Title:
PRESIDENT BUSH'S IRAQ FIASCO IS STRENGTHENING THE UNITED NATIONS! Title:
PRESIDENT BUSH'S IRAQ FIASCO IS STRENGTHENING THE UNITED NATIONS!
| Resources to aid your Understanding |
|
|
Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones!
Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again.
YOU ARE NOW ON
THE CUTTING EDGE
Dialectic Struggle Over Iraq
All through the year, 2002, and through mid-March, 2003, President Bush was deliberately carrying out a vigorous "Dialectic Struggle" with the United Nations over whether to invade Iraq. President Bush argued that Saddam Hussein was one of the most evil men on earth and that our intelligence services were absolutely positive that he possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction; British Prime Minister Tony Blair even quantified this threat by saying that Saddam could unleash his WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) within 45 minutes ["Intelligence chief: Dossier exaggerated the case for war -- concerns over both content and source of key 45-minute claim", Independent.co.uk, 04 September 2003].
The United Nations, on the other hand, insisted that such claims were without merit for its arms inspectors had been searching Iraq periodically since 1991 and had found nothing that would support Bush's position. In the weeks prior to the Iraq invasion launch [March 20, 2003], U.S. intelligence officials even told U.N. arms inspectors exactly where in Iraq they should look for WMD; however, when inspectors went to that location, they still found nothing. Just as American and British forces were launching their attack, U.N. Chief Arms Inspector Blix announced that Iraq possessed no WMD and that invading forces would not find any.
President Bush and British Prime Minister Blair exercised their National Sovereignty rights as individual sovereign leaders to order the attack on Iraq. The U.N., on the other hand, was asserting their professed Global Sovereignty in resisting the attack on Iraq. For the past 100 years, New World Order writings have attacked the issue of National Sovereignty, saying that this concept had to be destroyed forever if the world community was ever to live in "Peace and Safety". The concept of National Sovereignty is based upon patriotism, otherwise known as the "Nationalistic Spirit"; therefore, patriotism is often spoken of synonymously with National Sovereignty. Let us examine some of New World Order writings that tell of the "evil nature" of nationalism and national sovereignty.
"Intense nationalism was one of the prime movers in bringing about this war (written, January 1941) and no nation has been exempt from this spirit of national pride and from a nationalistic, separative outlook. Selfish interests have controlled the reasons for which every nation has entered this war ... In the future, the contributory factor in life must be emphasized and developed and the good of the entire family of nations must be substituted for the good of one nation or a group of nations ... The family of nations, viewed as a unit ... must be the realised goal of all national enterprise and the resources of the entire planet must be shared collectively ... belonging to the whole of mankind and to no one nation exclusively. No nation liveth unto itself ... the nation or individual who attempts to do so must inevitably perish off the face of the earth." ["The Externalisation of the Hierarchy", by Alice Bailey - channeling the demon, Master D.K. - page 372-374]
Key phrase: "the nation or individual who attempts to do so must inevitably perish off the face of the earth."
One more quote is important:
"In the preparatory period for the New World Order, there will be a steady and regulated disarmament. It will not be optional. No nation will be permitted to produce and organise any equipment for destructive purposes or to infringe upon the security of any other nation." [Ibid., p. 191]
Key Phrase: "No nation will be permitted"
Therefore, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were committing grievous error in the minds of the globalists at the United Nations when they overrode the objections of the U.N. to launch their invasion. From the beginning of the invasion, Cutting Edge pointed out that, if Bush/Blair were wildly successful with their invasion, with no significant downside effects, National Sovereignty would get such a popular boost that the Globalist agenda of the United Nations might be severely imperiled! Citizens would declare that Bush/Blair were right and the United Nations wrong, and insist that no more attention be paid to the globalist designs of that world body.
But, the Illuminati deliberately started two world wars in the 20th Century (Read NEWS1056) for the express purpose of eliminating individual sovereign states in favor of the global government known as the United Nations! Furthermore, the preparations for the Third World War -- the war that will actually produce Antichrist -- have been meticulously laid. Israel and her Arab protagonists seem nearly ready to go to all-out war. After nearly 100 years of such meticulous preparation, it makes no sense whatsoever for Bush and Blair to deliberately start a war that would undermine everything that the Illuminati has been working toward!
