Home > Community Lounge > Politics > IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL (isn't it?)

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL (isn't it?)

  1. If posts can contain something more insightful than slogans perhaps there can be some good debate here.

    It would be especially helpful if voters would post the reasoning behind their votes.

    I voted for option 4 because I feel the "this is all about the US wanting to take over the world's oil" argument is ridiculous. America has had numerous opportunities to have taken over the oil supply of many a nation due to an overwhelming military advantage, yet we have NEVER done so.

    We had the opportunity after WWII when we were the sole nuclear power. What did we do with our unprecedented, one-sided power? We helped the world rebuild. Indeed, we helped our greatest enemies in the conflict, Germany and Japan, become economic powerhouses.

    We had the opportunity after Desert Storm. Did we take advantage of the beating we dealt to the Iraqis then and press on to Baghdad? Did we take over Kuwait's oil fields which Saddam tried to destroy? No. We helped Kuwait put out the fires and then..... left.

    Those of you on other threads (Candle, Madison, traderfut2000, bungrider, et al) who have posted that Bush is doing this solely to control the oil have an opportunity here to state your reasoning. Hopefully you will not avoid the issue as you have on those threads. If you do avoid it, we can then assume you have no argument. Your silence will indeed speak much louder than your empty slogans.
     
  2. i'm an american and voted 4 also. obviously, there are many reasons for what bush wants to do. however, i would say the main reason is to prevent a man like saddam from getting too far ahead with his objectives.

    as others have said, we learned from hitler. he was let loose for too long. if he was stopped sooner, maybe the terrible events he caused never would have happened. why take a chance with this asshole?

    it's clear saddam does not like the USA, if someone is going to make a nuke and give it to someone else to use it on us, he'd definitely be a prime suspect. nevermind nukes, he has all his chemical and bio weapons, too. who does he plan on using them on? bush's #1 job is to protect his citizens.

    more reasons:

    saddam violated his agreements from the previous war. if the world lets him get away with that, then really, what meaning does any wartime agreement have?

    he kills his own people and gives them poor freedom.

    he does control some oil, which gives him something to bargain with. if we can let a better person control the oil, why not?

    add it all up and ask yourself why the world should put up with saddam hussein?

    [​IMG]
     
  3. don't you think that attacking Saddam would spur more terrorist attacks ( thats just obvious )?? Terrorist groups love the limelight and will use this War as their stage ..So voting that The War is to protect America from terrorism when in fact the War will spur more terrorism is false......peace

    In my opinion if you want to stop terrorism you need to start right here at home....with what methods I have no idea.
     
  4. what a crude rhetorical tactic - falsely attribute a statement to someone, then claim that if that person does not refute it that it therefore must be true.

    perhaps the lack of response you have received is due to an expectation that anything said will be misconstrued and selectively quoted, or that it will only be met with childish ad hominem rebuttals, arrogant dismissal of differing opinion, and empty slogans parroted amongst the neocon talk-show guests.

    believe whatever you want, and rant to your heart's content - I wish you the best. people can read for themselves what I have and have not posted on this subject.
     
  5. you still haven't responded madison.

    the idea that we want to steal oil from Iraq is totally insane.
     
  6. Madison, I owe you an apology. I did mistakenly lump you in with Candle and co. You have avoided other issues and questions but this one had yet to be posed to you. Again, my apologies.

    Let me ask you about this one:
    Here you are stating that seizing control of the oil supply is one of the motives for the administration. Please elaborate on that. What is the difference between that and stealing the oil? Do you mean to say that after invading Iraq and forcing a regime change, we are NOT going to relinquish the country's resources to its new government? :confused:
     
  7. I was talking to my friend about this entire situation and suddenly it dawned on both of us that this "armchair politics" that we all engage in is futile.

    So, instead of debating whether war is good or bad or for what reasons the U.S. is preparing for war and why they want it with Iraq, why don't we just all accept the obvious -- that nothing we say or do is going to convince George Bush something other than what he is currently thinking.

    I doubt he's going to log onto Elitetrader and read a post by Gordon or Babak and think, "Hmm, my entire cabinet was wrong -- these traders are really onto something here!"

    Let's just face facts and submit to the realization that whatever world events that are going to occur, we're in no position to stop them no matter how great our arguments are.

    Instead, why not just accept what's going to happen and figure out how it would affect our lives and make preparations for those events and perhaps find ways to profit from the entire situation.
     
  8. The Cabinet is filled with cronies from the first Bush persidency. IMO, this is more about family honor and the fact that Saddam wanted to kill his daddy and oil than it is about fighting terrorism and weapons.

    Last time Saddam invaded Kuwait.

    This time, other than the weapons issues and humanitarian issues, what is there? The US has supported quite a few regimes that haven't been shining stars in the humanitarian areas, so I'll call BS on that.

    IMO, the Saudi's likely provide more in $ to terror than Iraqi's.

    I agree with some of the others here, that an attack will become a lightning rod for those opposed to the US.

    To say that we shouldn't express our 1st amendment rights, pro or con regarding war, reminds me of an old Bobby Knight quote. "If rape is inevitable, lay back and enjoy it." Sorry, if i don't enjoy this. If someone asks, and I find something distasteful and can voice my opinion regarding such acts, you're likely to hear it, because I can. It is a tough pill to swallow because you sometimes feel as though your voice isn't really considered in such matters. Good thing I can still bitch about it though.

    Aphe.... I agree that we as citizens don't have much say is such matters. We can only live with the consequences of the actions of the elected or non-elected leaders depending on your political affiliation. Unfortunately, we can't prepare for all the unknown that certain terrorist factions will dispense on the US.

    Later,

    Cracked

    P.S. Bobby Knight is a good BB coach but an idiot!!!
     

  9. uhh.......I think this "idea" was put forth by the bush supporters..

    none of us Bush-haters suggested bush wanted to "steal" oil -

    what I implied (pretty straightforwardly) was that he wants to make Iraq's new regime friendly to US refiners...those refiners are run by his friends, and dick's friends, and those friends would stand to make alot of money if Iraq's oil supply were to be made more liquid...

    same thing with the pipeline thru afghanistan...
     
  10. that's really intelligent.

    you sound like the people who don't vote b/c they know their votes won't matter anyway

    and look who won the last election by like 150 votes
     
  11. you said:
    what I implied (pretty straightforwardly) was that he wants to make Iraq's new regime friendly to US refiners...those refiners are run by his friends, and dick's friends, and those friends would stand to make alot of money if Iraq's oil supply were to be made more liquid...


    Here's a question: Who are the 10 largest oil companies in thw world? and from what Cournties are they from? The answers may surprsie you...
     
  12. What makes more sense? Wasting your time arguing about something that has already been set in motion? This isn't an election year and I *DID* vote. I just don't see how anyone is going to prevent history from repeating itself ... again, and again, and again ...

    However, what we CAN control is our reaction to the events that we're about to go through.

    In my opinion, I think that is very responsible way to deal with a situation that NONE OF US can control.
     
  13. it does not matter where they have their corporate hq but who owns those oil giants.
     
  14. I was going to post a clipping of the largest oil producers but i figured , enough is enough wiht the paste and click...

    basically, Saudi Arabia and kuwait have the two largest...followed by Venezuela, SHell ( dutch) bp amoco (britain) exxon mobil (us) and a couple other well known companies....In fact, must of BUSHE"S connections are with energy and exploration companies that might actually suffer if oil was abundant..
     
  15. Iraq was never a NBC(nuke-bio-chem) threat to the Western world, only Israel had to be concerned with Saddam. But now that Iraq is going to be attacked, they will be ready to do anything to harm the US including what Americans fear the most i.e giving fissile material to terrorists and using chemicals against US troops.

    Mandela got it right: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030130/wl_nm/iraq_mandela_dc
     
  16. Its not about OIL,

    it never was,

    and it would be pretty transparent once the war is over,

    if the United States tried to take the slightest advantage from being on the ground in Iraq, to steal resources,

    OTHER THAN KICKING any GERMAN and FRENCH Nuclear Physicists, Bio Engineers, or Chem Engineers, or Rocket Scientists, out of the country.
     
  17. If I were an oil producer, were the US dictator and wanted to become obscenely rich off my oil production, all I would have to do is to prohibit oil imports from the middle east. the resulting oil scarcity would push oil prices to the skies.
    only if I were really dumb would I go to war to make sure there is abundant world oil supply.

    guys, i really don't understand how the oil conspiracy theory can convince so many suckers... i don't understand either why so many people lose money trading the e-minis...
    :p :p :eek: :eek:
     
  18. Kicking sez; But now that Iraq is going to be attacked, they will be ready to do anything to harm the US including what Americans fear the most i.e giving fissile material to terrorists and using chemicals against US troops. [b/]

    Chemicals against troops - it certainly possible, and the troops are protected from that, all M-1, and Bradley's are sealed against chem attacks.

    Fission Material - there is enough of that floating around, but that is always a risk, launching a strike, removes that risk in Iraq

    An Iraqi General launching such an MWD attack would have to do it by mortar or artillery shells, and our ground radars will find them.

    We will find the Generals responsible for a MWD and hang them.

    The Iragi Commanders know this:

    1. They have no hope of stopping the Allies or surviving the war if they resist.

    2. Saddam - if he is not smart enough to leave, will be shot by his own troops or arrested, by some smart Iraqi Republican Guard Tank Battalion Commander.
     
  19. Mandela got it right? You mean it's all about racism- whitey just wants to keep the black man down? And our human rights record is questioned becaused we saved lives by ending world war II five or ten years early after someone else started it, and then rebuilt the country we bombed?
     
  20. United We Stand

    By Jose Maria Aznar, Jose-Manuel Durao Barroso, Silvio Berlusconi, Tony Blair, Vaclav Havel, Peter Medgyessy, Leszek Miller And Anders Fogh Rasmussen

    The real bond between the U.S. and Europe is the values we share: democracy, individual freedom, human rights and the Rule of Law. These values crossed the Atlantic with those who sailed from Europe to help create the United States of America. Today they are under greater threat than ever.

    The attacks of Sept. 11 showed just how far terrorists -- the enemies of our common values -- are prepared to go to destroy them. Those outrages were an attack on all of us. In standing firm in defense of these principles, the governments and people of the U.S. and Europe have amply demonstrated the strength of their convictions. Today more than ever, the transatlantic bond is a guarantee of our freedom.

    We in Europe have a relationship with the U.S. which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and Communism. Thanks, too, to the continued cooperation between Europe and the U.S. we have managed to guarantee peace and freedom on our continent. The transatlantic relationship must not become a casualty of the current Iraqi regime's persistent attempts to threaten world security.

    In today's world, more than ever before, it is vital that we preserve that unity and cohesion. We know that success in the day-to-day battle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction demands unwavering determination and firm international cohesion on the part of all countries for whom freedom is precious.

    The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security. This danger has been explicitly recognized by the U.N. All of us are bound by Security Council Resolution 1441, which was adopted unanimously. We Europeans have since reiterated our backing for Resolution 1441, our wish to pursue the U.N. route, and our support for the Security Council at the Prague NATO Summit and the Copenhagen European Council.

    In doing so, we sent a clear, firm and unequivocal message that we would rid the world of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. We must remain united in insisting that his regime be disarmed. The solidarity, cohesion and determination of the international community are our best hope of achieving this peacefully. Our strength lies in unity.

    The combination of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a threat of incalculable consequences. It is one at which all of us should feel concerned. Resolution 1441 is Saddam Hussein's last chance to disarm using peaceful means. The opportunity to avoid greater confrontation rests with him. Sadly this week the U.N. weapons inspectors have confirmed that his long-established pattern of deception, denial and non-compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions is continuing.

    Europe has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, they are the first victims of Iraq's current brutal regime. Our goal is to safeguard world peace and security by ensuring that this regime gives up its weapons of mass destruction. Our governments have a common responsibility to face this threat. Failure to do so would be nothing less than negligent to our own citizens and to the wider world.

    The U.N. Charter charges the Security Council with the task of preserving international peace and security. To do so, the Security Council must maintain its credibility by ensuring full compliance with its resolutions. We cannot allow a dictator to systematically violate those resolutions. If they are not complied with, the Security Council will lose its credibility and world peace will suffer as a result. We are confident that the Security Council will face up to its responsibilities.

    Messrs. Aznar, Durao Barroso, Berlusconi, Blair, Medgyessy, Miller and Fogh Rasmussen are, respectively, the prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland and Denmark. Mr. Havel is the Czech president.
     
  21. no, I doubt any reasonable person thinks bush and cheney are going to plant a flag in the iraqi desert and claim it for Mother America. and I wouldn't be surprised if bush is doing this without regard to oil either way.

    but bush can't act alone, on anything. he needs support and backers for this, and it's a game of favors and competing interests, no matter how many senators sing songs on the capitol steps and wrap themselves in the flag. those interests have to be balanced - and important contributors kept in mind. not just dollars, but contacts, political goodwill, media coverage and spin, legislative cooperation, etc. it's a very wide net.

    stands to reason that some of these contributors are opportunists who jump on bandwagons when they see a profit opportunity, lending the support and influence of whatever part of the system they control in exchange for benefits - petrochemical trade and exploration, infrastructure construction, military sales, agricultural deals, pharmaceuticals, banking are a possible few... and they might benefit just as much if all current iraqi resources are immediately given to a new iraqi government. perhaps their support, and in turn the support of those they contribute to, will be ultimately beneficial in the long run. but it's naive to think everyone behind the movement is there for altruistic reasons.
     
  22. Madison Sez "but Bush can't act alone, on anything"

    Madison: Quit watching Liberal Pap on CNN, and MSNBC, ABC, and CBS

    Madison, we have the option of acting alone, and President Bush does not need a single member of the UN Security Council on board!

    The UN is running the risk here (of looking SILLY) by not enforcing their own resolutions, not the United States.

    I know there must be some Europeans on this thread, under the illusion that the UN, France and Germany really matter.

    Need I say, the UN has no teeth, without United States backing, the UN would be out of business without U.S. support.

