American G.I.s in Iraq




Hello again, and welcome back to this edition of American Dissident Voices, the Internet radio program of the National Alliance. I'm your host and Chairman of the Alliance, Erich Gliebe.

Even the indictment of Black Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick for allegations that he is part of a dogfighting ring hasn't completely been able to get people's minds off the war in Iraq. Vick's indictment made big headlines early last week -- especially on the all-sports television stations like ESPN -- and on Monday, National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell told Vick not to report to the Falcons' training camp, which opened this past Thursday. It sounds like Vick has used some of the $130 million from the contract extension that he signed in 2004 to do some disagreeable things: betting on dogs to fight and kill each other, and himself killing dogs that had either proved themselves to be lemons in the fighting ring or who had just outlived their usefulness. So while Vick's story has temporary appeal and will live on as long as there is something new to report, even the most mainstream of the Joe and Jill Sixpacks in America realize that the Iraq War has more significance, a lot more significance, even if they don't understand the war and even if they don't pay attention to it.

But millions of Americans DO pay attention to the Iraq War. Every American knows of someone who either has served or is currently serving in Iraq. The war is in the news every day, both on the screen and in print. The American death toll is constantly updated, and brief descriptions of the latest suicide bombings and the approximate number of Iraqi deaths in each of those bombings are given, although it is interesting that almost never is the estimated TOTAL Iraqi death count for the entire war given, for that would be a number that would REALLY unhinge most Americans. And virtually every day, it's the same story. More Americans and Iraqis are dying and more taxpayers' money is wasted. And all the while, Iraq is no closer to becoming the more-or-less stable country that it was under Saddam Hussein.

There is a lot of resistance to George W. Bush and his insane war effort. Resistance is evident everywhere, especially on the Internet. I've seen anti-war demonstrations, anti-war bumper stickers, anti-war letters to the editor, and anti-war Web sites. Talk shows are flooded with callers critical of the war. Comedy Central's cartoon spoof of the Chief Executive, Lil' Bush, devoted an entire episode to mocking Young George's effort to find something positive about the war in Iraq. All of that opposition can probably be best summed up in President Bush's nationwide approval ratings which, to the best of my recollection, have been in or near the 30s for a couple of years now.

Concern about the war was also evident in the questions asked of the Democratic presidential hopefuls during the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate. For those of you who missed it, the debate was between all of the Democrats who are jockeying for the chance to run for the White House next year. Voters were encouraged to make YouTube videos in which they would pose questions to the candidates. Not every candidate answered every question, but the theme of the war was very strong in the questions that were chosen for the debate.

The key point that voters centered on in the debate dealt with WHEN the American troops are going to come home from Iraq. After all, the Democrats swept the 2006 Congressional elections on the platform that they would work to bring the troops home, and some voters are starting to get a little antsy about the apparent lack of progress in that regard. In the CNN/YouTube debate, the Democratic hopefuls varied in their degree of commitment to bringing the troops home, but all were careful to tell the audience what it wanted to hear, which is that each of them would work to bring the boys home. To have done otherwise would have been to throw in the towel even before the first primary.

So it is clear that the vast majority of Americans want to bring the troops home as soon as possible. This is an odd occurrence in itself: to have an overwhelming majority of the citizens in our fragmented and multiracial culture agree on one side of an issue. Unfortunately, even in a democracy (in which the majority is supposed to rule) that desire doesn't always translate into effective action. This fact merely emphasizes a point that many American White racialists have tried to make for many decades now, and that is that democracy doesn't work because it CAN'T work.

Democracy can't work because not only are a majority of people incapable of knowing what short-term actions are best for the society in the long-term, but even if the majority DO agree on something… it's not up to them. A minority always has the power, in any society. Let me say that again: A minority ALWAYS has the power, in any society.

In the United States today, for example, it is the predominantly Jewish media that wield the power, despite all claims of the advocates of democracy to the contrary. We White racialists, and the men and women of the National Alliance in particular, want to replace the minority that presently governs -- with its values of materialism and multiracialism -- with a minority that governs based on its values of racial integrity and racial progress. In other words, not only will the content of our White racial homeland differ from that of today's society (in the sense that our homeland will be a Whites-only homeland) but the guiding principles that drive the society will be vastly different as well.

Anyway, let's get back to the situation in Iraq. At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I'm going to talk about Iraq again today. I don't how many times I've stated on this program the objection that the National Alliance had to invading Iraq in the first place, but it's been quite a few, so I hope you'll pardon me for venturing into that subject again. However, what I'm going to do today is to briefly summarize what's been said before, and then spend most of our time looking at Iraq from a perspective that most White Americans rarely, if ever, do: the Jewish perspective -- in particular, the perspective of a few farsighted Jews who are sensing that Saddam's downfall might not be as good for Israel as every Jew hoped in March of 2003.