In the end, the invasion of Iraq must be viewed as disastrous.
Explanation of the Dialectic Process
Before we get into the
meat of our article, let us examine how the "Dialectic Process" works
so we can see how it applies to this Iraq scenario that has been carried out since
early 2002. The Dialectic Process was an hypothetical proposition publicly originated
in 1823 by a German professor, Hegel, who stated that the only two constants in
the world were change, and that conflict was inevitable from opposing forces.
Hegel pronounced that "Conflict produces Change, and that Controlled
Conflict Produces Controlled Change". Therefore, if one wants to
reach a certain controlled end result, he would best be served if he could create
a conflict between opposing parties.
The two parties to this planned conflict are known as "Thesis" and "Antithesis". When Thesis battles Antithesis -- and neither side destroys the other -- the end result will be neither Thesis nor Antithesis, but a new system called "Synthesis". A formula could thus be created:
Thesis x Antithesis = Synthesis
In this controlled Dialectic struggle, America and Great Britain fulfilled the role of "Thesis", while the world body -- the United Nations -- fulfilled the role of "Antithesis". The "Synthesis" system desired from this staged conflict would be the goal enumerated by Alice Bailey's demonic Guiding Spirit, Master D.K.:
"No nation will be permitted to produce and organise any equipment for destructive purposes or to infringe upon the security of any other nation."
Since the United States has been awash with a new sense of Patriotism since the 9/11 attacks, it is going to be very difficult to persuade us and others who feel patriotic toward their nation to abandon patriotism and embrace the new world view that the United Nations is supreme. Some event must occur that will be so terrible and so offensive to all patriots throughout the world that they will collectively want to abandon their feelings of nationalism; the peoples of the world must rapidly go from intense nationalism to equally intense loathing of nationalism.
What event could cause such a rapid and decisive "paradigm shift" in thinking? What if the Iraq war -- entered into nationalistically and against the globalism of the United Nations -- were to cause a disastrous World War III with great loss of life and liberty? Would that do it? When Antichrist comes striding out of the dust and destruction of this Third World War, he will vociferously declare that all wars have been caused by intense patriotism. He would insist that all patriotism end now, being supplanted by the love of the global system. He will be able to fuel this paradigm shift with his great charisma and his "lying signs and wonders".
Where are we now in this Dialectic Process? We apparently are at the point where the Iraq war is beginning to be seen as a disaster, but before the world is launched into a global war. In this interim stage, the United Nations must have its public credibility restored, with Bush and Blair increasingly seen as being dead wrong in starting this war against the collective judgment of the community of nations.
IN THE BEGINNING -- BUSH DECLARES U.N. "IRRELEVANT"
Fully five months before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush began calling the United Nations abusive names that called in question its very existence. Bush was, in effect, "calling down the manhood" of the world body. Listen:
NEWS BRIEF: "Bush: U.N. Must Support New Policy on Inspections in Iraq, or Become Irrelevant", By Wendy Ross, Washington File White House Correspondent, U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs, 3 October 2002, http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/usandun/02100301.htm
"Washington -- The United Nations must support a tough new inspection policy that ensures the disarmament of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, or itself risk becoming irrelevant, President Bush said October 3. 'We'll see whether or not the United Nations will be the United Nations or the League of Nations when it comes to dealing with this man who for 11 years has thumbed his nose at resolution after resolution after resolution after resolution,' Bush said in remarks at a White House event for Hispanic leaders."
The President continues:
"My intent, of course, is for the United Nations to do its job ... My intent is for the world to understand that the obligation is up to Saddam Hussein to disarm like he said he would do. My intent is to put together a vast coalition of countries who understand the threat of Saddam Hussein,' Bush said. 'The military option is my last choice, not my first .... ," the president said. "But Saddam has got to understand, the United Nations must know, that the will of this country is strong."
At this point in time, President Bush is only hinting that he will take direct action if the U.N. did not take the action he wanted. He used the strong action words, "got to understand", and finished his sentence by telling the U.N. that, if it does not attack Saddam to bring him down, the "will of this country" is strong enough to allow Bush to attack Iraq on his own.