    The fact is the United States can act alone, although we have 8 countries in Europe that support the United States.

    We have six Carrier Battle Groups,

    the equivalent force of 6 moble Air Force Fighter Wings.

    Britain is the next big contributor, they will have one maybe two carriers that fly Harrier Jump Jets, with limited Strike capability.

    We have enough Ground Forces, Britain is supplying One Armored Division.

    Then there is the Trident Submarines that keep the rest of the world in line while we are taking on IRAQ.

    8 European Countries Support us, mainly the ones that just overcame the Communist Opression.

    Fact is if the UN makes the mistake of not supporting the effort in IRAQ, with all the violations that IRAQ made since the last GULF WAR, then the UN will look weak, SILLY, and IRRELAVANT AFTER GULF WAR II and we have ON SITE evidence of WMD.

    It's beyond imagination if this coming battle takes more than 3 to 4 days to produce total COLLAPSE of the IRAQI Government.

    You got to ask yourself, why would an IRAQI General want to risk fighting for SADDAM?

    So he can sit in the HAGUE in the Dock as a War Criminal?

    It will be a short WAR, and no IRAQ General is going to set off any WMD, because that will be SUICIDE.

    Sure they look like fanatics (on the Parade Grounds), but they have no reason to fight, they hate Saddam, more than we do.
     
  23. occupation forces and natural resources

    U.S. Probes Its Iraq-Oil Rights
    Wall Street Journal, January 29, 2003, p. A16

    "The Hague Convention of 1907 and subsequent regulations provide an occupying "belligerent" specific guidelines when it comes to administering natural resources like forests, mines, and oil fields. Such resources remain the property of the territory's people and should not be used in a manner that will permanently damage them, the Convention states. It is also widely interpreted to require that revenue from the resources should go toward occupation costs or otherwise benefit the territory's people."

    Laws of War :
    Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907

    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

    Control of Iraq could give the United States de facto control over the Persian Gulf area and two-thirds of the world's oil – an unrivaled prize in the historic human struggle for power and wealth.

    We already have exclusive control of 50% neutral zone Kuwait-Saudi oil fields I think we got that back in the late 40's.

    If interested, more info here http://home.austin.rr.com/anthonywier/meoil.htm

    ALSO: eLibrary.com - Oil & Gas Interests 01-12-2001, 'MARKETS & POLICY: CAPITOL HILL'



    Josh
     
  24. Thanks for your post.

    I agree with you that it is naive to think our government is acting for 100% altruistic reasons. Certainly every administration owes favors, has major contributors, etc, etc. Unfortunately, this is the way it has always been and the way it always will be. The essence of your argument, and I think this is the major difference of opinion that we have, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you believe that the Bush government is ultimately morally corrupt, and its actions are motivated primarily by Dubya and his top dogs wanting to line their pockets and pay off their favors. Also, on another thread (Candle's Iraq poll) you have expressed your disbelief that Bush has any desire of protecting the American people, that he in essence cares nothing for the welfare of us citizens.

    I simply cannot believe that our president A) Doesn't give a hoot about his 300 million citizens, B) is willing to sacrifice possibly thousands of his soldiers/sailors/airmen, citizens all, in order to rake in a few Benjamins, C) is willing to risk reelection and his political career for the sake of a few more said Benjamins, and D) is acting without a genuine fear of far larger-scale attacks on our nation.

    So that's that. Thanks again for your post. I'm sure we'll be disagreeing more down the road!

    Now, if only we could get some (further?) comments from those who voted for US imperialism and controlling the world's oil.
     
  25. Mandela's statements were pathetically stupid, not to mention unseemly and malicious, where not merely narrow and misleading. His statement that the US is more willing to by-pass the UN because the General Secretary is black was just the most obviously and revealingly ridiculous and ignorant of his comments.
     
  26. Alzheimers? Hard to believe even Mandela can make the patently STUPID remarks he has made in the past few weeks.
     
  27. Not to do too much of the anti-war coalition's work for it, but, from the point of view of its most virulently anti-US members, the first answer and the third (as well as the principal part of the fourth, of course) are the same: Ensuring stability of the world's oil supply is the same as achieving a critical US "imperial" objective, while acting in support of international capitalism - which is understood both to underpin and to be the real point of the US-led "empire." Who "owns" the oil fields, or even who profits from them directly, is from this perspective at most a secondary issue, and much less important than securing their current role in the international "system." It may be worth noting that the strongest proponents of an aggressive posture in the Persian Gulf tend to agree on these points, but don't see the idea of the US accepting imperial responsibilities and seeking the reinforcement and extenstion of democratic capitalism as bad things.

    As for the issue of "preventing another terrorist attack," I think that puts the issue into too narrow a context. Operations in Iraq might or might not have a critical impact on the war on terror in the long term, but they seem rather unlikely to have any substantial near-term positive effect. On the other hand, though they might conceivably provide a "stage" for Al Qaeda or other bad actors, and might conceivably encourage new support and recruits, so might withdrawal, continued sanctions, extended inspections, or any of the other alternatives to early invasion.

    The larger idea, as I understand it, and as Bush stated succinctly in his State of the Union speech, reflects both sides of the oil issue: Possession of vast oil reserves and proximity to a significant percentage of the world's oil resources puts Iraq in the position both to wreak havoc and to acquire effective means to do so - whether, as is more likely, through Saddam's more typical military patterns or, possibly, through supplying, cooperating with, and/or directing terrorists.
     
  28. Your plan as dictator sounds pretty enticing. Only downside would be your being "obscenely rich" would not make you very well loved in an economy that would make the Great Depression look like boom times. Which would be the result of "sky high" oil prices.

    This would lead to you having to "out- Saddam, Saddam" as far as your own personal security. Lot's of people would be willing to assassinate a dictator that would cause the collapse of the economy leading to the starvation of their children.

    Other than that, pretty good plan.

    Peace,
    :)Rs7
     
  29. Hard to squeeze all that detail in a poll....

    Anyways, I'd like to ask what is imperialistic if the US ousts Saddam, helps stabilize the country, and then leaves (save for a few bases i.e. Saudi & Afghanistan)? Wouldn't extending our "empire" mean claiming Iraq as our own? Or is the mere presence of any amount of US troops qualify as empire-building?
     
  30. Mandela got it right: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...iraq_mandela_dc

    What a lot of crap ! Mandela got it wrong. In Africa as well as everywhere else people are insanely jealous of the US. Although Mandela takes a big line you must remember he is the son of a Xhosa king. They are tribal. It is very similar to Islam in as much that DEMOCRACY cannot exist under it. Mandela in his early years was not adverse to having people blown up to justify his cause. While what Afrikaaners did to the blacks was totally wrong, Africans suffer from the same disease as the Arabs. They always want handouts and expect everything given to them. Go to Africa and look. Africans will chop down a tree for firewood but they will never plant seeds for another tree. Another thing the ANC which is Mandela's party and governing party have let thousands and thousands of people die from aids but refuse to distibute medicines. Why ? Because they can wipe out the Zulu's and other tribes ( and maybe the whites too)
    Mandela never mentioned sept 11. Everybody forgets that is what worries Bush. He doesn't need another terrorist attack. The terror has started against the US and soon will hit Europe. The Islamic Fundamentalists have made a pact and the world will learn that are not now dealing with a bunch of dummies which they dealt with in the 30's and 40's
     
  31. There's a difference between extending an empire and fulfilling an imperial objective: The Romans might occasionally send out a legion or two to punish the barbarians for incursions into Romanized provinces - fulfilling imperial objectives without engaging in conquest. In adddition, there are different definitions of empire, and different theories of empire. To the Marxist-Leninists, the "real" imperial force in the modern world isn't any particular nation-state, but rather the empire of Capital. And NeoCons as well as their critics have spoken of a "soft imperialism" under the US, which doesn't or wouldn't have to take over a country in order to bring it into the American-dominated international system.

    For a number of historical reasons, the idea of imperialism came in the 20th Century to be identified with racism, oppression, and the expropriation of the resources of weak nations by stronger ones, just as in the previous century it was postively identified with, among other things, the beneficial administration of "uncivilized" and underdeveloped regions of the world.

    If you want to read an even-handed discussion of the US as an empire, or at least as a world leader undertaking imperial burdens, you really ought to read that New York Times magazine article I've linked on ET a couple of times now. The essay includes numerous illuminating observations about the current geopolitical situation, including the European-American divide.

    For instance, on the main topic:

    "Ever since George Washington warned his countrymen against foreign entanglements, empire abroad has been seen as the republic's permanent temptation and its potential nemesis. Yet what word but ''empire'' describes the awesome thing that America is becoming? It is the only nation that polices the world through five global military commands; maintains more than a million men and women at arms on four continents; deploys carrier battle groups on watch in every ocean; guarantees the survival of countries from Israel to South Korea; drives the wheels of global trade and commerce; and fills the hearts and minds of an entire planet with its dreams and desires."

    Entire essay at :

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/magazine/05EMPIRE.html?pagewanted=1&tntemail1
     
  32. just look at the 5 permanent UN security members:
    who wants war - brits and us
    who doesn't - russia,china,france

    who has oil contracts to pump oil - france, russia and china
    who doesn't - brits and us

    how do the france,russia,china get their hands on the oil? UN sanctions have to be lifted by inspectors saying iraq is free of WMD.

    if a regime change occurs who will get special considerations?

    and who wont?

    now add in until 1972 the US and Uk had a 2/3rd partnership deal with iraq on its oil. in 1972 iraq nationalized its oil and kicked out US and UK.

    someone posted who are the largest oil companies - yeah US companies are not the largest (but your comparing them to nationalized oil) but if you add up 2 largest US oil companies and they alone are 2nd place on the world list. china is fourth.

    regime change or not this could change who is at the top of oil.
     
  33. Whatever......so in your opinion it's ALL about oil?
     
  34. some thoughts/questions:


    -has anyone considered that oil is a factor because it is a source of revenue for Saddam's WMD dreams. i.e. if Saddam did not have access to oil money, he would not be able to afford weapons labs, nuclear reactors, scientist payoffs etc. So ironically, the notion that "if not for oil we wouldn't be going in" is partially true in a sense, in that if not for oil Saddam would be a poor and scrawny tyrant- and much weaker at that- instead of a bloated and entrenched tyrant with the ways and means to fund armageddon.

    -much has been said about America wanting to 'steal' Iraq's oil, which is patently ridiculous (and thankfully the left has backed off this charge as common sense was simply too glaring even for them). but has anyone considered the fact that Saddam himself is literally stealing Iraq's oil in every sense of the word, and diverting the revenues exclusively to his own ends?

    -is it ethical, or indeed even possible, to morally legitimize a brutal dictatorship engaged in mass theft and deprivation, and by extension murder, on a grand scale? (Hate Bush all you want, but he is still an elected leader of a free country.) Are countries like france and russia not implicitly legitimizing a murdering and thieving dictatorship by accepting the status quo of Saddam's rule, and helping him with word and deed (and even cold hard cash)? If yes, then what moral authority can they claim?
     
  35. -Sticking with the moral authority theme, does anyone out there remember Bosnia ('95) and Kosovo ('99)? More specifically, does anyone remember the arguments put forth in favor of US intervention in both those instances?

    Consider Clinton's speech below. Keep in mind the democratic party's overall reaction to this speech at the time, and their overall position at the time in regards to human rights, global stability, and preemptive doctrine.

    Now fast forward a few years, substitute Hussein for Milosovic, Middle East for Europe, add in a credible threat to the United States (as opposed to a regional conflict), and try to tell me there isn't some seriously disgusting hypocrisy coming from the left.

    Text of Clinton's Kosovo Address
    March 24, 1999

    My fellow Americans, today our armed forces joined our NATO allies in airstrikes against Serbian forces responsible for the brutality in Kosovo. We have acted with resolve for several reasons. We act to protect thousands of innocent people in Kosovo from a mounting military offensive.

    We act to prevent a wider war, to defuse a powder keg at the heart of Europe, that has exploded twice before in this century with catastrophic results.

    We act to stand united with our allies for peace.

    By acting now, we are upholding our values, protecting our interests, and advancing the cause of peace.

    Tonight I want to speak with you about the tragedy in Kosovo and why it matters to America that we work with our allies to end it.

    First, let me explain what it is that we are responding to. Kosovo is a province of Serbia, in the middle of south eastern Europe and about 160 miles east of Italy. That's less than the distance between Washington and New York, and only about 70 miles north of Greece.

    Its people are mostly ethnic Albanian and mostly Muslim.

    In 1989 Serbia's leader Slobodan Milosevic, the same leader who started the wars in Bosnia and Croatia, and moved against Slovenia in the last decade, stripped Kosovo of the constitutional autonomy it's people enjoyed, thus denying them their right to speak their language, run their schools, shape their daily lives. For years, Kosovar's struggled peacefully to get their rights back. When President Milosevic sent his troops and police to crush them, the struggle grew violent.

    Last fall, our diplomacy, backed by the threat of force from our NATO alliance, stopped the fighting for awhile, and rescued tens of thousands of people from freezing and starvation in the hills where they had fled to save their lives. And last month, with our allies and Russia, we proposed a peace agreement to end the fighting for good. The Kosovar leaders signed that agreement last week.

    Even though it does not give them all they want, even though their people were still being savaged, they saw that a just peace is better than a long and unwinable war.

    The Serbian leaders, on the other hand, refused even to discuss key elements of the peace agreement. As the Kosovars were saying yes to peace, Serbia stationed 40,000 troops in and around Kosovo in preparation for a major offensive and in clear violation of the commitments they had made.

    Now they've started moving from village to village, shelling civilians and torching their houses. We've seen innocent people taken from their homes, forced to kneel in the dirt and sprayed with bullets. Kosovar men dragged from their families, fathers and sons together, lined up, and shot in cold blood. This is not war in the traditional sense. It is an attack by tanks and artillery on a largely defenseless people, whose leaders already have agreed to peace.

    Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative. It is also important to America's national interests. Take a look at this map. Kosovo is a small place, but it sits on a major fault line between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, at the meeting place of Islam and both the Western and Orthodox branches of Christianity.

