Conspiricay Theory: Blueprint for War

AAAintheBeltway · Mar 29, 2003

Quote from trader556:

getting back to the thread title: Blueprint for war and the big picture

Three decades ago, in the throes of the energy crisis, Washington's hawks conceived of a strategy for US control of the Persian Gulf's oil. Now, with the same strategists firmly in control of the White House, the Bush administration is playing out their script for global dominance.

If you were to spin the globe and look for real estate critical to building an American empire, your first stop would have to be the Persian Gulf. The desert sands of this region hold two of every three barrels of oil in the world -- Iraq's reserves alone are equal, by some estimates, to those of Russia, the United States, China, and Mexico combined. For the past 30 years, the Gulf has been in the crosshairs of an influential group of Washington foreign-policy strategists, who believe that in order to ensure its global dominance, the United States must seize control of the region and its oil. Born during the energy crisis of the 1970s and refined since then by a generation of policymakers, this approach is finding its boldest expression yet in the Bush administration -- which, with its plan to invade Iraq and install a regime beholden to Washington, has moved closer than any of its predecessors to transforming the Gulf into an American protectorate.

In the geopolitical vision driving current U.S. policy toward Iraq, the key to national security is global hegemony -- dominance over any and all potential rivals. To that end, the United States must not only be able to project its military forces anywhere, at any time. It must also control key resources, chief among them oil -- and especially Gulf oil. To the hawks who now set the tone at the White House and the Pentagon, the region is crucial not simply for its share of the U.S. oil supply (other sources have become more important over the years), but because it would allow the United States to maintain a lock on the world's energy lifeline and potentially deny access to its global competitors. The administration "believes you have to control resources in order to have access to them," says Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under the first President Bush. "They are taken with the idea that the end of the Cold War left the United States able to impose its will globally -- and that those who have the ability to shape events with power have the duty to do so. It's ideology."

Iraq, in this view, is a strategic prize of unparalleled importance. Unlike the oil beneath Alaska's frozen tundra, locked away in the steppes of central Asia, or buried under stormy seas, Iraq's crude is readily accessible and, at less than $1.50 a barrel, some of the cheapest in the world to produce. Already, over the past several months, Western companies have been meeting with Iraqi exiles to try to stake a claim to that bonanza.

But while the companies hope to cash in on an American-controlled Iraq, the push to remove Saddam Hussein hasn't been driven by oil executives, many of whom are worried about the consequences of war. Nor are Vice President Cheney and President Bush, both former oilmen, looking at the Gulf simply for the profits that can be earned there. The administration is thinking bigger, much bigger, than that.

"Controlling Iraq is about oil as power, rather than oil as fuel," says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and author of Resource Wars. "Control over the Persian Gulf translates into control over Europe, Japan, and China. It's having our hand on the spigot."

More...

I wish these theories were true. Would you feel better with Saddam Hussein or Islamist crazies controlling the world's oil supply and the wealth that goes with it?

MondoTrader · Mar 31, 2003

Its a good thing this thread is in the psychology section, because the people that made this shit up don't belong on the streets.

inandlong · Mar 31, 2003

Quote from MondoTrader:

Its a good thing this thread is in the psychology section, because the people that made this shit up don't belong on the streets.
More...

LOLOLOL! Thanks for that one. I haven't even read the thread, just this post and the Title, but I'm still laffin' and that's all I needed.

Catchy thread title though.

limitdown · Apr 1, 2003

Quote from Josh_B:

"We have 50 percent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population. . . In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will allow us to maintain this position of disparity. We should cease to talk about the raising of the living standards, human rights, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

-- George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning of the U.S. Dept. of State, 1948

Josh
More...

1948. In 1948 we had an abnormal disparity between those war torn countries, those devistated countries and those former empires that no longer existed and were redrawn on a map irrespective to their ethnic boundaries.

That quote was appropriate, measured and accurate at that time.