The president continues:
"The choice is up to the United Nations to show its resolve. The choice is up to Saddam Hussein to fulfill his word. And if neither of them acts, the United States, in deliberate fashion, will lead a coalition to take away the world's worst weapons from one of the world's worst leaders,' Bush said."
Now, Bush stops hinting that he will attack Iraq if the U.N. does not; he comes right out to say he will. He uses a catchy phrase to emphasize the terrible threat that Saddam poses to the rest of the world: "take away the world's worst weapons from one of the world's worst leaders". To this point, no "world's worst weapons" has been found, and that is causing increasingly difficult political problems.
Now, the president actually uses the nasty "I" word:
"Both President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell are 'optimistic, that at the end of the day, the world will see the issue' as they do, Fleischer said, and as President Bush laid out in his September 12 speech to the United Nations General Assembly, 'because the President cannot imagine that the United Nations wants to make itself irrelevant'."
As the time for war approached, even the Israeli Intelligence Chief struck a provocative pose against the United Nations.
NEWS BRIEF: "Israel Intelligence chief: UN veto would not prevent war", The Jerusalem Post, 9 March 2003
"A UN Security Council veto would not stop the US from launching a war to disarm Iraq, the chief of Israeli military intelligence said today. Maj.-Gen. Aharon Ze'evi (Farkash) made the assessment in a briefing to the Israeli cabinet. He predicted a war would likely erupt by next week. The US and Britain are expected to call for a new Security Council vote this week to set a March 17 deadline for Iraq to comply with a resolution demanding that it disarm of weapons of mass destruction."
U.S. Resorts To "Dirty Tactics" To Force U.N. Compliance
One of the more interesting incidents of disinformation came on the very eve of the American-led invasion. The U.N. was about to cast a final vote on the Iraq attack resolution. Bush was adamantly in favor of the resolution, while key permanent Security Council members were resisting.
NEWS BRIEF: "Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war: Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members", Guardian Unlimited, Sunday March 2, 2003.
"The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq. Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer ... The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia."
From the beginning, we viewed this article as just so much disinformation, and we still do. Nevertheless, it is valuable for it portrays the "Pro-National Sovereignty" group as being desperate to win U.N. approval, so desperate they are willing to resort to despicable actions that will open this country to ridicule and disdain from other countries throughout the world. When our invasion turns really sour and ugly, many nations are going to remember our strong-arm tactics and feel really angry against us.
Secretary of State Colin Powell weighed in against the United Nations, in effect calling them "irrelevant" also.
NEWS BRIEF: "Powell: U.S. Ready for War, With or Without U.N.", Fox News, March 5, 2003.
"MOSCOW — Secretary of State Colin Powell told Russia's state-controlled television that the United States was prepared to lead a war against Iraq with or without the consent of the United Nations ... Powell explained that Russia and the United States were divided over both the usefulness of further weapons inspections and the scale of the threat Iraq poses to the world."
This last statement captures the essence of the debate between the U.S. and the United Nations. America was "convinced" that Saddam possessed these terrible weapons while the U.N. was adamant that he did not.
The Cost of NOT Bringing Down Saddam
As the debate raged over whether the cost of attacking Saddam was worth the cost, President Bush adopted a strategy proposed by one of his "Think Tanks".
NEWS
BRIEF: "Study: Costs of Inaction Against Iraq Add Up", Fox News, Monday,
March 03, 2003
"WASHINGTON — Much discussion lately has been centered on the expenses a war with Iraq will incur, but some analysts are pointing out that the cost of not making war may be greater than the cost of a conflict. With Saddam Hussein building and hiding weapons, President Bush repeated to members of a conservative think tank last week a theory he frequently paraphrases. 'This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country,' the president said. The Brookings Institution said the number of lives lost in another attack on the United States could be phenomenal. Their recent study shows that as many as 10,000 people could perish in a successful attack on a U.S. chemical or nuclear power plant; a nuclear bomb detonated in a major U.S. city could claim the lives of 100,000 people."