    To the south are our allies, Greece and Turkey. To the north, our new democratic allies in Central Europe. And all around Kosovo, there are other small countries, struggling with their own economic and political challenges, countries that could be overthrown by a large new wave of refugees from Kosovo.

    All the ingredients for a major war are there. Ancient grievances, struggling democracies and in the center of it all, a dictator in Serbia who has done nothing since the Cold War ended, but start new wars and pour gasoline on the flames of ethnic and religious division.

    Sarajevo, the capital of neighboring Bosnia, is where World War I began. World War II and the Holocaust engulfed this region. In both wars Europe was slow to recognize the dangers, and the United States waited even longer to enter the conflicts. Just imagine if leaders back then had acted wisely and early enough, how many lives could have been saved? How many Americans would not have had to die?

    We learned some of the same lessons in Bosnia just a few years ago. The world did not act early enough to stop that war either. And let's not forget what happened. Innocent people herded into concentration camps, children gunned down by snipers on their way to school, soccer fields and parks turned into cemeteries. A quarter of a million people killed, not because of anything they had done, but because of who they were. Two million Bosnians became refugees.

    This was genocide in the heart of Europe, not in 1945, but in 1995. Not in some grainy newsreel from our parents' and grandparents' time, but in our own time, testing our humanity and our resolve.

    At the time, many people believed nothing could be done to end the bloodshed in Bosnia. They said, ``Well, that's just the way those people in the Balkans are.'' But when we and our allies joined with courageous Bosnians to stand up to the aggressors, we helped to end the war. We learned that in the Balkans, inaction in the face of brutality, simply invites brutality. But firmness can stop armies and save lives.

    We must apply that lesson in Kosovo, before what happened in Bosnia, happens there, too.

    Over the last few months, we have done everything we possibly could to solve this problem peacefully. Secretary Albright has worked tirelessly for a negotiated agreement. Mr. Milosevic has refused.

    On Sunday, I sent Ambassador Dick Holbrooke to Serbia to make clear to him again on behalf of the United States and our NATO allies that he must honor his own commitments and stop his repression or face military action. Again, he refused.

    Today, we and our 18 NATO allies agreed to do what we said we would do, what we must do to restore the peace. Our mission is clear - to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO's purpose so that the Serbian leaders understand the imperative of reversing course, to deter an even bloodier offensive against innocent civilians in Kosovo and, if necessary, to seriously damage the Serbian military's capacity to harm the people of Kosovo.

    In short, if President Milosevic will not make peace, we will limit his ability to make war.

    Now I want to be clear with you, there are risks in this military action - risk to our pilots and the people on the ground.

    Serbia's air defenses are strong. It could decide to intensify its assault on Kosovo, or to seek to harm us or our allies elsewhere. If it does, we will deliver a forceful response.

    Hopefully, Mr. Milosevic will realize his present course is self-destructive and unsustainable. If he decides to accept the peace agreement and demilitarize Kosovo, NATO has agreed to help to implement it with a peacekeeping force.

    If NATO's invited to do so, our troops should take part in that mission to keep the peace, but I do not intend to put our troops in Kosovo to fight a war.

    Do our interests in Kosovo justify the dangers to our armed forces? I thought long and hard about that question. I am convinced that the dangers of acting are far outweighed by the dangers of not acting - dangerous to defenseless people and to our national interests.

    If we and our allies were to allow this war to continue with no response, President Milosevic would read our hesitation as a license to kill. There would be many massacres, tens of thousands refugees, victims crying our for revenge. Right now, our firmness is the only hope the people of Kosovo have to be able to live in their own country, without having to fear for their own lives.

    Remember, we asked them to accept peace and they did. We asked them to promise to lay down their arms and they agreed. We pledged that we, the United States and the other 18 nations of NATO would stick by them if they did the right thing. We cannot let them down now.

    Imagine what would happen if we and our allies instead decided just to look the other way as these people were massacred on NATO's doorstep. That would discredit NATO, the cornerstone on which our security has rested for 50 years now.
     
  36. We must also remember that this is a conflict with no natural national boundaries. Let me ask you to look again at a map. The red dots are towns the Serbs have attacked. The arrows show the movement of refugees north, east and south. Already, this movement is threatening the young democracy in Macedonia, which has its own Albanian minority and a Turkish minority.

    Already, Serbian forces have made forays into Albania from which Kosovars have drawn support. Albania has a Greek minority. Let a fire burn here in this area, and the flames will spread.

    Eventually, key U.S. allies could be drawn into a wider conflict - a war we would be forced to confront later, only at far greater risk and greater cost.

    I have a responsibility as president to deal with problems such as this before they do permanent harm to our national interests. America has a responsibility to stand with our allies when they are trying to save innocent lives and preserve peace, freedom and stability in Europe. That is what we are doing in Kosovo.

    If we've learned anything from the century drawing to a close, it is that if America is going to be prosperous and secure, we need a Europe that is prosperous, secure, undivided and free.

    We need a Europe that is coming together, not falling apart. A Europe that shares our values, and shares the burdens of leadership. That is the foundation on which the security of our children will depend. That is why I have supported the political and economic unification of Europe. That is why we brought Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO, and redefined its mission. And reached out to Russia and Ukraine for new partnerships.

    Now what are the challenges to that vision of a peaceful, secure, united, stable Europe? The challenge of strengthening a partnership with a democratic Russia, that despite our disagreements, is a constructive partner in the work of building peace. The challenge of resolving the tensions between Greece and Turkey, and building bridges with the Islamic world.

    And finally, the challenge of ending instability in the Balkans, so that these bitter, ethnic problems in Europe are resolved by the force of argument, not the force of bombs. So that future generations of Americans do not have to cross the Atlantic to fight another terrible war. It is this challenge that we and our allies are facing in Kosovo.

    That is why we have acted now - because we care about saving innocent lives, because we have an interest in avoiding an even crueler and costlier war and because our children need and deserve a peaceful, stable, free Europe.

    Our thoughts and prayers tonight must be with the men and women of our armed forces, who are undertaking this mission for the sake of our values and our children's future.

    May God bless them, and may God bless America.


    ============

    try to tell me the parallels aren't striking. and that the left's political flipflop, now that the stakes are infinitely higher, isn't sickening. any takers?
     
  37. in my opinion its not about the US having control of Iraqi oil - its about russia, china and france not having control. getting rid of wmd is part of it
     
  38. Well I think Mandela was right to remind us that the first and only country to have used weapons of mass destructions is the US. I don't think they needed to drop atomic bombs on Japan to end the war. It's been suggested they could have given an ultimatum with evidence of the bomb's existence to Japanese officials. It was an experiment on live humans that ushered in the Cold War and caused babyboomers to live in fear of a nuclear holocaust.
    As for Bush it is clear he doesn't "think properly".The US human rights record has also been very questionablesince 9/11 with morethan 1200 people arrested and detained indefinitely and in secret just because they were Muslims and out of status.
     
  39. who cares who "controls" the oil... the real question is: who gets to pocket iraq's oil sales revenues... right now it's saddam... if the US kicks saddam then it's going to be iraq's people, if all goes well.
    Is any big US oil corporation going to increase its sales revenues after Iraq's occupation? not likely.

    And before you change the discussion to the US corporations that WILL make money off the war, may I remind you all the US corporations that are and WILL BE losing money because of Iraq's conflict? Are they war cheerleaders too because of the OIL?

    you have been reading too much chomsky recently obviously, because for him it's all about who controls who, who get pissed, who doesn't, and the US is to blame for all the sh%t that happens in the world. logic and clear thinking are absent in his "view of the world".
    His biggest mistake is asserting that people around the world hate us because of what we do (economic/foreign policy). But the truth is they hate us more because of what we are. Everything else is just rationalization: we are arrogant, we are ignorant, blah blah Just read fairplay's posts and maybe you will get convinced of what I'm saying.
     
  40. Why Kicking would be trying to defend Mandela's indefensible comments is beyond me. Some of Mandela's greatest admirers, including many on the anti-war side, have condemned his statements.

    Frankly, I don't believe Kicking is thinking properly.

    Untrue: The category Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is a catch-all that includes chemical and biological as well as nuclear weapons. In theory, it could include some other, more exotic weapons, but that's beside the point. Biological weapons, broadly defined, have been used many times in the history of warfare. Poison gas was used in large quantities during World War I, and, more recently, by Saddam Hussein himself, both in his war with Iran and against the Kurds. It was believed, though never authoritatively verified, to my knowledge, that the Soviets made substantial use of chemical weapons in Afghanistan. Even without broadening the definition to include machine gun regiments, incendiary bombs, and political organizations, etc., it is by no means a stretch to say that the Nazis employed weapons of mass destruction (poison gas, in particular) against the Jews and other inmates of the Concentration Camps.



    Yeah, and I guess we could have given sanctions another try, too...

    Even the actual detonation of the first bomb at Hiroshima wasn't sufficient to cause Japanese surrender. There was significant resistance to surrender even after the second bomb. As hard as it is for us today to believe or understand, when the Japanese under the "Imperial Way" movement claimed to prefer death to dishonor, they largely meant it. The US was said to believe, with good reason, that the subjugation of Japan by "conventional" means would entail on the order of 1 million American casualties - along with much larger numbers of Japanese sacrificing themselves pointlessly for the sake of the Emperor.

    There were numerous other factors and concerns that went into President Truman's decision too complicated to go into here, and this all goes to the fallacy of imposing present-day standards and simplistic judgments on events of 60 years ago. By 1945, tens of millions of people had been killed as a direct result of the war, including an estimated 20 million citizens of the Soviet Union. Like the Germans, who, in addition to annihilating targeted social groups en masse invented so-called strategic bombing (i.e., bombing of civilian targets in order to weaken the enemy's ability to resist), the Japanese made the mass murder of civilian populations part of their national policy from early on, perhaps most famously during the "Rape of Nanking," during which hundreds of thousands of defenseless Chinese were put to death amidst a multi-month orgy of rape, torture, and genocide.

    http://www.tribo.org/nanking/

    The US and its allies also engaged in horrific excesses, large and small, throughout World War II, but "total war" has a way of desensitizing where not thoroughly brutalizing all participants, and there's little room for doubt on the historical record who began the escalation and who engaged in by far the larger amounts of it.

    The whole category of WMD is a recent invention, speaking to narrow if extremely serious present-day concerns. When the atomic bombs were first used, they were an awesome technological refinement, but mass destruction of various types was on display worldwide, as it often has been during wars for thousands of years.



    You would have preferred a Hot War? Or would you prefer that no one was afraid of nuclear weapons?



    Mandela's statement was a direct and rather ironic insult aimed at Bush, not at any specific policy. It's ironic because it tends to emphasize the overall impression from Mandela's comments and even from the manner in which he made them: That Mandela is the one who has been having mental difficulties.

    I don't know whom you would like to appoint as the international judge of proper thinking. If I held the position, I would consider many indviduals in and around the anti-war movement subject to indictment, along with not a few on the other side as well. That's what's so great about democracy - every idiot is encouraged to think that his or her opinion, no matter how ill-informed or narrowly considered, is significant.

    Please give your evidence that 1,200 people are under detention, or that very many of them were held for any significant period, "just because they were Muslims and out of status."
     
  41. `every idiot is encouraged to think that his or her opinion, no matter how ill-informed or narrowly considered, is significant.´

    it becomes dangerously significant if an intellectually and morally retard born-again christian fundamentalist maniac is in charge of far-reaching decisions, unrestricted by constitutional or other legal limitations of his powers.
     

  42. you should be reading that quote to yourself
     
  43. I believe that many have considered the point, but that for various reasons (including intellectual laziness and rhetorical convenience) it is frequently forgotten or neglected.

    Bush's formulation from the State of the Union address implicitly recognized the problem, though I suppose he and his supporters could be faulted for not being even more clear:



    When discussing the possibility of war, many focus on very short-term concerns and narrow contexts, and seem to be unable to consider the larger issues or the likely and potential costs of alternatives to current policy. This tendency is of course also very frequently observable in discussion of past events as justifications for whatever point of view.



    Very nicely stated, in my opinion. As Provisional International Judge of Proper Thinking, I'd like to offer you a gold star.

    It is truly confounding to me to see large numbers of thoroughly well-intentioned people marching or otherwise acting in support of a fascist dictator. Beyond an occasional concession to the effect that "yes, Saddam is monstrous," anti-war leaders and activists never seem to consider that, setting aside all geopolitical issues, they are advocating that the Iraqi people be left under the control of Saddam (or his Ba'ath successors) in perpetuity. It's this realization that led a long-time leftist like Christopher Hitchens to leave THE NATION magazine and to put himself vocally on the side of an aggressive anti-Saddam policy.
     
  44. Just for illustration - and for those interested - one of Hitchens' many recent statements in support of action against Hussein from the perspective of a veteran leftist:

    Full text at:

    http://www.news.mflaterz.com/Op-Ed/Christopher Hitchens We Must Fight Iraq 092502a.htm
     
  45. From the same Hitchens piece, relating to the main topic of this thread:


     
  46. This post is dedicated to all the chickenhawks trolling the chitchat forums

    You know who you are.. maxine keymarfye hapaboy freealways(nice new nick how to you keep track with all your aliases?) daniela... hey Tony have a beer when watching the blood spills on your boobtube... man o man not enough space on Baron's drives to list em all..cannyon where are you?

    Take look at the TOP CHICKENHAWKS controlling my country and their excuses to dodge military, and yet they are so willing sending others into harm's way:mad: :mad:
    disgusting!!! who's worst??? they or the morons who put them in office????? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???


    http://www.takebackthemedia.com/chickenhawks.html

    No blood for oil!!! take the monkey's fingers off the nuke buttons, monkey's done for good if no war

    READ Dwight D. Eisenhower's speech excerpt at the end
    READ IT TWICE to get it through your friggin thick scull


    I want my country back and what it USED to stand for :mad: :mad: :mad:
     
  47. kymarfye: `every idiot is encouraged to think that his or her opinion, no matter how ill-informed or narrowly considered, is significant.´

    darkhorse: `you should be reading that quote to yourself´

    i am an independent Schweizerbürger and do not take orders from anyone (except from my wife, an independent Schweizerbürgerin). i am not on mr. rumsfeld´s payroll as `Provisional International Judge of Proper Thinking´ or in any other capacity. i decide for myself what to read, what to think, what to say and which ill-informed or narrowly considered opinion to find significant. i do not find kymarfye´s parrot opinion even remotely significant.
     
