How America Killed Christianity In the Middle East

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  When the United States government attacked Iraq, we were told it was to make the world safe for democracy.  Whether or not that is true remains to be seen, but it certainly hasn't made the Middle East safe for Christianity.  As bad as Saddam Hussein was, there was relative peace in Iraq, and while I certainly will not defend that monster, I will say that after he was gone the plight of Christians in Iraq got exponentially worse.  You cannot convince me that the Pentagon didn't know this would happen.  You cannot convince me that President G.W. Bush wasn't informed.  They knew this would likely happen, but the truth is, they didn't care.  They had bigger fish to fry in their opinion, and the health and safety of Christians in the Middle East was of little concern to them.

While all this was going on in Iraq, the Bush administration was instructing the CIA to orchestrate the violent uprisings of radical Muslims all over the Middle East, to overthrow the regimes of dictators that had become no longer useful.  After Bush was gone, President Barack Obama continued this operation.  Under his administration we saw these plots come to fruition first in Egypt, then in Yemen, then in Saudi Arabia, and finally in Libya.  The uprisings were successful in Egypt, replacing the dictator regime with radical Muslim groups.  In Libya, not so successful, as the dictator fought back.  In response, the United States (via NATO) launched a military bombing campaign to aid radical Muslims as they overthrew the Libyan dictator.  This brought success, and now radical Muslims control Libya too.  Again, the CIA is likely operating in Syria to effect the same type of revolution, and now the federal government (along with their agents in the national media) are beginning to beat the war drums against Iran again.  Iran is the final domino to fall.  It's the big one our government has been salivating over for a decade now.  The United States of America has been orchestrating a decade long campaign against the players in the Middle East, and as a result, Christians are suffering and dying.  What does our government have to say about this?  Of course actions against Christians are condemned.  These are the words of the U.S. government, but the actions say something completely different.  In word the United States government finds this regrettable, in action these Christians are clearly expendable. Actions speak louder than words. 

Why?  Why would the United States government do this?  That seems to be the mystery that nobody can get their heads fully around.  The official story comes from the G.W. Bush administration goes something like this:  In the past, the United States sought a policy of stability in the Middle East at the expense of liberty for those who live there.  As a result we ended up with neither.  So now the policy of the United States is to work toward liberty for those who live in the Middle East, in the hope that we might achieve some eventual stability. 

Well, that sounds like a noble plan on the surface, and it certainly sells to a large audience of Americans.  But is it true?  Is this really the one and only reason why the United States would commit trillions of dollars and American lives to military campaigns in the Middle East?  Or is there something more?  Secondly, even if it is true, and we have no other motive than to bring "liberty" to Middle Eastern Arabs, is that really how Americans want their tax dollars spent?  Is it really our "responsibility" in the world to ensure that every corner of the planet gets a crack at democracy?  Is that what our Founding Fathers believed?  Is that the purpose of the United States of America?

A review of the book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism tells a different story. Another book entitled Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage helps to put everything into better focus.  It would appear the United States of America is trying to strategically position itself for a coming worldwide oil shortage that is going to plunge the entire industrialised world into the greatest economic depression ever.  The intent, so it would seem, is to negotiate oil contracts with ALL the Arab nations possible, to deplete their oil supply first, as much as possible, so that when the "peak oil" economy hits, and production can no longer match consumption, and the price of gasoline shoots up to $10/gallon, the United States will be in perfect position to start extracting oil shale at a competitive price to the rest of the world market, thus putting us on course to become the "Saudi Arabia" of the 21st century.  Right now, oil shale is too expensive to extract, but in a peak oil economy, the price will finally be competitive.  In the process however, we need to have people in the Middle East who are so indebted to us, they will likely negotiate oil contracts with us, or with Europe at the very least.  That's where the Shock Doctrine comes in.  Certain large corporations in the United States have learned how to profit off disasters.  Whether natural or man-made, these disasters bring in big money to these corporations and that helps the American economy.  So to appease these big campaign donors, politicians are more than willing to assure that the need for a man-made disaster (war) is always present and ready to be executed at a moment's notice.  Their accomplices in the national news media are more than willing to help them by selling a propaganda snow job to the American people.  Whether it's the threat of WMD's, "liberating" people from an "evil dictator," or the threat of terrorism; the United States stands ready to jump into action.  When it comes to the Middle East, the result will be big money for those companies that help rebuild, and even bigger profits later when oil contracts are negotiated with the new ruling party we helped to install.  All of this setting us up for an eventual peak oil economy that will again make big money for American oil corporations. 

What's that about Christians in the Middle East you say?  "Ah yes, them, well they will be an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice."  So it would seem, as far is the U.S. government is concerned.