Just a couple of months later, we admitted
that we never did have solid information that Saddam was ever connected to 9/11
or to Osama bin Laden ("This war on terrorism is bogus: The 9/11 attacks
gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination",
Michael Meacher, Saturday September 6, 2003, The Guardian; also read, "Why
war? The case hasn't been made", The Jerusalem Post, March 11,
2003)
On the eve of the invasion, DEBKAfile revealed how isolated the
United States had become:
NEWS BRIEF: "Will the US Have to Fight Alone?", DEBKAfile, March 11, 2003
"From midday Monday, March 10 - early morning in Washington, the odds shortened sharply for an early launch of the American war offensive against Iraq ... Some sources predicted it would go forward even before the crucial Security Council voting session on the American-backed second resolution on Iraq - or shortly thereafter ... As the leader of a superpower, the US president cannot afford to back off without losing face. American looks like being forced by its diplomatic reverses to step into war on the wrong foot militarily, isolated internationally, and left to fight almost single-handed."
Indeed, when the invasion began, only Great Britain was the major nation sending troops to fight alongside ours. Later, a "Coalition of the Willing" group of nations send various types of aid, but the war was to be fought primarily by U.S. - British troops. I considered that we had reached a new low as a nation when we were committed to a war because we did not want to "lose face".
Voices of Dissent Were Heard -- And Rejected
NEWS BRIEF: "Why war? The case hasn't been made", The Jerusalem Post, March 11, 2003
"How to say again what has been said and said, and said again? We seem to be on an inexorable march toward a war whose logic few of us comprehend ... Seeing Secretary of State Colin Powell present his brief to the UN a few weeks ago reminded me uncomfortably of the Saturday-morning cartoons of my childhood, filled with bright, upright good guys, hunched baddies, and the recurring, exceedingly satisfying Kapow!! that would pop up on the screen when our hero successfully landed another wallop ... WHAT IS missing from the American argument?
1. "... no serious argument has been made tying the attacks of September 11, 2001 to the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein. None. Not even at the speech at the UN.
2. "If a legitimate argument is to be made that Saddam deserves to be overthrown for defying the UN, the least we can expect is a cogent explanation regarding the urgency and the timing. Why, for instance, was he not pursued in 1998, when he publicly lied to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, humiliated him on the world stage, and kicked the arms inspectors out of Iraq? Why now?
3. "Saddam Hussein may indeed be in possession of extremely dangerous arms. If so, he has not seen fit to use them in a good 20 years, since his massacre of the Kurds. In no way do I mean to diminish the barbarity of this act. But it was a case, after all, of a notorious despot using unforgivable weapons against his own helpless subjects. Like Idi Amin in his day. Like Pol Pot. Like others who murdered, unforgivably, and still were left alone. We have seen this in innumerable countries, and the US has not acted.
4. "Saddam's invasion of Kuwait involved brute force, but no unconventional weaponry. His subsequent lobbing of Scud missiles against Israel during the Gulf War proved ineffectual, not to say farcical.
"And the cheapness of many French pronouncements, their sheer stupidity 'no war is justified' does nothing to burnish the US's questionable, inadequate, and possibly dangerous position."
Another author made it quite plain that our argument that Saddam was tied to 9/11 was completely bogus.
NEWS BRIEF: "Bush and Company Still Unable to Make a Coherent Case for War", By MAUREEN DOWD, New York Times News Service, reprinted in The Salt Lake Tribune, March 10, 2003.
"You might sum up the president's call to war Thursday night as 'Message: I scare.' As he rolls up to America's first pre-emptive invasion, bouncing from motive to motive ... (he) made it clear that Saddam was going to pay for 9-11. Even if the fiendish Iraqi dictator was not involved with al-Qaida, he has supported 'al-Qaida-type organizations,' as the president fudged, or 'al-Qaida types' or 'a terrorist network like al-Qaida' ... It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of vicious slimeballs, we're about to bomb one that didn't attack us on 9-11 (like Osama); that isn't intercepting our planes (like North Korea); that isn't financing al-Qaida (like Saudi Arabia); that isn't home to Osama and his lieutenants (like Pakistan); that isn't a host body for terrorists (like Iran, Lebanon and Syria).