  48. You can be rest assured that your opinion is even less remotely significant as you are safely ensconced in some remote valley in the Swiss Alps and have little to fear from terrorists. If Al Queda took a sudden interest in your banking institutions that would probably get your hackles up; however the likelihood of that happening is probably zilch as Bin Laden and his cronies probably are using your financial institutions with as much zeal as former Nazis.

    How convenient it is to live in a neutral nation whose main religion is the almighty dollar, and the euro, and the yen, etc. Enjoy your sideline rants while you can.
     
  49. Your country IS standing up for what it always has exemplefied, despite the opinion of you and those like you. If it were up to you we'd curl up, wish happy thoughts, and pray for terrorists and madmen to just leave us alone. I suggest you contact msfe and see if he has a room to rent you in that remote Swiss valley of his.
     
  50. An undercurrent of profound unease over a war against Iraq is sweeping through Britain's military establishment, with senior commanders worried about confused objectives and the ethics of launching a pre-emptive strike.

    Serious concerns were reflected yesterday by several well-placed sources close to the Ministry of Defence who, because of the sensitivity of the issue, insisted on remaining anonymous. "There is general disquiet not just about the issue of UN resolutions but about the ethical dimension," one said. "There is a feeling that in order to attack there has to be some kind of aggression in the opposite direction. This would be a first".

    These underlying concerns were reflected last week by General Sir Jack Deverell, commander-in-chief of allied forces, Northern Europe, who told the BBC he would not like to go to war without the support of the country.

    It has also been echoed by a string of former military officers, including General Sir Roger Wheeler, who was head of the army until 2000, General Sir Michael Rose, former UN commander in Bosnia, and Major-General Patrick Cordingley, commander of the 'Desert Rats' armoured brigade in the 1991 Gulf war.

    Sir Roger said yesterday: "If we are going to war, we need the backing of the international community and the country and that means a second [UN] resolution. The military need to know what the political objectives are".

    A number of well-placed sources pointed to what they called confused objectives - whether action was in pursuit of regime change, or the discovery and destruction of weapons of mass destruction.

    "What if there aren't any [such weapons] or you can never find them?", asked one source close to Whitehall's military advisers.

    Britain's military commanders hope that the Iraqi regime will "implode" after a massive bombing assault by the US. "What happens then?" asked another source."Do you go in, or stand and watch?"

    Whatever happens, defence officials admit, the US will ask British and other European countries to stay on in Iraq to maintain law and order. "Obviously we will be in Iraq for several years to come", one senior defence official said yesterday. However, sources pointed out that any significant British forces remaining in Iraq would have serious implications for the defence budget.

    There is growing frustration among the British military because they still have not been told about their role in US operational plans.

    British intelligence agencies, meanwhile, maintained yesterday there was no evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida terrorist networks.
     
  51. I think it is a big mistake to turn this into a NATO outing. Sadam is america's problem.
     
  52. All of the above have to come to the realization that they are IRRELIVANT and useless.

    NATO has no Carrier Battle Groups, they have no deployable Troops, no Airlift capability, without the US supplying the planes and the ships.

    NATO can barely handle KOSAVO, and the US supplied the Lions share of Troops and support.

    The UNITED NATIONS has no enforcement power without the United States.

    Without the United States Military Power to back up the UN, their resolutions are nothing but WALLPAPER.

    So if they don't get on board so be it.

    We can go it alone, we still have 8 European Nations that support us, and Britain.

    So NATO and UN can go fly a KITE!

    It was our buildings that were Rammed by 3 airliners, not the UN or NATOs buildings.
     
  53. MSFE sez "even the remotest of Swiss valleys will be affected by the `nukular´ fallout of american democratization efforts in the middle east, let alone unexpected side-effects of liberation and implementation of human rights."

    MSFE, can you explain this a little further?

    Its sounds like Euro Babble from the Saddam School of Government, LOL.

    But I am sure you can explain if further to our satisfaction.

    WILD
     
  54. Such a ridiculous statement is impossible to explain. But if we're lucky, he'll find a Guardian article to cut and paste that will, in some way, explain the dangers of liberation and the implementation of human rights to him and his fellow Swiss "neutralists."

    For sheer entertainment value, it's tough to beat msfe & Candle!
     
  55. I don't think it is all about the oil. I think the US is also getting sick and tired of being in bed with the Saudis since a majority of the 9/11 are from that country not to mention they are the primary financiers of the madrasas . I think they are making a calculated gamble that if the US can deal with a milder regime in Iraq, it does'nt have to be too cozy with the Saudis and can demand better reforms from them-i.e. democracy, end the madrasas funding,etc.
     
  56. Among other laughable points - Syria on the Human Rights board and Iran and Iraq on the disarmament board. Let me guess what's next: Bin Laden as honorary chair of the Anti-Terrorism Committee.

    Sometimes you've got to wonder how long our patience will last.
     
  57. Did you ever notice that Saud rhymes with fraud ?
     
  58. if and when we hit North Korea?

    It's all about the KIM CHEE!:D
     
  59. hapajerkof, get your cronies, you know.. maxine, freealways(nice new alias for max401) agin should pop in on your defense any minute now, and of course the unforgettable keymarfye, and chew on this for a while. You are many in nicks but very few if not one in reality so it won't take too much of your time.
    Keymarfye the best pile o crap layer around. Man you make Greenie's speeches easy to understand compared to your 1000 words that mean s$$t, but hey! they sound really good tho, nice command of english language I got to give you ole buddy:D

    Ok ok ok but to the subject.

    The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.

    Source: [ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:, 2002-09-29 00:00:00.000

    Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for Bush's foreign and defense policy.

    The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
    In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

    And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.
    Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.
    Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.
    To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.
    It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."
    In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.
    "The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."


    Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.
    'Constabulary duties'
    Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."
    To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."
    To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.
    More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.
    The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.

    Effect on allies
    The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.
    The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.
    One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.
    Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.....more in article

    Costly global commitment
    Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.
    Kagan is more blunt.
    "People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."
    The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor

    and looky here who is who:
    Paul Wolfowitz
    Political science doctorate from University of Chicago and dean of the international relations program at Johns Hopkins University during the 1990s. Served in the Reagan State Department, moved to the Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy. Sworn in as deputy defense secretary in March 2001.
    John Bolton
    Yale Law grad who worked in the Reagan administration as an assistant attorney general. Switched to the State Department in the first Bush administration as assistant secretary for international organization affairs. Sworn in as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, May 2001.
    Eliot Cohen
    Harvard doctorate in government who taught at Harvard and at the Naval War College. Now directs strategic studies at Johns Hopkins and is the author...more in article


    http://www.thetip.org/art_The_President_s_Real_Goal_in_Iraq__201_icle.html

    Keymar as you noticed and just for you I use less and less exclamations.

    Candletrader you had it right about the imperialistic attitude. Do a closer search, one will easily discover that a great number of state department and cabinet level goons hold Israeli passports. IS THAT LEGAL? and who's interests do they serve? Where is their allegiance?

    What the f@$k are you doing to my country?? :confused: :mad: :mad:
     
  60. You are an idiot Trader556. These are Americans, born and bred. They only hold one passport.

    There are more in opposition to the policies Wolfowitz et al (you left out Richard Perle) promote than in support of them.

    Examine the memberships of various antiwar groups, your thesis goes down the toilet.

    We have a hawkish administration which will fill its ranks with hawks. Plain and simple.

    Once again,you are an idiot.
     
  61. I totally disagree. The Israeli passport question is a trivial part of what Trader 556 posts.

    The idea of "Pax Americana" is the key concept here. None of the other arguments really hold up and can explain why the US is willing to risk and spend so much to occupy Iraq.

    Oil has been well deconstructed here as a cause beyond a side benefit. Its clear that WMDs and supposed connection with bin Laden et all is silly when one considers that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Iran are well documented (even by the US government!) to be much larger state supporters of international Islamic terrorism than Iraq. Iran recently was reported to be the home for bin Laden's son as well as other al queda big wigs.

    The North Korea nuclear developments further reveal the lies of the WMD situation. Pakistan built the Taliban, likely helped al Qaeda escape from Afghanistan and has a nuke program founded and run by fundamentalists and documented to have tried to help Al Qaeda get nukes. Iran is starting its own reactor- not just buying aluminum and is still controlled by Islamic maniacs despite claims of reform.

    Sure Hussein is a sadistic madman but plenty of those are good allies in our fight against terrorism. Remember all those stan countries surrounding Afghanistan? Most of them are led by unreformed Stalinists who brutalize their populations. There are many other cruel leaders who we are quite close with.

    Again, IMO the Pax-Americana theory is the only one that explains the urgency and logic behind this war. Sure, all of the justifications for attack have some truth to them. However, in the larger picture, they begin to look silly.
     
  62. Well, according to the poll, we now know that 25.40% of ET members are total idiots. :(

    FRuiTY P.
     
  63. No - the point has been made that slogans such as "No blood for oil!" over-simplify a complex but very real issue. For Marxists, Islamo-fascists, and their fellow travelers (unwitting and otherwise), virtually any efforts by the US and others to press their interests in the Persian Gulf region will equate with conquest and imperialism. For supporters of an aggressive policy, Iraq's own oil reserves and the country's proximity to other critical oil resources magnify its significance in multiple, mutually reinforcing ways: Iraq is in a position to endanger critical world energy supplies, to blackmail the world on that basis, and, through its own access to oil wealth, to retain and increase its power. Why is this so difficult to understand?

    This line of argumentation is "silly" when one considers the unique situations of each of the mentioned countries. Pakistan's support of Islamic terrorism is, for the moment, mainly a thing of the past, as demonstrated most clearly by Musharraf's strategic decision to back the US in Afghanistan. The US relationship with Saudi Arabia is long and complicated, and may someday be subject to revision, but SA, in contrast to Iraq, has mainly been a force for stability in the Persian Gulf. As for Iran, there is significant hope that the country may evolve on its own in a direction favorable to US interests. North Korea is likewise a separate, unique case: Among other things, its geostrategic significance does not compare to Iraq's as far as US and other countries' interests are concerned. That doesn't mean that NK's nuclear ambitions and other bad actions are insignificant, only that NK's situation requires and allows a different approach.

    More generally, as Bush attempted to spell out in his State of the Union address, and as really ought to be obvious, it makes no sense to attempt to apply the identical tactics to every situation. Even if the US made the unwise decision to use force against every one of the regimes you mention, and against all the other bad actors in the world, it would make no sense to attack them all at the same time.

    What I think you mean by "Pax-Americana theory" has been discussed at length in recent months. To the extent it refers to a frank assessment of US interests from an informed geopolitical perspective, it does not inherently contradict the "justifications for attack" that you dismiss so readily. It may, however, make it easier to understand them.
     
  64. it is very easy to lament about Chamberlain´s appeasement policy without mentioning an important fact: neither Britain nor France had the muscle to confront Hitler´s Wehrmacht militarily at the time - as was demonstrated on the beaches of Dunkirk in 1940.
     
  65. dgabriel! a pure numbskull calling out idiot? you hold first second and third place, -unless you misunderstood what I posted, and if you did ask for clarification- or go check and confirm your self :confused:

    man go back under your rock, check YOUR facts:mad:
    go check their bios, what is wrong with you people?

    a small sample and READ:

    1). Richard Perle----One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam.


    2). Paul Wolfowitz----Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle's Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz is the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering.


    3). Douglas Feith----Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don't agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm's own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith "represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer." Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.


    4). Edward Luttwak----Member of the National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly an Israeli citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli and pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist whose main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging war against Iraq.


    5). Henry Kissinger-----One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle. For detailed information about Kissinger's evil past, read Seymour Hersch's book (Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House). Kissinger had a part in the Watergate crimes, Southeast Asia mass murders, Chile dictatorship, and more recently served as Serbian Dictator Slobodan Milosevic's Advisor. He consistently advocates going to war against Iraq. Kissinger is the Ariel Sharon of the U.S.


    6). Dov Zakheim----Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for the Department of Defense. He is an ordained rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended Jew's College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in 1973. He was adjunct professor at New York's Jewish Yeshiva University. Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby.

    7). Kenneth Adelman-----One of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supports going to war against Iraq. Adelman frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Through his hatred or stupidity, he actually called Arabs "anti-Semitic" on Fox News (11/28/2001), when he could have looked it up in the dictionary to find out that Arabs bydefinition are Semites.

    8). I. Lewis Libby -----Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff. The chief pro-Israel Jewish advisor to Cheney, it helps explains why Cheney is so gun-ho to invade Iraq. Libby is longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Libby was also a lawyer for convicted felon and Israeli spy Mark Rich, whom Clinton pardoned, in his last days as president.

    9). Robert Satloff----U.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby's "think tank," Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby's "experts" come from this front group, like Martin Indyk.

    10). Elliott Abrams-----National Security Council Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based "Think Tank" Ethics and Public Policy Center. During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of State, handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played an important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally selling U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government. He also actively deceived three congressional committees about his involvement and thereby faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours of community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior) granted Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Reagan Administration's State Department.

    11). Marc Grossman-----Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel Jewish officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to higher posts.

    12). Richard Haass-----Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration who sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocates going to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the Defense Department's National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

    13). Robert Zoellick-----U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position. He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Bush (Jr) Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of the country in order to set up setting up a Vichy-style puppet government. He consistently advocates going to war against Iraq.

    14). Ari Fleischer----Official White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Kabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad's Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001.

