The American Voice
There is considerable argument over whether war is over oil or not. The oil companies have swayed military contractors into believing that it is a religious war. The Muslims believe the Christians and the Jews wish to genocide them. Christians and Jews believe that Muslims wish to genocide them.
Historically, the oil companies were behind the Military's move to take Palestinians out of their homes illegally and at gunpoint and put Jewish refugees in their homes instead. This was done in the wake of Hitler's atrocities against the Jews and the world ignored the injustice to the Palestinians. This gave England and the US a military foothold in the Middle East and Israel has continued to receive more financial assistance than any other country in the world since.
There are many causes for wars. However, the conflict in the Middle East involves oil at it's root according to many world leaders. The article below is tantamount to an admission from the Pentagon that war is over oil. Many Christians may believe this is a race or a religious war, they are being told this while simultaneously they are told to support US energy policy.
There is no US energy policy. In the US, breakthough energy answers that replace oil are being suppressed by the oil companies with the US goverment acting as a hired hand. This is an illegal suppression of world improvement technology and a monopolistic interference in the natural market of supply and demand.
True Christianity should be more hopeful. We should not be in a hurry for apocalypse and destruction. Also, if you wished to stop the Muslims you would replace oil with alternative energy, super efficient energy answers and with suppressed "free" energy answers. This would stop the primary reason for the economic advance of the Muslim part of the world in this war over "strategic assets", another euphemism for oil.
Clearly the only conscionable energy policy for the Department of Energy is to support a replacement to oil which would cripple the enemy. Instead they are the ones in charge of releasing uranium to be placed in ammunition and explosives, ruining the soil in a manner that appears genocidal in nature and murderous to our own troops. The only conscionable strategy for the Department of Defense is to replace oil as much as possible in order to crumble the enemy. The suppression of alternative breakthroughs is extremely Un-American.
HomeOil wars Pentagon's policy since 1999
By Ritt Goldstein
A top-level United States policy document has emerged that explicitly confirms the Defence Department's readiness to fight an oil war.
May 20 2003
Oil conflicts over production facilities and transport routes, particularly in the Persian Gulf and Caspian regions, are specifically envisaged. Although the policy does not forecast imminent US military conflict, it vividly highlights how the highest levels of the US Defence community accepted the waging of an oil war as a legitimate military option.
Strategic Assessment also forecasts that if an oil "problem" arises, "US forces might be used to ensure adequate supplies".
The Bush Administration has stated that providing for US energy needs is a priority. Strategic Assessment was prepared by the Institute for National Strategic Studies, part of the US Department of Defence's National Defence University. The institute lists its primary mission as policy research and analysis for the Joint Chiefs, the Defence Secretary, and a variety of government security and defence bodies.
According to the report, national security depends on successful engagement in the global economy, so national defence no longer means protecting the nation from military threats alone, but economic challenges, too. The fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s brought an end to the US's ideological basis for potential conflict. In 1992 Bill Clinton urged that "Our economic strength must become a central defining element of our national security policy".
Since then, members of the Bush Administration have promoted the need for the consolidation of the Cold War victory. In what many may see as an apparent parallel to present events, Strategic Assessment 1999 drew attention to pre-World War II Britain's pursuit of an approach where control over territory was seen as essential to ensuring resource supplies. However, the Defence Department policymakers behind Strategic Assessment also appear to recognise the potential consequences of such policies.
The authors warn that if the great powers return to the 19th century approach of securing resources, of conquering resource suppliers, the world economy will suffer and world politics will become more tense.
All donations will help us continue to inform Americans and the world about the truth of the vaporization and coal coverups.