"But citing 9-11 eight times in his news conference was exploitative, given that the administration concedes there is no evidence tying Iraq to the 9-11 plot ... William Greider writes in The Nation, "As a bogus rallying cry, 'Remember 9-11' ranks with 'Remember the Maine' of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964."
This last paragraph is absolutely golden, for the plot to attack and conquer Iraq was as much a government provocateur plan as our own government's attacking of the U.S.S. Maine in order to justify war with Spain, or the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication that justified our invasion of South Vietnam. Never, ever forget this fact. We attacked Iraq for the reason former Satanist, Bill Schnoebelen stated: the Illuminati decided in 1952 that a U.S. attack on Iraq would be the trigger ware designed to light the really desired war in the Middle East between Israel and her Arab neighbors.
Forces Opposing Our Invasion
NEWS BRIEF: "India: Give more time to Iraq", The Jerusalem Post, 12 March 2003.
"NEW DELHI, India - Forced to clarify his stand on the looming war against Iraq, India's leader told shouting opposition lawmakers Wednesday that Iraq must be given more time to comply with UN resolutions on disarmament. While stopping short of condemning the United States, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee said India opposes a war and forced regime change in Iraq ... "It is my belief that there will be no unilateral action, because that means ignoring the United Nations and putting the world at risk," Vajpayee said."
India's leader was right about America's actions putting the United Nations at risk.
NEWS BRIEF: "Pope to Bush: Go into Iraq and you go without God", Capitol Hill Blue, March 5, 2003
"Pope John Paul II has a strong message for President George W. Bush: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq ... Pleading for peace, an emissary from Pope John Paul II questioned Bush Wednesday on whether he was doing all he could to avert what the envoy called an 'unjust' war with Iraq."
This issue of whether the war with Iraq was a "just war" reverberated through Baptist circles as well. Well do I remember Baptist pastors trying to justify support for President Bush's invasion by saying it was "just" to remove Weapons of Mass Destruction from a tyrant who had used them on his own people and who was just itching for an opportunity to use them on us. Now that the Hutton Inquiry in England over the lack of WMD found in Iraq has cast Bush's arguments into the abyss, this "just war" nonsense is properly dead.
This above article states that President Bush forcefully disagreed with the Pope. Immediately, his press people began to put out the word that the United States had a "moral" responsibility to attack Iraq. Bill Press wrote a column for World Net Daily in which he debunked this notion. Let us briefly look at this article.
NEWS BRIEF: "The morality of war", by Bill Press, World Net Daily, March 14, 2003.
"In one last attempt to drum up support for war in Iraq, the White House is wrapping itself in the divine ... The United States has a MORAL responsibility to take out Saddam Hussein ... claim no moral authority. But, having spent 10 years in the seminary, during which I earned a bachelor's degree in theology, I am familiar with the Christian theology on war and have consulted many who do, in fact, speak with authority on this subject. With few exceptions, they all disagree with the White House ... Bottom line for the White House: It's time to drop the "M" word. They can call this war whatever they want. Call it wise. Call it urgent. Call it necessary. Just don't call it moral. People of faith know better."
Press should have formed his last sentence a little differently; instead of saying, "People of faith know better", he should have said, "People of faith should know better". I am still very perplexed and upset that people who know their Bibles and who are genuinely Born Again still cannot see that President Bush is not a Christian (Read our "Ye Shall Know Them By Their Words" series, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). Too many Christians still believe that CNN and Fox News put out the truth, and that Bush is Born Again. Christianity is a very practical religion, where its adherents are taught: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God" in order to protect against false religious teachers. [1 John 4:1]. Jesus informs us that "Ye shall know them by their fruits". [Matt 7:16], and urges us to "judge righteous judgment" [John 7:24].
The Bible further warns us not to put up with any amount of false teaching: "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?" [1 Cor 5:6] Yet, too many Christians will allow their leaders -- both political and spiritual -- to have large amounts of false teaching or unrepentant bad spiritual fruits in their background and still believe he or she is Christian!