    15). James Schlesinger-----One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supports going to war against Iraq. Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department's National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

    16). Mel Sembler-----President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank facilitates trade relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries, specifically those with financial problems.

    doozens more-you know them already



    FRuiTY PeBBLe's quote: Well, according to the poll, we now know that 25.40% of ET members are total idiots

    Ok Vinny the long$hit Contrary Pebbel bullcrap
    Nice try you bumpa$$. You are acting more of a jerk as time goes by. 25.40% of THAT poll were the same person that holds the dozens of aliases, AND holds a grudge against the moderator for doing an excellent job putting up with your $hit. The idiot is you multiplied by the number of times you voted :mad: :mad:

    Look man, give it a rest and let the moderators do their job. ET is one of the best free sites on the net, don't screw it up:mad:
     
  66. If they wanted to prevent Saddam of anything they would have destabilised his regim a long time ago like they did in Venezuela or in any country when they want to. So this is just a farce.


     
  67. You're suggesting that if Chamberlain had amended his famous phrase - perhaps by proclaiming "Peace for the next little while, maybe..." - he'd be remembered as a great statesman?

    Most historians consider Chamberlain's negotiations with the Nazis to have been a severe setback to Churchill and all the others who rightly believed that that war was coming, who were urging enhanced preparations, and who were desperately fighting against isolationism and every other form of wishful thinking. We'll of course never know how things might have been otherwise.
     
  68. Churchill was neither very popular nor the PM in charge then
     
  69. Of course - it didn't prevent Churchill and others from working for an alternative. What was popular was pretending that negotiations with fascist tyrants would prevent war. Having the PM claim the opposite encouraged such wishful thinking. Do you really not understand this? If you don't, you might try reading Churchill on the subject. If that's too much, you could always get the HBO movie that was done on it last year - I thought they did an okay job.
     
  70. LOL.. You are so clueless! I now see what type of person I'm dealing with here. I feel sorry for you, trader556. :( That could quite possibly be the worst comeback I've ever encountered. LOL

    FRuiTY "bumpa$$" PeBBLe :D
     
  71. in a true democracy like the UK popularity counts to some extent. due to a lack of it Churchill was voted out of office right after the end of WW II.
     
  72.  
  73. Thanks for this excellent post, trader556... it included a few who I wasnt aware of...

    The Israeli connection with and influence on US foreign policy is totally sickening...

    Free Palestine!


     
  74. Of course Iraq is about oil, but certainly not some silly concessions for some contractual partners that they can get, have already, want to have or have not. It is definitely not about the economic grip on the exploitation licenses, but on the strategic grip on oil as energy itself.

    The US would never go into a war that costs some hundred of billions, only to sell Iraq oil most expensively, i.e. most profitably. They go to war in order to keep the oil price sustainably inexpensive and to purchase as cheaply as possible. So the war is not about oil corporations but about car drivers. And we all do profit since oil is dealt with on a world market.

    As the price for Bagdad oil sinks, so sinks the price for Russian petrol in our car-tanks. In that respect Russia as as oil-exporter has in fact an economic interest in peace - which is not true for France and Germany.

    Provided Iraq can be made quit OPEC, increase drastically its exploitation volume and create additional capacities to be added in case of a rise in prices on the oil world market, then Iraq could become as decisive to the price of oil as is Saudi Arabia today. He who controls Bagdad need not be scared of upheaval in Saudi-Arabia and must not arrange with a questionable clan of Kings, because Saudi Arabia, where the Al-Kaida terrorists come from and live (and not in Iraq), can be controlled quite comfortably from Bagdad.
     
  75. Very nice points, msfe...
     
  76. Well, I think then that we partly agree. There are problems, however, with viewing the US as an empire - both practical and theoretical. The practical problem is that the term itself is a loaded one, and is inevitably greeted with reflexive reactions. The theoretical problem is establishing a useful definition of "empire." To me, the European Union looks more like a classic empire, or empire-in-formation, than the United States and its sphere of influence and interests, but I'm happy to acknowledge that the US might represent a different kind of imperial power, one based more on the extension of its political-economic system than on literal expansion of its sovereignty.

    However one feels about the term, the real issue, it seems to me, is that the US is in the process of re-defining its interests in a way that leaves no Cold War Era alliance, organization, or strategic presumption unaffected. 9/11 brought home the realization that key aspects of the late 20th Century security system - which included tolerating or even propping up a number of deeply dysfunctional Middle Eastern regimes - might not only be inadequate in the 21st Century, but extremely dangerous. Recent events seem to confirm further that, in the final analysis, even the crown jewel of the post-World War II security system, the United Nations itself, qualifies as a "terrorist-supporting regime." If we hold, with President Bush, that any state that shields the implacable enemies of civilization must either change its behavior or be held accountable, can a political organization that protects and sustains those states and those behaviors escape the same test?

    My point isn't that we need infiltrate Special Forces units around First Avenue and 46th in Manhattan - though they might very well encounter a "target-rich environment" - or even just that we need to re-think our relationship to the UN, and therefore to the global community that it represents. The larger implication, which also follows from our prior discussion, is just about as difficult for any of us to face as it is unavoidable - for it's far easier to focus on the pros and cons of Iraq policy, or on infighting at the UNSC and despair over the French and Germans: Though the US and its allies cannot take on the whole world at once, they may have no choice but to take on the whole world in time.
     
  77. Turkey Suspends Vote on U.S. Troops

    By HARMONIE TOROS
    The Associated Press
    Monday, February 17, 2003; 3:31 PM


    Turkey's prime minister on Monday ruled out a parliamentary vote to allow tens of thousands of U.S. combat troops on its territory until Turkish and U.S. officials agree on the conditions of the deployment.

    Parliament had been expected to vote Tuesday, and Washington has warned Turkey that time is running out. A delay could hamper U.S. plans to open a northern front in an Iraq war.

    "We are not going to the parliament tomorrow (Tuesday)," Prime Minister Abdullah Gul told reporters in Brussels, Belgium. "We have some concerns on economic and political issues."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21350-2003Feb17.html
     
  78. I'm sorry, you are an idiot. It's a fact.

    That there are Jewish members of the current administration and in think tanks ideologically aligned with the administration should not be a surprise at all. I am sure there are members in the current administration with heritages from various countries and many may have relatives in those countries.

    To infer that there is a cabal of Jews in government and Washington exerting undue influence on the Adminstration for the purpose of creating and extending pro-Israeli policies is part of a transparent racist campaign.

    Libby's views can explain Cheney's? Give me a break! Cheney's, and Bush's views explain his hiring of Libby, and as well, the rest of the defense and foreign affairs staff.

    Israel is a tool in American Middle East policy, not the object of it.


    And Resinate, I am not taking exception to the quotation from the Atlanta Constitution, or the notion that Pax Americana is an operative policy, but rather the implications of Trader556's "dual passport" smear.
     
  79. Chirac finding pro-US stances hard to stomach
    MICHAEL SETTLE
    AMID the mocha coffee and the petits four, Jacques Chirac lost the argument. Shortly afterwards at his press conference, he lost his temper too.

    Sources keeping a delicate diplomatic distance in the grand European Council dining room reported that Monsieur le President was steadily being forced into a corner.

    ***
    At Mr Annan's hawkish stance, Mr Chirac stood up and, with Gallic passion, began a defence of the French position.

    Flinging his arms up and down, he declared that war was a terrible thing and that thousands of innocent people would lose their lives in a second Gulf war. "It is a question of life and death," he said.

    It was suggested that, at this point, the most dramatic moment of the evening occurred. Silvio Berlusconi, the diminutive Italian premier, eyeballed Mr Chirac and insisted: "I'm just as concerned about life and death as you are."

    He asked the French president to consider what happened to innocent people in Bali and in New York's twin towers.

    * * *
    Then, Tony Blair said his piece, deriding the 12 years of deceit by Saddam and stressing he had to come into compliance "100%".

    Looking at his colleagues one by one, he told them bluntly: "There is no intelligence agency of any government around this table that does not know that the government of Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."

    In a passionate conclusion, the prime minister said: "If Saddam stays, the Iraqis will pay with their lives."

    * * *
    Yesterday, as Mr Blair faced the most difficult two weeks of his political life, it had been expected he would be the one suffering from pre - and post - summit indigestion and indignation. Last night, however, it looked as though it was Mr Chirac who, following the osso buco and carpaccio d'ananas, was the one looking a bad mix of green and red.

    - Feb 18th

    Much more at:

    http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/18-2-19103-0-19-59.html
     
  80. The Bush administration is working hard to contain proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. One has to be either suecidal or a moron to oppose Bush's agenda.
     
  81. [​IMG]
     
  82. should then the US bomb and overthrow all governments possessing "WMDs"?
     
  83. The post you replied to stated:

    "contain proliferation" is the operative phrase, i.e. new acquisitions, particularly those by madmen.
     
  84. thanks for the correction. permit me to amend:

    should then the US bomb and overthrow all governments pursuing the acquisition of "WMDs"?

    and how would you define "madmen"?
     
  85. do psychopat mass-murderer tyrants qualify?
     
  86. One would have to believe that there could not be a generalized blanket policy as you seem to promote. In any event, I see no policy where "bombing" and "overthrow" is the first action taken.

    Do you consider the governments of N. Korea and Iraq stable?
     
  87. I'm not promoting anything. I'm asking a question.

    N. Korea and Iraq - are they run by madmen? If so, why?

    are China, Pakistan, and India also run by madmen, or do they possess sanity as they 'acquire' their "WMDs"? should they be bombed and overthrown, either as a first or last action?
     
  88. That cannot think STRAIGHT

    Think about this,

    Out of your choices for "Problem Children" in the World,

    IRAQ

    North Korea

    China

    Pakistan etc, etc....


    Only IRAQ has WMD and has used them in the past - ON HIS OWN PEOPLE

    IRAQ has invaded another neighbor 2 times in the past 20 years

    IRAQ is under the same Despot (for 20 years) with more stockpiles since the last conflict.

    And IRAQ has loaded who knows what on the three 40,000 ton mystery ships floating in the worlds oceans on RADIO SILENCE.

    And IRAQ would probably be more than willing to give Terrorists some of WMD ...... Who is willing to take that gamble?

    END GAME approaching
     
  89. answers:
    1. Many dictators have killed their own people and still do..there are many reported cases of North Korea using chemical weapons on their on people that are imprisoned for political reasons. Just because it wasnt on the tip of a scud doesnt make it any different.

    2. Fidel Castro has been in total control of Cuba for much longer. He has committed countless autrocities on his own people as well..

    3. Mystery Ship......Stop them board them and then relay the correct cargo...but a "loaded with who knows what " doesnt mean jack.

    4. Saddam is about power not terrorism....period. He is ammasing a fortune and ruling with an iron fist..thats his game. Saudi Arabia on the other hand had more citizens onboard the 911 planes than Iraq had....was there even one Iraqi??....

    peace
     
  90. 1) North Korea is a true threat, I hope we get em...

    2) I don't agree with us bombing Iraq (I don't believe they pose a threat), but I am resigned to the fact that we will end up bombing em...

    3) China is not a bastion of terrorism, but it is a geopolitical threat... we must contain the Chinese by absorbing North Korea and Taiwan into our sphere of control...

    4) Pakistan cannot be trusted, we should either take out their nukes with Indian and Israeli help (both of whom are working together on this anyway), or we must do it directly...

    5) India is not an enemy in a post cold-war environment... Israel is already working extremely closely with these guys... India is a useful potential geopolitical counterweight to regional Chinese influence... we should therefore sell the Indians whatever weapons they want...
     
  91. CUBANO you are Fired your answers are weak:

    Hope you enjoy the edit of your answers - I'm just trying to get you straight some of my best friends are Cuban.

    I served in the Air Force with many Cubans, one who flew at the Bay of Pigs.

    1. Many dictators have killed their own people and still do..NOT in the NUMBERS OF SADDAM - NAME ONE DESPOT that killed his people with GAS? HUMMMMMMMMM

    2. Fidel Castro has been in total control of Cuba for much longer. He has committed countless autrocities on his own people as well..

    NOBODY cares about CASTRO, he has NOTHING, he begs for money, the country is totally BK, Cuba will be a Resort after he dies.

    Me and a friend are gona open a CADILLAC Dealer in HAVANA LOL.

    3. Mystery Ship......Stop them board them and then relay the correct cargo...but a "loaded with who knows what " doesnt mean jack.

    Yeah, we will stop them when they run of Diesel full in the middle of the Ocean.

    4. Saddam is about power (to destroy and launch Missiles anywhere in a few months or years)

    not terrorism....period (you got to be kidding, he would kill his own people with SERIN GAS, he will surely give WMD to Terrorist to kill ANYONE).

    He is ammasing a fortune - Correct - and he has RESOURCES to supply TERRORISTs unlike CASTRO, whose dirt POOR.

    and ruling with an iron fist..thats his game (Agree).

    Saudi Arabia on the other hand had more citizens onboard the 911 planes than Iraq had....was there even one Iraqi??....

    (Didn't say SAUDI was going to be kept safe either).



    USAF sez PEACE through precision guided munitions.

    18 European Nations agree with the US.

    LET'S ROLL
     
  92. And, in respect of what Agin just posted, I would strongly support the bombing of Saudi Arabia (for me this is justified in a way that a bombing of Iraq couldn't be... but if we do start to bomb the Iraqis, I will of course support our soldiers)...
     
  93. thanks for the suggestion - I'll try to think straighter in the future. ElCubano raised good points with regard to the above. The comparison with Castro is interesting. The other points make nice slogans, but do they justify a preemptive war, by themselves?

    Lincoln killed 250,000 of his own citizens, his portrait is on a coin. Many countries have invaded other countries in the past, the list would take pages. Chinese govt. is arguably at least as oppressive as Iraq. many countries possess "WMDs" that could be given to terrorists. France is an example, and newly categorized as an acceptable object of open hatred by patriotic Americans - if they are so treacherous, why not fear their aiding the terrorists too?

    there is no dispute that saddam is a bad guy. what is in doubt is what differentiates him from all the other tyrants of the world, what justifies bombing him, and most importantly, how that differentiation applies to other, similar countries in the future.

    an example - this story today:
    U.S.-Turkish Tensions Mount Over Aid, Troops
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30506-2003Feb19.html

    the reporting is exaggerated, but one has to ask if Turkey might stumble its way onto the administration's 'to-bomb' list. sure it sounds improbable, but so did war with Iraq 2 years ago. surely there are some aluminum tubes in Turkey and sufficient malfeasance attributable to the Turkish government.

    they have also announced through 'anonymous officials' that they're considering going after Iran and Syria. again, that doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility, especially given the foundation for the war on Iraq. if not, then why not? if so, where does this end?
     