Before George W. Bush sent in the armor more than four years ago, Iraq was a relatively stable country. True, its leader, Saddam Hussein, had used a few strong-arm tactics to seize power and maintain order, but that seemed like just about the only way that the various factions within Iraq -- like the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shi'ites -- could be made to live together. The preachy folks in the West gasp in horror at the atrocities committed by Saddam's regime against fellow Iraqis, but those atrocities are nowhere near the atrocities brought upon the Iraqis as a result of George W. Bush's war of aggression in Iraq. Despite all of his faults, no one has ever accused Saddam of being responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths. George W. Bush can't make the same claim.

Anyway, after September 11, 2001, the American people were in a mood for revenge. This mood was partially a natural reaction to the events of 9/11 and partially an emotion manufactured by the American Jewish media. After all, because the 9/11 terrorists were Muslim extremists -- who probably dislike the Jews more than most White racialists -- any backlash from the American public was bound to strike against that enemy of the Jews. So the Jewish media saw no harm in fanning the flames of anger against anyone and everyone related to Middle Eastern Muslims. If someone is out to get one of your enemies, you might as well help them. That's the position the Jews found themselves in after 9/11.

One strong Middle Eastern Muslim was Saddam Hussein, and he had been a pain in the backside of Israel ever since he began to influence the affairs of Iraq back in 1968. And since Saddam's regime in Iraq was the only major power in the Middle East that had any chance (however slim) of competing militarily with Israel, certain Jews in positions of power in the government and the media decided that George W. Bush was the type of man that they could easily convince to send American troops into Iraq. Through Bush, the Jews would be able to destroy or at least soundly defeat one of their hated enemies. Israel would certainly appreciate being able to breathe a little easier.

And so all of the lies were cooked up, lies that were so great that White American Joe and Jill Sixpack couldn't believe that someone would be so brazen as to make them up, and that therefore they must be true. Lies like the one about Saddam having financed the 9/11 hijackers. Lies like the one about Saddam's boundless stores of weapons of mass destruction. Lies like the one about Saddam acquiring uranium from somewhere in Africa.

At the time that these lies were being actively pushed by George Bush and the Jewish media, no one in the public knew they were lies, of course. But while most of America bristled in indignation at Saddam's alleged aggression, we in the National Alliance kept asking, "Where is the evidence? How can we be sure that we aren't being lied to?" Unfortunately -- but not uncharacteristically -- the Jewish media ignored us, and so the only way we could express our doubts was through our Alliance Internet outreach programs and our printed materials. As a result, few Americans heard our message of doubt. And today, now that nobody believes in any of those lies that were fed to us by Bush and the Jewish media, nobody talks about them, either. It's as if they are forgotten.

But once you've been lied to by someone, you have a hard time trusting him again. Or at least you SHOULD have a hard time trusting him. That's the message in the old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." In other words: You shouldn't have lied to me the first time, but if I get suckered in by your lies again, then it's my fault and I should have known better. So, because George W. Bush and the Jewish media have been documented to lie to us in the past, we should be very leery of ANYTHING we hear today from these two anti-White sources.

In fact, the only thing we hear today from Bush is that we need to stay the course in Iraq. What EXACTLY that course is, no one seems to know. As best I can gather, it has something to do with the point in time when the Iraqis are able to maintain stability in their own country, but no one seems to define WHAT conditions must exist to constitute "stability" and, moreover, no one seems to have any good estimate as to WHEN that needed stability will materialize. You know, five years ago when Saddam was in power, they HAD stability in Iraq, but that was no good for Israel. I guess you just can't please some people.

Well, that does it for summarizing what's been said before on these American Dissident Voices broadcasts. Now, I'd like to borrow heavily from an article by Orly Halpern that was first printed in the January 5, 2007 edition of the Jewish Daily Forward. The article is entitled "Israeli Experts Say Middle East Was Safer With Saddam in Iraq," and it can still be found online at http://www.forward.com. It was written more than six months ago, during the week following Saddam's execution by hanging, and it has some interesting things to say about how Israel's position in the Middle East has been affected by the downfall of Saddam and the collapse of order in Iraq.

It was only a year after Israel had crushed the combined Arab armies in the Six-Day War of 1967 that Saddam's Ba'athist revolutionaries took power. Not surprisingly, Saddam took the attitude of the rest of the Arab community at that time and openly opposed Israel. Of the 17 suspected spies that were rounded up and executed in Iraq following the war, nine of them were Jews.