Too many Christians are still stuck in the Liberal Christian mind rut, believing that we are to "judge not", twisting that parallel passage to John 7:24 all out of context. I personally heard an ordained Baptist minister declare to me after reading the above 4-part series, plus the articles on Skull and Bones [NEWS1314] and Bush's promotion of the Satanic Rocker, Ozzy Osbourne [NEWS1758] that he believed the "jury is still out" on whether Bush is Born Again. If Christians cannot spot President Bush for who he is, given his heavy bad spiritual fruit past, how can these Christians hope to spot Antichrist for who he is?
This
article, below, demonstrates that American and British claims simply cannot be
verified.
NEWS BRIEF: "Proof at any cost has made truth a casualty
of the crisis", smh.com.au, March 17 2003
"UN inspectors reports have been ignored in the dash for war ... Further doubts have arisen over the intelligence presentation on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction made by US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, at the UN Security Council last month. UN weapons inspectors have been unable to confirm the accuracy of American claims that its satellite images show chemical decontamination vehicles at former Iraqi weapons sites ... UN inspectors say the trucks may have been water trucks ... In his March 7 report, (U.N.'s) Dr ElBaradei said there was no evidence, to date, that Iraq had revived its nuclear program."
No one can say that the world was not warned. However, every word spoken publicly trying to warn the world that no evidence existed that Iraq possessed WMD was met with determined written and vocal opposition by the Bush/Blair team. National Sovereignty proponents insisted that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction and must be invaded before Saddam could use them on his neighbors and on us.
Planting Evidence?
As American and British troops were launching their invasion, one Asian news outlet posted an article in which they postulated that American Special Forces might actually plant the WMD and then "discover" them, in order to keep Bush and Blair from being embarrassed.
NEWS BRIEF: "US to win a Pyrrhic victory", By B. Raman, Asia Times, March 19, 2003.
"The Americans
have valid reasons for anger against President Saddam Hussein, to whom President
George W Bush has now issued a 48-hour ultimatum to quit or face military action.
Not because he has clandestinely acquired weapons of mass destruction for use
against the United States and Israel. Despite all their fabricated evidence, so
diplomatically and so embarrassingly exposed by the United Nations inspectors
for what it was, they have not been able to prove that he had such weapons. However,
there is a strong possibility that the American Special Forces will plant in Iraq
chemical and biological weapons from US stocks so that they could ostensibly recover
them during the forthcoming military operations and tell the world they were right
and the rest of the international community was wrong. The Americans can be unprincipled
when it comes to ways of proving their point."
To date, no fabricated
evidence has been "discovered", but don't rest your guard that one day
it just might be. Already, Western intelligence services are postulating that
Saddam may have moved his WMD out of Iraq, possibly to Syria.
United Nations Finally Says "No"
NEWS
BRIEF: "UN mandate essential to legitimize war - Annan", online.ie,
March 11, 2003.
"UN SECRETARY GENERAL Kofi Annan piled pressure on US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday with a warning that the legitimacy of any military action would be 'seriously impaired' without a new UN mandate ... However, Mr Blair and President George Bush signaled their intention to go it alone."
Kofi Annan thus set forth the bottom line argument in this entire Dialectic Struggle. No nation can go to war without a UN mandate. This is truly the bottom line. Please keep this in mind as we get to the last part of this article.
NEWS BRIEF: "Security Council Members Won't Support Iraq War", Fox News, March 14, 2003.
"UNITED NATIONS — A U.S.-backed resolution for war in Iraq was in serious doubt as a majority of Security Council members openly acknowledged they wouldn't support the measure despite weeks of intense negotiations. With hundreds of thousands of troops poised for action in the Persian Gulf, the White House was forced to consider withdrawing the resolution it filed three weeks ago or calling a vote it seemed certain to lose. Either way, the United States would be heading into battle, and possibly a protracted occupation of Iraq, without the backing of the United Nations and its member states ... U.N. backing would lend international legitimacy to any military action and guarantee that the world body would share the costs of reconstruction."
Finally, as the American-led forces were poised to attack Iraq on the ground (March 20), the U.N. inspectors had their final say.
Blix Takes His Best Shots
NEWS BRIEF: "Blix: Iraq Won't Use Chem, Bio Weapons", Fox News, Tuesday, March 18, 2003.