  94. September 11th, The Sequel
    followed by
    September 12th, The Prequel,
    then
    September 13th, Die Another Day

    More productions, in addition to the Osama productions cited above, are probably on the way... Osama is now pretty overworked, so the Director will also be hiring Mohammad, Ali, and Imran, who will each have their own series dedicated to their exploits... Mohammad's Series will be witnessed in August, Ali's in July and Imran's in June...

    The Director may also be hiring on an ad-hoc basis, with productions to be released randomly throughout the year, in various locations around the USA...
     
  95. Quote from Madison:

    "Lincoln killed 250,000 of his own citizens, his portrait is on a coin."

    I guess Jeff Davis did about the same. So what?

    "Many countries have invaded other countries in the past, the list would take pages."

    Is that being condoned now? And what generally was the response?

    "Chinese govt. is arguably at least as oppressive as Iraq."

    Definitely a human rights issue not quite worthy of invasion. China is definitely stable politically and not a threat to the region.

    "many countries possess "WMDs" that could be given to terrorists."

    So could the US for that matter, but the argument is specious. What countries and what would be their motive?

    "France is an example, and newly categorized as an acceptable object of open hatred by patriotic Americans - if they are so treacherous, why not fear their aiding the terrorists too?"

    Because obviously they don't and wouldn't for their own economic, among moral and other reasons.

    "there is no dispute that saddam is a bad guy. what is in doubt is what differentiates him from all the other tyrants of the world, what justifies bombing him, and most importantly, how that differentiation applies to other, similar countries in the future."

    Well, why don't you you tell us just how Saddam is "similar" to "other tyrant's of the world."
     
  96. you are arguing just to argue.

    Fact: Iraq should be bombed
    Q) why?
    A) because he killed his own people in the past
    Q) ok, but most countries have done that, even your own. does that per se justify a preemptive war by a third party?
    A) so what?
     
  97. 1. Re: Lincoln, I'm presenting an equally illogical comparison with Jefferson. In any event, killing one's "own people," in this case enemy soldiers in a civil war, is acceptable, including unintentional (and unavoidable) collateral damage.

    2. Massacres are not, even though have occurred in modern times. Massacre via poison gas is beyond the pale.
     
  98. All regimes that threaten the U.S. must be targeted. We should not wait till they nuke us.
     
  99. I hope we have cooler heads on the helm..

    If we are to just attack anyone we feel threaten us, and we have already indicated to the world that we want to start preempt wars/invasion, then by the same reasoning:

    Most of the rest of the world is threatened by our actions and declared intentions.

    We are the only superpower on this planet but not the only one with WMD's.

    These are some other nations that have WMD's / working on them, have facilities to produce and some are selling them.

    United States
    Russia / USSR
    United Kingdom
    France
    China
    India
    Pakistan

    Israel
    Iran
    Iraq
    North Korea
    Algeria
    Chechnya
    Cuba
    Libya
    Serbia
    Sudan
    Syria
    Argentina
    Australia
    Belarus
    Brazil
    Egypt
    Japan
    Kazakhstan
    South Africa
    Taiwan
    Romania
    Ukraine

    click on link for more info on each nation/programs etc

    http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/index.html

    Then shouldn't they attack us using the same reasoning? I read these threads and there is an obvious (at least in words) hatred against every nation that is opposing our views and intended actions. I'd bet many people overseas have similar emotions against us.

    Of course, many of the above nations are our "allies/friends" now but what about tomorrow? If we follow the same reasoning, the possibility that maybe something is going to happen in the future, then should we just nuke em all first before they do it? USSR used to be our worst enemy and now they are with us, at least for now. Shouldn't we attack them before they change their minds?

    How about North Korea? they declared nukes and delivery systems to the western United States and they threaten to use them and that is now. Shouldn't we be invading them RIGHT NOW? Saddam, of course he is despot and can be vilified even worst than what he has been so far. So can be all the rest out there. Is he a threat? Sure he is, like 90% of the rest of the nations out there, if one uses the same standards. Heck, most of the chems and bios we think he has can be synthesized at just about any well equipped lab in our own Universities. The Anthrax sent to senate had a DNA ID from our West Virginia military biolabs.

    Now we are trying to bribe Turkey with 25-30 billion so they let out troops in. LOL Maybe we should just bribe Iraq, 1 bill to saddam 29 bill to iraqi people and keep them in our pockets. (remember that he used to be a friend 15 years back during the Iran-Iraq war). Save our economy 2 bill a day. Bring our people back and re-enforce our homeland, instead of cutting back in police and other emergency services in our cities.

    Just some thoughts, I'm sure some may disagree. This whole situation is a big mess, has caused a lot of angst, and divisions, not only between US and our allies, but even within our people here in the states.

    Good posts folks!

    I just hope cool heads prevail....

    Josh
     
  100. What? Are you guys a tag team? Your entire reply is based on this post:

    Which is hardly a majority opinion and not even close to the current policy of the US. Or do you simply respond to any drivel posted?
     
  101. max401, as noted, just some general thoughts on this thread, WMD's...tagging from the last post in line... etc. Nothing personal against you or anyone else. I am not aware of any specific format we need to follow when replying in the chitchat area.. If you find the posts offensive or out of line, please use the ignore functions.

    Again nothing personal, your posts along with everyone else's here are much appreciated.

    peace

    Josh
     
  102. Personal? Please, explain how an anonymous message board can be "personal?" I submit that it can not. I merely pointed out the observation that you bothered to reply to an inane post as if it was somehow a majority opinion. Like the pundit Les Kinsolving used to say: " I'll defend your right to say whatever you want, even if you are completely wrong."
     
  103. Madison

    Your whole approach to an argument is to raise a RED HERRING, like Lincoln killing 250,000, (now that's really coming out of left field). What are you talking about?

    Civil War casualties?

    Being from the South and a descendant of a CSA Veteran, I Don't even take that stance, you have got to be kidding.

    Did Roosevelt kill 300,000 in World War II?


    You sound like someone with a very poor understanding of American History.

    Did you learn American History from a school in the Arab World?

    In Baghdad perhaps?

    You also argue that the Chinese are just as bad.

    Last time I checked, the Chinese had not attacked or Invaded another country recently, although I have no love for the Chinese.



    Let me ask you this:

    Name a current Dictator who has done the following and if there is more than one, I might go along with you on military action after IRAQ.

    1. Has gassed his own people and killed them in the last 20 years.

    2. Has Invaded two neighbors in the last 20 years.

    3. Has defied UN sanctions and continued to develop WMD in the last 10 years and has borders with 3 countries that don't care if he exports the WMD out of his country.

    But the below is plenty of reason for the United States to go after Saddam notwithstanding the above reasons.

    IRAQs Intelligence Agency was in contact with Mohammed ATTA the lead Hijacker Sept 11th, in Prague prior to the action against the US.


    In all your Liberal Arguments, you fail.

    You fail to make a point that has any logical basis.

    America and the 18 European Nations that support the use of force to disarm Iraq will act probably within the next few weeks.

    END GAME coming soon.
     

  104. Oh boy...where do i start....

    1. Look to my previous post ...already been answered.
    2. nobody cares about Castro because he can only offer sugar not oil. ( good luck with your caddilac dealership )
    3" Castro dirt poor"...u dont know if you really think this statement is true......( Frobes paints a different picture. I would say theY underestimated his real net worth , but they have him at close to 10billion yes with a B)

    The name of the game should be to Contain within the box....
     
  105. El SEZ "The name of the game should be to Contain within the box...."

    Unfortunately, there is no way to do that with IRAQ.

    They have borders with other countries that help them get WMD out of the country.

    In the case of IRAQ it may have already happened.

    And how do you contain Launchable Missiles in a BOX?

    By the way this action needs to be gotten out of the way in the next few weeks, or it will be delayed, and guess what the uncertainty will do to the market, makes it very difficult for us the Traders.
     
  106. the left has no logic behind any of its arguments, its all emotion. All they can do is change the subject or spout slogans. Its real easy to say "no war!" , unfortunately that doesn't solve a damn thing.
     
  107. Sounds familiar????

    Fifty years ago, the classical liberal author and journalist Garet Garrett published a collection of essays called The People's Pottage (1953). In the midst of the Korean War, he tried to persuade the American people that the United States was on a new course that conflicted with the original conception of the nation. Its constitutional safeguards for the preservation of freedom were being threatened and undermined by the role the government was assuming around the world.

    The specific danger was reflected in the title of one of the essays in the volume, "The Rise of Empire." Garrett summarized what he considered the requisite signs of the emerging American Empire.
    First, the executive power of the government becomes increasingly dominant. The traditional institutional restraints and balances on the three branches of government are weakened, with more and more discretionary power and authority shifting to the office of the president. Congress plays an increasingly subservient role, with lawmaking and regulatory decision-making transferred to bureaus and departments under the executive's control.

    Second, domestic-policy issues become increasingly subordinate to foreig-policy matters. Out of the ashes of the Second World War, Garrett argued, the United States had taken on the status and position of a global policeman responsible for the "the peace of the world." To fulfill this task, all other matters become of secondary importance. Threats and military actions around the globe place the American people more and more in harm's way. And in the middle of the inevitable crises that come with global military commitments, "sacrifices" of freedom at home are required to ensure "national survival" in the face of unending dangers on every continent where U.S. forces stand at the ready.

    Third, Empire threatens to result in the ascendancy of the military mind over the civilian mind. Civil society places the dignity and privacy of the individual at the center of social affairs. Commerce and trade are the peaceful and voluntary means and methods by which people interact for mutual improvement of their lives. The military mind, on the other hand, imposes hierarchy and control over all those under the direction of the commander in chief. The successful pursuit of the "mission" always takes precedence over the individual and his life. And Empire, by necessity, places increasing importance on military prowess and presence at the expense of civilian life and its network of noncoercive, market relationships.

    Fourth, Empire creates a system of satellite nations. As Garrett explained it, "From the point of view of Empire the one fact common to all satellites is that their security is deemed vital to the security of the Empire.... The Empire, in its superior strength, assumes responsibility for the security and the well being of the satellite nation, and the satellite nation undertakes to stand with its back to the Empire and face the common enemy."

    Fifth, Empire brings with it both arrogance and fear among the imperial people.As the citizens of the nation that takes on the role of "master of the world," the people increasingly consider themselves all-powerful and superior to those over whom their government has assumed guardianship. More and more on the tongue of the citizens and their political spokesmen are references to "our" superior values, as well as "our" power and importance in all things in the world. Yet at the same time, Empire brings fear. Enemies and threats are now all around the people of the Empire, creating fears of attack and destruction from any corner of the world. Even the "friends" among other nations create suspicion and doubt about their loyalty and dependability in moments of crisis.

    And, finally, Empire creates the illusion that a nation is a prisoner of history. The language of Empire contains such phases and ideas as "it is our time to maintain the peace of the world," or "it is our responsibility to save civilization and serve mankind." There emerges a sense and an attitude of inevitability, that "if not us, then who?" Empire becomes the burden we, the imperial people, not only must bear but from which we have no escape. "Destiny" has marked us for duty and greatness.

    An empire in everything bu

    more: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0304b.asp

    Friggin accurate description on the current state of the nation's affairs. Don't care for extreme leftist views too much, but he does bring up few good points.

    keymar just for you no exclamations or capitals:D
     
  108. In the time period of Garrett we were relatively self suffcient for energy and the global trade we have now did not exist. The only threat we had was from the Soviet block, there was no such thing as terrorists.
     
  109. Don't know if this has been posted.

    Bush's Mideast plan: Conquer and divide
    By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor
    NEW YORK -- Arms inspections are a "hoax," said Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, in a forthright and chilling interview with ABC News last week. "War is inevitable."

    Aziz is the smartest, most credible member of President Saddam Hussein's otherwise sinister regime - my view after covering Iraq since 1976.

    What the U.S. wants is not "regime change" in Iraq but rather "region change," charged Aziz. He tersely summed up the Bush administration's reasons for war against Iraq: "Oil and Israel."

    Aziz's undiplomatic language underlines growing fears across the Mideast that U.S. President George Bush intends to use a manufactured war against Iraq to redraw the political map of the region, put it under permanent U.S. military control, and seize its vast oil resources.

    These are not idle alarms.

    Senior administration officials openly speak of invading Iran, Syria, Libya and Lebanon. Influential neo-conservative think-tanks in Washington have deployed a small army of "experts" on TV, urging the U.S. to remove governments deemed unfriendly to the U.S. and Israel.

    Washington's most powerful lobbies - for oil and Israel - are urging the U.S. to seize Mideast oil and crush any regional states that might one day challenge Israel's nuclear monopoly or regional dominance.

    The radical transformation of the Mideast being considered by the Bush administration is potentially the biggest political change since the notorious 1916 Sykes-Picot Treaty in which victorious Britain and France carved up the Ottoman-ruled region.

    Possible scenarios under review at the highest levels:

    Iraq is to be placed under U.S. military rule. Iraq's leadership, notably Saddam Hussein and Aziz, will face U.S. drumhead courts martial and firing squads.

    Iraq will be broken up into three semi-autonomous regions: Kurdish north; Sunni centre; Shia south. Iraq's oil will be exploited by U.S. and British firms. Iraq will become a major customer for U.S. arms. Turkey may get a slice of northern Iraq around the Kirkuk and Mosul oil fields. U.S. forces will repress any attempts by Kurds to set up an independent state. A military dictatorship or kingdom will eventually be created.

    The swift, ruthless crushing of Iraq is expected to terrify Arab states, Palestinians and Iran into obeying U.S. political dictates.