During most of the 1970s, according to Halpern's article, Saddam continued to lash out against Israel and the Jews. He made life difficult for Jews living in Iraq and was a strong supporter of the militant Palestinian group, the Arab Liberation Front, which carried out bombings of Israel from southern Lebanon. Saddam took complete control of Iraq in 1979, and he continued in his Jew-oppressing ways. In 1981, Israel, alarmed at Iraq's alleged nuclear program, used that alarm as an excuse to destroy the Iraqi facility at Osirak. At this point, Saddam's list of Jewish friends -- both in the Middle East and in the West -- was a very short list indeed.

But shortly into the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, Saddam softened his stance on the Jews. For one thing, he stopped targeting Jews who lived in Iraq. I quote from Halpern's article:

"Jews in Iraq were now protected by a special unit and had a phone number to call if harassed. 'Nobody could touch us,' said Emad Levy, who lived in Iraq at the time."

In addition, during the 1980s, while maintaining his position that the Palestinians must have a homeland, Saddam also added:

"It is also necessary to have a state of security for the Israelis."

He also began to tighten Iraq's ties with Egypt, which had previously been on Saddam's hit list for courting favor with Israel. Finally, at this time, Halpern states:

"Iraq's government-controlled newspapers began using the word 'Israel' in place of 'the Zionist enemy.'"

So Saddam was warming up a little to Israel, in a diplomatic sort of way.

So how does this softening add up with regard to Iraq's Scud missile bombings of Israel during the Gulf War? Yoram Meital, a professor of Middle East studies at Ben-Gurion University, has a possible answer that we don't hear much about in the controlled news media. As quoted in Halpern's article in the Jewish Daily Forward, Meital stated:

" 'Iraq attacked Israel in the first Gulf War in order to cause Israel to attack Iraq and bring the disintegration of the international coalition against Iraq' by prompting Arab states to withdraw."

So Saddam's main purpose was to break up the coalition of the rest of the Arab states against Iraq, not to inflict major damage on Israel.

Anyway, at the time of the American invasion of Iraq in March of 2003, it appeared as if Israel had nothing to lose and everything to gain. But now that Saddam is gone and Iraq is a country in shambles, a few observers in Israel are beginning to wonder if the Zionist state is better off than before. Halpern's article of January 5 begins as follows:

"Although few tears were shed in Israel over Saddam Hussein's death last week, a small but growing chorus -- including government officials, academics and Iraqi émigrés -- is warning that Israel could find itself in more danger with him gone, and that it might even regret having welcomed his toppling."

Yuval Diskin, the director of the Shin Bet security service, is quoted as having said:

"When you dismantle a system in which there is a despot who controls his people by force, you have chaos… I'm not sure we won't miss Saddam."

Halpern's article continues:

" 'If I knew then what I know today, I would not have recommended going to war, because Saddam was far less dangerous than I thought,' said Haifa University political scientist Amatzia Baram, one of Israel's leading Iraq experts."

Later in the article, Baram says he did not anticipate the escalation of terrorist activity throughout Iraq and in the neighboring Arab states, describing it as being "much, much more than I expected."

The last paragraph of the article sums up the fears of forethinking Israelis such as Eitan Barak, a political scientist from Hebrew University:

" 'Saddam's regime was preferable -- not only for us but for all the states in the region, except for maybe the Iranians," Barak said. "Saddam held together a divided, tribal, hostile state of Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds. He was a single man who made all decisions, and he was a rational leader. The moment he was gone, everything fell apart.' "

That's bad news for American troops in the Middle East. Shortly after the Democrats swept into the Congress at the tail end of last year, I suggested on one of these broadcasts that, now that Israel's enemy Saddam was out of power and the once-strong nation of Iraq was in chaos, the Jews might actually be willing to allow George W. Bush to bring the troops home. After all, I suggested at the time, perhaps the Jews are happy now that Israel is safe from harm.

Now, I'm not so sure. It sounds to me now that some Jews have been thinking for a number of months that chaos in Iraq is NO GOOD for Israel, because chaos in Iraq only makes the rest of the Jew-hating Middle East more restless. And for now, the only way that a lid can be kept on the chaos in Iraq is for American troops to stay there and die there, and for American taxpayers and American families to pay for it with their money and their loved ones' blood.

So the careful evading about the war that some of the Democratic presidential candidates were doing during the CNN/YouTube debate is starting to make sense. It sounds to me as if their advisors made it clear to them that, in the debate, they need to state and re-state their commitment to bringing the troops home, but to be noncommittal as to exactly when that would be.

The Jews around George W. Bush and the Jews in the American media got us into the Iraq War to save Israel, and now we might never get out… for the very same reason.

I'm Erich Gliebe. Thanks for being with me today.