"UNITED NATIONS — Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Tuesday he does not believe Iraq will use chemical or biological weapons during a war ... The reason, he said, was world opinion would turn in favor of the United States if Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction ... Blix expressed disappointment that the United States, Britain and Spain had decided so quickly that inspections weren't working. In the face of strong council opposition, the three countries on Monday abandoned efforts to seek Security Council backing for war ... During 3 months of inspections, Blix said, his teams found no evidence of chemical or biological weapons."
Thus, as Bush's deadline of March 20 approached, the Chief United Nations Arms Inspector, Blix, laid down the final analysis. "During 3 months of inspections ... his teams found no evidence of chemical or biological weapons."
At this point, Bush and Blair had to order those "hundreds of thousands of troops poised for action in the Persian Gulf" to action or risk being seen as buffoons who had committed the grievous act of making all the disruptive and expensive preparations for a war that, in the end, the U.N. would not allow them to begin. However, it can be forceably argued in hindsight that our spin masters of propaganda could have convinced the American people how wise our course of action was to decide at the last minute not to go to war; at the very least, Bush would have been in much better position today had he ordered our amassed forces to return rather than attack. As the cost of the war skyrockets, as more Americans die in guerilla attacks, and as more American soldiers die of the combined poisoning from Depleted Uranium, local toxic insect bites, and vaccinations given before entering Iraq, Bush may become so discredited that he had wished he had ordered our troops back.
On April 11, Hans Blix took another swipe at President Bush and his Iraqi invasion; at this point in time, American soldiers were in control of Baghdad and we were congratulating ourselves on a "quick and easy" victory. Saddam had tactically retreated from Baghdad, ordering his troops to retreat and disappear rather than fight as they had in the south of Iraq in the first two weeks. Blix could not have timed his blast any better.
NEWS BRIEF: "Blix Doubts War Aims", Sky News, April 11, 2003.
"The invasion of Iraq was planned a long time in advance, and the US and Britain are not primarily concerned with finding any banned weapons of mass destruction, says the chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix. "There is evidence that this war was planned well in advance. Sometimes this raises doubts about their attitude to the (weapons) inspections," Blix told the Spanish newspaper El Pais. "I now believe that finding weapons of mass destruction has been relegated, I would say, to fourth place, which is why the US and Britain are now waging war on Iraq ... I'm very curious to see if they do find any (weapons),' he said.
The key sentence to understand in this paragraph is: "The invasion of Iraq was planned a long time in advance". Former Satanist Bill Schnoebelen has repeatedly stated that he was told that the Illuminati had decided in 1952 that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would be the trigger war to igniting the planned conflict between Israel and her Arab neighbors. Thus, this invasion of Iraq was planned out 51 years ahead!
Now, let us go back to Blix for a very important piece of information that strongly ties into our "Dialectic Struggle" proposition and to the final disarmament goal of the Illuminati:
"Blix said the war was 'a very high price to pay in
terms of human lives and the destruction of a country' when the threat of weapons
proliferation could have been contained by UN inspections. By attacking Iraq,
Washington had sent the wrong message - that if a country did not possess biological,
chemical or nuclear weapons, it risked being attacked ... Take the announcement
North Korea has just made. It's tantamount to saying 'if you let in the inspectors,
like Iraq did, you get attacked' ... If a country perceives that its security
is guaranteed, it won't need to consider weapons of mass destruction. This security
guarantee is the first line of defence against the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction."
Now, THAT comes as close to a bottom line admission as to what constitutes the real objective of this planned Dialectic "Controlled Conflict" as you are likely to see uttered from any official of the United Nations. Under Bush's National Sovereignty approach, nations will insist upon their own weapons program so they can resist our aggression. Under the United Nations approach, nations will feel safe and will not strive to develop their own weapons systems.
CONCLUSION
We believe that this "struggle" between the United States and Great Britain on the one hand and the United Nations on the other hand over whether to attack Iraq is a great example of the Dialectic "Controlled Conflict" being played out over a very long time on the world's stage. Diplomats wrangled in the halls of the U.N., diplomats traveled the world over to meet with counterparts of other countries, and the Mass Media continuously ensured that every detail was trumpeted to the smallest corner of the world.