    Independent-minded Syria will be ordered to cease support for Lebanon's Hezbollah, and allow Israel to dominate Jordan and Lebanon, or face invasion and "regime change." The U.S. will anyway undermine the ruling Ba'ath regime and young leader, Bashir Assad, replacing him with a French-based exile regime. France will get renewed influence in Syria as a consolation prize for losing out in Iraq to the Americans and Brits. Historical note: in 1949, the U.S. staged its first coup in Syria, using Gen. Husni Zai'im to overthrow a civilian government.

    Iran a principal foe

    Iran will be severely pressured to dismantle its nuclear and missile programs or face attack by U.S. forces. Israel's rightist Likud party, which guides much of the Bush administration's Mideast thinking, sees Iran, not demolished Iraq, as its principal foe and threat, and is pressing Washington to attack Iran once Iraq is finished off. At minimum, the U.S. will encourage an uprising against Iran's Islamic regime, replacing it with either a royalist government or one drawn from U.S.-based Iranian exiles.

    Saudi Arabia will be allowed to keep the royal family in power, but compelled to become more responsive to U.S. demands and to clamp down on its increasingly anti-American population. If this fails, the CIA is reportedly cultivating senior Saudi air force officers who could overthrow the royal family and bring in a compliant military regime like that of Gen. Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Or, partition Saudi Arabia, making the oil-rich eastern portion an American protectorate.

    The most important Arab nation, Egypt - with 40% of all Arabs - will remain a bastion of U.S. influence. The U.S. controls 50% of Egypt's food supply, 85% of its arms and spare parts, and keeps the military regime of Gen. Hosni Mubarak in power. Once leader of the Arab world, Egypt is keeping a very low profile in the Iraq crisis, meekly co-operating with American war plans.

    Jordan is a U.S.-Israeli protectorate and its royal family, the Hashemites, are being considered as possible figurehead rulers of U.S.-occupied "liberated" Iraq; more remotely, for Saudi Arabia and/or Syria.

    The Gulf Emirates and Oman, former British protectorates and now American protectorates, are already, in effect, tiny colonies.

    In Libya, madcap Col. Moammar Khadafy remains on Washington's black list and is marked for extinction once bigger game is bagged. The U.S. wants Libya's high-quality oil. Britain may reassert its former influence here.

    Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, short of revolution, will remain loyal western satraps under highly repressive, French-backed royalist and military regimes.

    Yemen's former British imperial base at Aden and former French base at Djibouti will become important permanent U.S. bases.

    The White House hopes Palestinians will be cowed by Iraq's destruction, and forced to accept U.S.-Israeli plans to become a self-governing, but isolated, native reservation surrounded by Israeli forces.

    The lines drawn in the Mideast by old European imperial powers are now to be redrawn by the world's newest imperial power, the United States. But as veteran soldiers know, even the best strategic plans become worthless once real fighting begins.

    MORE STORIES AND EDITORIALS ON THE WAR, ECONOMY AND OUR SOCIETY, WHICH ARE NOT CARRIED ON MAIN-STREAM MEDIA, CAN BE FOUND AT WWW.QUASIMODOS.COM

    giving you some ammo..you know.... cut and paste only :D :D :D
     
  110. The article was in print on Dec. 8, 2002, a fact you conveniently have left out, and has already been thoroughly debunked. Aziz is the biggest liar (as well as one of the best liars) in the Iraqi regime.
     
  111. max401 like clockwork!!! are you assigned to me? :D :D :D

    debunked? where? by whom? how????:confused: :confused:

    ok ok ok your sources --what sources??-- are better than everyone else ahahahahaha -----waiting now for the keymar the crapola fye to start his rhetoric any minute now:D :D enjoy
     
  112. Please, you do know what an "email alert" is? And gee whiz, I happen to be sitting here on-line.

    Debunked? Surely you don't really believe that the current admin is going to take out all those countries as Aziz claims, do you? And in less than three years? Do you think Bush can get relected if word got out? Sheeesh!
     
  113. RE; Eric Margolis.

    I have listened to Mr. Margolis rambling on quiet a bit. I think his take over of Iraq and Middle East is just wishful thinking on his part. Unfortunately people in high places listen to him and others like him thinking they really know their stuff on middle east. If this is really the plan for that part of the world I can't see personal safety in the future for any American.
     
  114. Simple logic would dictate that it is indeed not the "plan." What do you think will happen in the next election if it is? "Regime change," to use a current phrase. So the postulation that this is some scheme to take over the region and its oil is specious. There could be a wisp of validity if we had elections every 12 years, but with our four year cycle, there is hardly time to implement such a "plan."
     
  115. A noted journalist’s unearthing of evidence of profiteering by a leading architect of the Bush administration’s war on Iraq has evoked an extraordinary response. Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, answered the exposure of his use of public office for private gain by denouncing veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh as a “terrorist.”

    http://www.gooff.com/NM/templates/Breaking_News.asp?articleid=334&zoneid=2

    What the frigging f%$K is happening to my country???:mad: :mad: :mad:

    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13353&perpage=6&pagenumber=19
     
  116. What's happening to your country? It's obvious; in your case you simply need to be more objective and analytical in your news consumption.
     
  117. Thanks again to the information I am able to glean from intelligence sources due to my Safeway Club Card, I have the following good news to report:

    The invasion will begin on Thursday after Bush's speech and a final warning to Saddam.

    In the early dawn hours of March 20th, lead elements of the 122nd British Petroleum Division will hook up with scouts of the 24th Texaco Brigade and push for the oil fields in the south. Their timing will coincide with similar forces, mostly of the 39th Chevron Pipe Batallion, entering from the north. All the oil forces are equipped with the newest mallets, spikes, and cans of spraypaint in order to stake their claims on the new petroleum frontier.

    "Sleepers" in Baghdad are waiting for word of the invasion before bum-rushing all the gas stations and wrapping each gas podium with heavy chains and a good ole Masterlock.

    There were confirmed sightings of French oil giant TotalFinaElf representatives in Baghdad as recently as yesterday, but after it became apparent that there may indeed be fighting of some kind in the near future, they were seen rushing for the Kuwaiti border waving a white flag where they were initially told to return to Iraq by an angry Sergeant-Major Coughlin of the Royal Paras.
     
  118. US 'playing with fire', warns Yamani


    Analysis
    Andrew Walker
    BBC Economics correspondent


    Oil is the major objective for the United States in seeking to occupy Iraq, according to the former Saudi Arabian Petroleum Minister Sheikh Kaki Yamani.

    Sheikh Yamani, who was the leading figure in oil producers' cartel Opec for 25 years, gave his assessment of the push for regime change in a BBC interview.

    He said the US is aiming to secure its oil supplies. In his view, the US wants to reduce its dependence on oil from the Gulf, and from Saudi Arabia in particular.

    Sheikh Yamani said the US had wanted to do this very quickly after 11 September 2001.

    He said the US accused Saudi Arabia of being the main source of terrorist activities, backing them financially and ideologically.

    Long-standing ambition

    It is certainly true that most of those who carried out the attacks were Saudi nationals.

    For the US, he said, the real answer is to have Iraqi crude.

    Iraq could quadruple its current level of oil production - taking it to eight million barrels a day - by the end of the decade, he said.

    And much of it could be exported via the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, ending US dependence on oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz - a narrow waterway leading out of the Gulf.

    Seven years or so ago, he saw a letter addressed to ex-President Clinton by a group of politicians advising him to attack Iraq, occupy the country and operate the oilfields.

    Those who signed the letter are now in power - including Vice-President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

    Opec a casualty?

    However, Sheikh Yamani said, victory against Iraq could have one outcome the US does not want - the end of Opec.

    If there is a stable political future for Iraq then the price of oil will start coming down.

    He believes that with more Iraqi oil flooding the market, Opec members would fight among themselves as some try to increase their production too.

    However, Saudi Arabia would shoulder the burden of maintaining price control by reducing its production, he said.

    But one day the Saudis would not be able to do this any more, "and that's the end of Opec", he said.

    That is definitely not the outcome the US wants to see.

    US faces pain too

    US interests would not be served by a very low price.

    A number of US states are oil producers, and a low price of oil these states would hit them hard, he said.

    When the price of oil collapsed in 1986, George Bush senior - then US Vice President - asked Saudi Arabia to raise the price of oil, he recalled.

    "America does not want a very low price of oil, that is obvious," said Sheikh Yamani.

    This negative view of Opec's prospects - assuming a successful war for the US - is in striking contrast to that of mainstream energy forecasters, who predict the cartel's market share would rise.

    Stark warning

    The key difference between Sheikh Yamani's outlook and theirs is that he thinks technology "is against oil producers".

    "It is reducing the cost of discovery, the cost of development and the cost of production."

    The result, he argued, is likely to be more output from Russia, the Caspian Sea and West Africa.

    Technology is also cutting the consumption of oil. It adds up to bleak outlook

    If the war goes badly for the US, then oil prices - in the near future at least - could hit the upward path.

    If Saddam Hussein sets fire to his oilfields, attacks neighbouring Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iran or uses biological weapons on them, the world will see high oil prices - "something very disturbing", the Sheik said.

    And even the low oil price scenario could lead to political instability in oil producing countries that may rebound against the West and oil consuming countries.

    "You are playing with fire," he warned.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2851723.stm
     
  119. LOL! Don't forget the Second Wave, the Halliburton "forces" led and commanded by Dick Cheney.
     
  120. There was an interesting article in Business Week about how the logic of it being about the oil in the US is bogus. It is the one with IBM on the cover...I wish I could reproduce it here.

    nitro
     
  121. Sorry Max, my Safeway Club Card membership is only at the "bronze" level, thus limiting my intel. Gold and Platinum status may change that though!

    So thanks for the heads-up on the Second Wave. And I've got to suspect that somewhere in there state militias from Washington and Oregon will be involved. Their mission? Stealing the sand, baby! Those states are far too green....
     
  122. 10-4 on the sand, but... Oh, man, I think the ops location intel is all WRONG. The East coast beach communities are in this operation deep! It's not about the OIL, it's the BEACH EROSION. Use your head, where does Bush, Sr. live? Bingo! Near an east coast beach. The oil is just a ruse, the entire east coast beach communitiy is desparate for SAND.
     
  123. I think we've hit the nail on the head, max. It's the SAND, baby!!
    Forget the sweet Iraqi crude, we're in it for that other desert commodity! Yeah!

    As we all know, Iraqi sand is far lighter and finer than the coarse stuff we have in Arizona and Nevada. Damnit, I just hate it when our government lies to us about stuff like this. I shoulda known it was never about democracy, regional stablization, and plain old national security...
     
  124. I address this on my commentary site which is linked to below. Please go and scroll down to the entries about oil.
     
  125. Well, if you think it's true, guess who ain't gettin' any, Francois.
     
  126. Ohhhhhhh, now I get it. SAND!!! A better grade of sand makes for a better grade of cement. Possibly a lighter stronger cement when blended with kevlar and titanium. Enormous building spands now possible in the rebuilding of the cities. Where's my broker? Who makes concrete in Iraq? :)
     
  127. Canyon, you're a Godsend!! Here I was just thinking about sand in general, wheras you're looking at the long-term big picture, five steps ahead of me! I must be a scalper and you must be a swing-trader.

    Concrete, concrete, CONCRETE!

    (Furiously punching in "concrete + Iraq + firms" on Google, AltaVista, Lycos, and AOL)
     
  128. Evan Bayh, Dem Senator from Indiana, just stated on O'Reilly that he would stake his life on the fact that Iraq has WMD's.
     
  129. not sure what that means, except that you apparently didn't bother to read what I wrote.
     
  130. <img src="http://www.jonbesh-iran.com/Jonbesh/Site/Etelaieha/57_edaam/gfx/Hanging.jpe"></img>

    <a href="http://www.jonbesh-iran.com/Jonbesh/Site/Etelaieha/57_edaam/">justice in iran.</a>
     
  131. Russia Accuses U.S. of Seizing Iraqi Oil

    Saturday March 22, 2003 8:50 PM


    MOSCOW (AP) - Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov criticized the U.S.-led war on Iraq, accusing Washington on Saturday of trying to seize control of Iraq's oil while shutting out companies from Russia and elsewhere.

    Baghdad owes Moscow at least $7 billion in Soviet-era debt and has awarded lucrative oil contracts to Russian oil companies.

    Ivanov said Washington's call to expel Iraqi diplomats seemed part of a strategy to invalidate those oil deals by further undermining the legitimacy of Saddam Hussein's regime. Russia has refused to comply with the American request to force out the diplomats.

    ``We will have to defend our interests so that the contracts which were signed under Saddam Hussein are not annulled as lacking legal force and to make sure the Iraqi debt owed us is respected,'' he said in a speech to Russia's top political analysts, who were meeting near Moscow.

    Ivanov also noted that civilians had already been killed just days into the conflict and he argued the deaths confirmed that the military strike was ``indeed a big mistake.''

    Russia would oppose attempts to give a U.S. occupation of Iraq international legitimacy through the United Nations, he said.

    ``Iraq does not need democracy brought on the wings of Tomahawks,'' Ivanov said.

    Russia had joined France and Germany in leading opposition to U.S. war plans in the United Nations. Yet, Ivanov continued to emphasize the need for good relations with the United States.

    ``We believe Washington's action against Iraq is a mistake, but it must not damage our long-term partnership,'' Ivanov said. ``This partnership has an independent importance as a major factor of global stability.''
     
  132. F*CK those three countries and the oil companies they tried to ride in on. They opposed the liberation of Iraq solely for oil. Now they are going to get shut out of the rebuilding process and any attendant profits.

    If you were an Iraqi on a committee to award contracts to foreign oil companies, how high is France, Germany and Russia on your list? Keep in mind, had these three countries been successful, that you would still be under the yoke of Saddam's horrific totalitarian and barbaric regime.
     
  133. So it is all about oil for Russia after all.
     
  134. has Russia illegally invaded Iraq ?
     
