are the driving force for the war, that he resorts to absolutely insane statements as to what caused the war? Who is he addressing his nonsense to? Did anybody review this junk at Counterpunch before posting it?
Neumann: The best reason for invading Iraq was the simplest, and probably the real reason. The US wanted someone, preferably 'Arabs', to fight.
My Response: But why 'Arabs'? Why not Jews? Why not Christians? Why not Kenyans? Why Arabs? And he says they could not find them in Afghanistan. who are 'they' and who are 'them'. Aren't the Jews a major portion of 'they'? Did they not already bomb Afghanistan before attempting to 'find them'? This Jewish professor makes no sense at all. The war was started to makes the Jews' stolen state safer from an Arab country that was advancing technologically and after over a decade of punitive sanctions, the country was reduced to ruins, but International Jewry wanted it so decimated that it would remain comatose from here to eternity and thereby the glimmer of hope for 'Greater Isreal' for Europe's Ashkenazi Jewry is further enhanced. Why could this Jewish professor not say such true statements? Because he is a tribal Jew with loyalty to his tribe before the truth.
My Response: Oh, oh! The man must be insane. He goes on to say that America was attacked by its enemies (who happen to be the enemies of the Ashkenazi interlopers in Palestine. This Jew professor is also intending this article to remove any doubt from the official version of the 9-11 that not the Mossad but Arab pilot trainees attacked the twin towers with stunning precision. He also says that American decided to attack any country not necessarily those who attacked it just to scare off future enemies. Pause for a moment and let what this insane man is saying. Imagine someone attacked you at school or at work, and the next thing you do is look around for anyone passing by to attack so that it would serve as a warning for those who might want to attack you again. But aha, the real enemy is still loose, right? Is America as stupid as the professor wants to make it appear or is it the professor gibbering with absolute nonsense. I have never come across anyone who writes with such shattered logic as this man. There was a specific reason why Iran was attacked. We have many documents such as the Project for the New American Century,[2] The Zionist Plan for the Middle East by [3] A clean break - a new strategy for securing the realm [4] White Man's Burden [5] Israel's sacred terrorism [6] whose war by Patrick Buchanan [7] Jeff Blankfort interviewed by Silvia Cattori [8]. You will find links to all the documents sited here and they all point to one specific group of people who wanted the decimation of Arabs, and those people go by the name of 'Israelis'. But the Professor/Philosopher's goal is to misinform.
My Response: what country on earth except for the Jews' state would have the notion that America is weak enough to be attacked by any country? 'move in for a kill'? Is this man really sane? There are countries much stronger than any Arab country that would not dare to 'move in for a kill' that are equipped with nuclear weapons, so why would the learnt professor think that the Arabs nations that have been divided and impoverished since the arrival of Europe's Ashkenazi Jewry would want to face up with a major nuclear power?
Neumann: Despite this, the cut and run strategy is self-defeating, because it's already a confession of weakness. It's pathetic to have no better reason for a war than to prove one's ability to make war. Perhaps some very modest, very reticent country might really have such a need, but not a dumb-ass braggart country like America. If a country like that has to prove it can fight, it's got a problem, because it shouldn't have to prove anything. The 'number one country in the world' should have things under control before that sort of need ever arises. And if the need is so desperate that so much blood should be shed, not for any material gain, nor for any enduring strategic advantage, and despite the really enormous expenditure of money and good will--if the only reason to fight is such a desperate need to show one can fight, then it's the desperation that really shows up, not the ability to fight. And that's just the opposite of what is supposed to happen.
My Response: This professor is out of his freaking mind. He is so pathetic beyond belief. Can anyone really believe that a professor would write such absolute nonsense and garbage. what is he saying. Don't cut and run, because then it would show weakness? so stay? and fro how long? People should never lose of the fact that this man is a very afflicted emotional Jew and in the back of his mind, he is constantly thinking what option is best suited for his Jew state. So the reason for this tragic turn events is not for (a) material gain (b) not in accordance with World Jewry's lust for Greater Israel with the help of the 'great powers', not to demolish an Arab country that was developing technologically and might pose a threat to the European Ashkenazi interlopers, but according to the professor is 'a desperate need to show one can fight'? where has anyone heard such nonsense before?
Neumann: Now everyone is saying, what a mess. Maybe that's an understatement, because this is a major military defeat. It doesn't matter that mistakes were made in planning, or that there was no planning. It doesn't matter that the equipment wasn't what it should have been or that the tactics or strategy weren't what they should have been. Wars have been won with worse beginnings. But they really were won.
My Response: Did anyone understand the above? In essence what the Jewish man is saying is that the war machine against an already demolished Arab country that happens to be an enemy of world Zionist Jewry did not find the already impoverished Iraqi Arabs pathetic fighters, but rather determined resistance freedom fighters, it was not a cake walk as expected and he seems to regret that it was not . He believes better equipment might have done a better job, i.e. better able to slaughter more Iraqis with sophisticated Western killing machines.
Neumann: The US has not established military control over Iraq's capital, much less the whole country. That was its objective. The goal was not to eliminate the Iraqi army, never considered a threat, but to get Iraq under control so that, according to the administration, it would not threaten the US in the future--or, according to me, so the US could show itself capable of getting some country, somewhere, under control. The US failed to attain its objective, and not because of sunspot activity or an asteroid colliding with earth. It failed to obtain its objectives because there were people with guns in their hands who prevented the US from obtaining them.. I don't know whether these people won, but it is quite clear that the US lost. It did not attain those objectives and it won't.
My Response: There is no room for doubt that this Neumann man is an idiot. How did he get to become a professor, let alone a Philosopher? Why do the counterpunch people publish utter gibberish nonsense on their blog? I am so confused. He admits that the Iraqi army was never considered a threat, then what attack a country that is not a threat. He gets so silly and absurd, because the reason had to do with his Jew state, so he answers by saying "the US could show itself capable of getting some country, somewhere, under control." 'some country, somewhere'? is this the case of just throwing a dart at the glob and go after the land where the dart lands?
My Response: I will the link to this crazy article by what appears to be written by a crazy man, and the rest of his article is more of the same.
I was cleaning so much piled up printed material from two years ago, and unfortunately for me, I came across yet one more articles by the man who seems to be totally devoid of logical thinking. The way he writes is gibberish.