And, what a struggle it was! The United States and Great Britain played the part of Thesis, while the U.N. Security Council played the part of Antithesis. Thesis wanted to attack while Antithesis wanted no attack. Thesis insisted that she would act even in Antithesis did not agree, while Antithesis warned of future disasters if her advice and her peaceful resolution plans were rejected. Thesis attacked a country that did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction by employing his "right" of National Sovereignty, and the results are bad and undoubtedly planned to get worse.
Now, let us go back to the statement of future disarmament from Master D.K., speaking through Alice Bailey of the House of Theosophy. This statement is a very important goal to the Illuminati.
"In the preparatory period for the New World Order, there will be a steady and regulated disarmament. It will not be optional. No nation will be permitted to produce and organise any equipment for destructive purposes or to infringe upon the security of any other nation."
Since "No nation will be permitted" to have military arms under their own sovereign control, the issue for the Illuminati becomes how the many nations are disarmed. Currently, the U.N. does not possess the power to attack every sovereign nation on earth to force them to disarm. However, if a script is created whereby a superpower will attack a nation under false pretenses, forcing other like nations to conclude that the best way to keep that superpower from attacking them is to possess WMD and be willing to use them, you create a "Good Cop - Bad Cop" routine with the U.N. playing the Good Cop. The U.N. can now turn to these other states to urge them to trust the U.N. by disarming. They can be assurred that, if they comply -- if they disarm -- the U.N. will not invade.
However, to get to this stage, a disaster has to occur by the nations following the Thesis philosophy of utilizing their "right" of National Sovereignty to launch pre-emptive strikes. Has the Iraq was created a large enough disaster? I doubt it. Most probably, the disaster will continue to expand outward, including a "hair-raising nuclear confrontation that will threaten mankind's existence" on the Korean Peninsula and may expand outward to include China taking advantage of our preoccupation with the Middle East and North Korea in order to launch her own attack on Taiwan. For good measure, the coming all-out war between Israel and her immediate Arab neighbors can logically be blamed upon the U.S. National Sovereignty policy because it was this policy that led to the attack on Iraq, resulting in great instability throughout the Middle East.
If the Yellowstone Super Volcano blows up during this time period, New Age adherents will explain that this disaster occurred to America for two occult reasons: First, America created a huge amount of negative Karma through her National Sovereignty program; and secondly, America's hated Industrial Economy had so upset Mother Gaia's "balance of nature" that she acted simply to "restore" her balance.
Therefore,
buckle up, America, for the planned disasters are going to get rough. When Antichrist
comes striding out of the smoke and disaster of this planned World War III, he
will likely find a people really ready to listen to his program, thanks to the
mess of things American policy has created! Can you see the hand of God's prophecies
at work here? Truly, the End of the Age is here.
Are you spiritually ready? Is your family? Are you adequately protecting your loved ones? This is the reason for this ministry, to enable you to first understand the peril facing you, and then help you develop strategies to warn and protect your loved ones. Once you have been thoroughly trained, you can also use your knowledge as a means to open the door of discussion with an unsaved person. I have been able to use it many times, and have seen people come to Jesus Christ as a result. These perilous times are also a time when we can reach many souls for Jesus Christ, making an eternal difference.
If you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, but have been very lukewarm in your spiritual walk with Him, you need to immediately ask Him for forgiveness and for renewal. He will instantly forgive you, and fill your heart with the joy of the Holy Spirit. Then, you need to begin a daily walk of prayer and personal Bible Study.
If you have never accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, but have come to realize His reality and the approaching End of the Age, and want to accept His FREE Gift of Eternal Life, you can also do so now, in the privacy of your home. Once you accept Him as Savior, you are spiritually Born Again, and are as assured of Heaven as if you were already there. Then, you can rest assured that the Kingdom of Antichrist will not touch you spiritually.
If you would like to become Born Again, turn to our Salvation Page now.
We hope you have been blessed by this ministry, which seeks to educate and warn people, so that they can see the coming New World Order -- Kingdom of Antichrist -- in their daily news.
Finally, we would love to hear from you.
You can contact us by mail or email.
God bless you.