We, along with other countries shared that wealth. Revolutions in the 70's in the Arab empires also redistributed that wealth from the Oil (Big Seven Sisters) Companies/Countries to the Producers/Owners of those oil empires, namely the Middle East and Arab empires. Other shifts and balances of power also influenced that disparate distribution of wealth and realization of their own natural resources:
---Gold mines in South Wales, New Zealand and other Indonesian lands
---Diamond mines all throughout Southern Africa
---Oil wealth in the North Sea, Gulf Mexico, Venezulan Coastal waters, Nigeria, Pakistan, and the former Soviet Lands

What we provide now are the same trophies that wealth has always purchased, namely Disney World. What "they" provide are raw materials, and an Industrial revolution in their own lands, and all the polution that goes with it, just like we had, over 100+ years ago.

Life, wealth and economics goes on!

compisnada2002 · Apr 2, 2003

Quote from tatertrader:

WTF does that mean???

I think you're trying to say "Reaganomics, or supply side macro-economic policies take years to affect positive economic growth at the micro-economic level."

Which is pretty much true except that we are in a current state of overcapacity - the problem is not to little supply at the top - it is to little demand at the bottom! Adding more to the top will only further exacerbate the problem! This is the paradoxical folly of the Republican plan. It will enrich a small few at the expense of the vast majority, and do nothing to solve any of our fundamental problems.

Yes economies are cyclical and no the current administration is not solely responsible for the current problems - BUT they ARE responsible for enacting policies that address fundamental problems and solve immediate needs - for the greater good of the country - this is what the Republicans have failed to do.
More...

WTF does that mean???

This means you better start your due dilligence. Opinions in regard to this are irrelevant. It is history that repeats itself. I take it your are the type of trader that thinks you are the market!

comp

Mecro · Apr 2, 2003

Quote from vhehn:

how did we get to a point in this country where 50% of the supposedly highly educated people living in luxury compared to most places in the world and with very few limits to your freedom will believe any conspiracy theory they read on the internet about their own country.
its sad really and i think it has dire long term implications. here is an article discrediting the latest theory about us going to war because we fear oil being priced in euros.

http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/printarticle.asp?id=mwo032803
More...

That article is a good read but the author just does not understand simple currency economics which are not covered by any textbook or theory. Simple thinking makes you realize that if the dollar is not needed for oil, lots and lots of dollars/dollar denominated assets will be getting dumped. If you do not know what that leads to, take a look at Argentina, Singapore, etc. USA is not weak but it will take a big hit while still dealing with the current economic situation. That's the fear.

The main driver to actually go into Iraq is to preserve the dollar strength. Every international trader already knows this and are ready to take bets.

Mecro · Apr 2, 2003

Quote from C Robinson:

i was only guessing as to where mecro was going. i know exactly why we are going to war. btw, that article is a good read.
More...

Enlighten us

bearclaw · Apr 2, 2003

Ponder this thought :

" if the U.S. troop find Iraq's alleged WMD's, then those weapons will be discovered in the most unfortunate manner, on the other hand, if the U.S. troops do not find WMD's, then the United States will be in a very unique position indeed "

The United States has been put in an ultimate lose-lose situation, I guess we can consider that the ICING on a huge unemployment, government deficit, consumer debt, political nightmare cake from hell....

compisnada2002 · Apr 3, 2003

Quote from bearclaw:

Ponder this thought :

" if the U.S. troop find Iraq's alleged WMD's, then those weapons will be discovered in the most unfortunate manner, on the other hand, if the U.S. troops do not find WMD's, then the United States will be in a very unique position indeed "

The United States has been put in an ultimate lose-lose situation, I guess we can consider that the ICING on a huge unemployment, government deficit, consumer debt, political nightmare cake from hell....
More...

I have been hearing all types of opinions on this war in Iraq, and nobody goes back to the initial concept to the war on terrorism. After 9-11 GWB came out and stated countries that he considered to have ties to terrorism. Iraq being one, now I understand that WMD was what the UN went to look for, but overall it is a terrorist regime that we said we would go after. It would be a loss if we went against our own word. Yes soldiers may get harmed in extremely faul ways, but this is what they do for a living and they accept that. To hear that this is a loose loose is bunk, I personally think that Arabs only understand aggression in dealings, try to barter with one. Once we occupy this country the entire region will see that if you fuck with us we will not stand down and that we are a country that will not mess around.

dotslashfuture · Apr 3, 2003

We only have two major internal problems, consumer debt, and unemployment, and the two are linked. There is no easy solution, but deficit spending will ease the pain.