  135. Are you a lawyer to determine legality of invasion? Lots of experts consider the invasion of the Allied 50+ countries into Iraq to be absolutely legal. The documents detailing the legal basis for the invasion have already been submitted to the UN by the USA/GB/Australian representatives.

    Regarding your question - no Russia did not invade Iraq. It decided not to participate in enforcing 17 UN resolutions to disarm the rogue regime of Saddam Hussein. It did not participate in the 1991 Gulf War to liberate Kuwait either. It's too busy killing muslims in Chechnya who want to break away from Russia and who happen to have oil on its territory.

    It's all about oil for Russia (and WMD sales) and it was a sole reason for their UNSC decisions.
     

  136. Russia is just pissed off cause we beat them to the OIL! HA!:D
     
  137. Army Depots in Iraqi Desert Have Names of Oil Giants

    The subtleties surrounding the sensitive role oil plays in the Iraqi war may have eluded the United States Army. Deep in some newspaper coverage yesterday was a report that the 101st Airborne Division had named one central Iraq outpost Forward Operating Base Shell and another Forward Operating Base Exxon.
     
  138. Again, this poster conveniently leaves out salient facts given in the article. The big question is why would these "outposts" be named after "oil companies?" They're not, actually. As the article states "The forward bases are normally refueling points — they're basically gas stations in the desert," i.e. they have been named after gas stations. Also, notice how msfe leaves out the url to this article.
     
  139. "The forward bases are normally refueling points — they're basically gas stations in the desert," a Pentagon spokeswoman said

    Also, notice how conveniently Maxigirl leaves out the url to this article - and the fact that it´s the Pentagon and not "the article" that made this funny statement.


    "others involved in the oil industry say the Pentagon's indifference to the names of the bases was poorly considered. "You have this atmosphere of suspicion and apprehension now, and that's just among your allies," Jan Stuart, head of research for global energy futures at ABN Amro, the Dutch investment bank, said. "And in this atmosphere, you call your own supply effort this. It's mind-boggling the degree of insensitivity. There is little doubt the Americans will win the war, but you have to wonder how people who are so insensitive are going to win the peace."
     
  140. Preposterous!

    As bad as the flying of the flag was, the other day.
     
  141. "This is not about oil, although Iraqi oil will be put to use once the war is over. And it is not about money, although large sums of it is being spent in prosecuting the war. For the U.S. it is about establishing a base in the Middle East from which the U.S. can more easily attack al-Qaeda. It is about trying to turn Iraq into a Democratic and successful economy so that the poor, and unemployed won’t be easy recruits for al-Qaeda. And it is about sending a message to Islamic militants that when they decide to commit acts of terrorism, such as 9-11, the U.S. will come into their back yard and cause a great deal of discomfort.

    The U.S. failed to tell the world that Iraq was as much a logical target as a strategic one. Saddam Hussein, the U.S. thought, was someone that neither Europe or the rest of the world would miss. Thus, the U.S. decided to attack a target that it thought would not lead to a great deal of opposition. So it began to shape its story around the weapons of mass destruction issue and the violation of human rights. In the process, they forgot one of the most crucial tenets of doing business, that money talks. And money seems to have talked well between Baghdad, Paris, Moscow, and all kinds of places in between for a long time.

    Because the governments in the Middle East, France, Germany, and Russia all have or have had major economic bonanzas in dealing with Iraq, they have opposed the war.

    So why are we having this war? For many reasons. But in the end, it all boils down to business. When al-Qaeda perpetrated the 9-11 disaster, aside from the human aspect, and the horror of it all, it made it difficult for the U.S. to do business around the world, as fear led to economic contraction, and resources were diverted to security, while businesses began to rethink spending plans.

    But, there are always two sides to a story. The first Gulf War led to sanctions against Iraq, and the U.N.’s food for oil program. This situation gave other countries the opportunity to monopolize commerce with Iraq. And the monopoly was quite lucrative for the select few that were involved. Thus, it only makes sense then that now that the U.S. is attacking Iraq, those who have profited from sometimes illegal commerce with Iraq to vigorously oppose the war. And continue to oppose it they will. And continue to try to sabotage it they will.

    UPI reported that France and Germany have put up a fight to keep U.N. Secretary General Kofi Anan and his office from taking over the administration of the Iraq food for oil program. The program means $70 billion for France’s Banque Paribas, and has allegedly been used to smuggle illegal devices such as the hotly debated GPS jamming gear that Russia denies it sold to Iraq in violation of U.N. sanctions. There have also been news reports that France is exploring ways to enter into the bidding for Iraqi reconstruction projects."
     
  142. Well, if I'm in the middle of a sandstorm, my M1A1 Abrahms Tank is near empty and I ask for directions to a place called "Exxon" (that was named for a place to get gas), I think there can be no mistake as to which part of the battleground I'm in need of directions to. F*CK PC and all other ridiculous "insensitivities." I suppose Tariq Aziz is going to go on Al-Jeezera and bitterly complain how the American imperialist dogs have had the unmitigated gall to name their refueling bases after American and British gas stations.

    PS "Maxigirl?" Ad hominem attacks are simply the tactics of a loser.
     
  143. Max, there weren't a billion OTHER names they could have thought of?

    It's not about being PC. Given how incredibly simple it would have been to name the bases something else, I find it hard to believe how insanely stupid they were to use these names.

    In case you didn't notice, there is another war being fought; the one for public opinion. I can assure you that in that arena "ridiculous insensitivities" aren't all that ridiculous at all.
     
  144. Why do you think they chose those names? On a whim? They were most likely chosen so that there can be no mistake as to what that forward base is for- refueling. Please enlighten how this alleged insensitivity will impact- well, anything. They didn't name them "Refueling Base Camel Jockey." Let's see if the Arab world complains.
     

  145. Yeah, okay Max. They spend their lives memorising complex methods of silent communication, secret ciphers, radio codes etc, but they simply couldn't remember what the forward base was for unless they had a verbal word association like 'Exxon'. LOL.

    Honestly now, do you really require education as to why naming a base after an oil company, in light of the heated debate about American reasons for the invasion, which play heavily upon Arab opinion, might be UNNECESSARILY inlfammatory?
     
  146. Here are both sides of this issue from the same article:
    ***********
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/27/b...00&en=fd08859e6169208a&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

    "My first reaction when I saw it was this was not a political statement in any way by the men and women of 101st," Mr. Cirigliano said. "I think the 101st was being pretty creative and naming things after what reminds them of home. And I think that's pretty neat."

    But others involved in the oil industry say the Pentagon's indifference to the names of the bases was poorly considered. "You have this atmosphere of suspicion and apprehension now, and that's just among your allies," Jan Stuart, head of research for global energy futures at ABN Amro, the Dutch investment bank, said. "And in this atmosphere, you call your own supply effort this. It's mind-boggling the degree of insensitivity. There is little doubt the Americans will win the war, but you have to wonder how people who are so insensitive are going to win the peace."
    ***************

    So it would seem some trader guy is the one upset. BFD. BTW, the only article I have seen on this subject, at least so far and it's 17 hours old.
     
  147. Neither Royal Dutch/Shell nor Exxon knew about the Iraqi bases. Cerris Tavinor, a spokeswoman for Shell, heard of the base only when a reporter called.
     
  148. LOL. What a complete moron! "pretty neat"..

    I don't consider it a "political statement" either. But only a complete deadbeat with blinkers on would consider it anything but unwise.
     
  149. What "heated debate" are you talking about? Are you of the mind that it is about the US doing this for the oil? There's never been any question about the subject; "the oil" is an argument completely devoid of any foundation.
     
  150. You know it is really telling when all the pinkos can complain and whine about is the minutia of what the FARR bases are named. The pathetic attempt to seek something, anything to criticise is actually really funny.

    Keep it up guys.
     
  151. So far we have on record: a NYT writer and an oil futures trader complaining. Whoopdee f*cking doo.

    Let's start on the Patriot missles. That name is somehow against Islam, I'm sure of it. Then let's take the "U.S." out of US ARMY, that's inflammmatory for sure. And isn't "Abrahms" a Jewish name being used in a Moslem country. Totally unfair.
     
  152. U.S. Rejects Criticism on Awarding of Iraq Contracts

    WASHINGTON, March 27 — An American official has strongly rejected European complaints that the United States was unfairly awarding contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq to American companies. The overriding United States objective, he said today, was to provide the quickest possible relief to the Iraqi people.
     
  153. Oh, pardon me for not being able to provide you with a thorough statistical analysis of opinions on the matter, Max.

    Indulge me, and utilize some plain old common sense for a second: if most Arabs, and Iraqis in particular, knew about the base naming, what do you think their reaction would be?

    They probably wouldn't like it very much right?

    Do you think they'd be feeling particularly 'liberated'? Or 'invaded'?

    On the balance of probablities, do you think it's MORE likely to HELP win the PR battle? Or more likely to HINDER it?

    Given that the name of a base is such a non-essential item, do you think it might, just might, have been prudent to select another, equally effective (for the handicapped forces who need word association to remind them what a base is for), non potentially offensive name?
     
  154. The whole argument is specious; the net effect is so infinitesimally small and simply has no real world relevance.
     
  155. Well Babak, when they're clutching at straws.........
     
  156. Bullets are flying, among other things; they really could care less what we name our refueling points.
     
  157. Oh yeah Max. The Arabs are unanimous on that point...

    Joe Baghdad playing cards with his friends, talking about the war (they do that, you know), never once considers it possible that the Americans may have an eye on his country's biggest resource...

     
  158. Well, hell, then - we gotta take the Iraqi information hack at face value, the Iraqis are rolling on to victory; which definitely makes your "Exxon naming tragedy" a moot point.
     
  159. It's not mere "complaining" Babak. Is it really so difficult for you understand that GIVEN that it IS a minor detail, why the hell couldn't they avoid turning it into a potentially harmful one?

    The logic is really VERY basic.

    Mind you, neither is the attempt at finding something to criticise about this war "pathetic", nor particularly difficult. The whole thing is a sham.
     

  160. Max, if you really are intent on "liberating" the Iraqi people, wouldn't you consider it important to win Iraqi public opinion to your side?

    I would have thought it essential.

    Iraqi opinions are, of course, likely to be quite misguided (it's understandable, thousand of their number are being killed while their country is being invaded), but it is still important to take those opinions into consideration.
     
  161. Take your own logic as manifested by your own statement: "...given that it IS a minor detail..." Exactly, i.e. who gives a crap except some NYT writer and an interviewed oil futures trader... and you, of course.
     
  162. You're picking out a worthless cause to defend. If you spread the lie to the Iraqis that our main battle tank was named because it is Jewish* name, what do you think that would do for our cause? Doesn't that have a higher probablity than the Exxon/Shell BS? Really, nobody gives a crap.

    * don't even know if Abrahms is Jewish, nor do I care.
     
  163. These people are really worried about what the coalition names FORWARD AREA REARM AND REFUEL POINTS (FARRP's):
    [​IMG]
     
  164. I'll lay it out one more time for you Maxi, just coz I like you.


    The Details


    - base names are, normally, of minute consequance.

    - Many (the vast majority) of Arabs, and Iraqis in particular, rightly or wrongly, harbor suspicion that the invasion serves the main purpose of getting their oil.

    - The coalition is ostensibly 'liberating' Iraq


    In that case, naming your bases after your oil companies

    a) gives the impression that you really are after their oil

    b) has the markings of an INVASION, not a "liberation"


    Now, I didn't post the original article, and I haven't scoured the net looking for any others.
    I was struck at what blithering idiocy it was. And I stand by that assessment. The fact that it, thus far, has been of essentially zero consequance nothwithstanding.


    I really don't understand why it is so hard for you to simply admit that calling your bases after national oil companies was a risky move.
     
  165. Let me try a different approach. From your point of view and/or that of anti-US/Coalition factions, throughout the world, how is this little insignificant item (among massive bombing, bullets, invasion, mayhem, etc.), which has no basis in fact and that is quite obvious, going to change those faction's perceptions? The smoking gun? The whole subject matter is inconsequential to anything.
     
  166. if it were inconsequential, no one would talk about it. if the stations were named "alpha" and "bravo" there would be no discussion about it.
     
  167. US-Basen im Irak heißen Shell und Exxon

    Kritiker, die den Irak-Feldzug vor allem für einen Krieg ums Öl halten, sehen sich durch die neueste PR-Panne des Pentagons bestätigt. Die wenig subtilen Militärs hatten offenbar keine Hemmungen, zwei Armee-Camps im Kriegsgebiet nach großen Ölkonzernen zu benennen.

    New York - Einhaltung der Menschenrechte, Beseitigung von Massenvernichtungswaffen und Stärkung der Demokratie sind angeblich die hehren Ziele, welche die US-Regierung im Irak verfolgt.

    Umso peinlicher ist, wie sorglos das US-Militär mit dem für die Regierung heiklen Ölthema umgeht. Wie die "New York Times" berichtet, tragen zwei Lager der 101st Airborne Division im Zentral-Irak die Namen von Ölkonzernen. Eines trägt den Titel "Forward Operating Base Shell", ein weiteres heißt "Forward Operating Base Exxon". Kriegsgegner werfen dem Weißen Haus seit Längerem vor, es gehe den Amerikanern bei der Beseitigung von Saddam Husseins Regime einzig und allein ums Öl.

    Beide Konzerne zeigten sich überrascht von der unerwarteten Ehrung durch das US-Militär. Eine Sprecherin von Royal Dutch Shell sagte, das Unternehmen unterhalte im Irak keine Einrichtungen. Wie die US-Armee ihre Basen tituliere, sei nicht Shells Angelegenheit. Etwas enthusiastischer äußerte sich Tom Cirigliano von Exxon Mobil . Er hält die Namensgebung nicht für ein politisches Statement: "Ich glaube, die 101st war recht kreativ und benennt Sachen nach Dingen, die sie an die Heimat erinnern. Ich finde das prima."

    Das Pentagon versucht, die Sache herunterzuspielen. "Diese Stützpunkte sind normalerweise zur Versorgung mit Treibstoff da - im Grunde handelt es sich um Tankstellen in der Wüste", so eine Sprecherin gegenüber der "New York Times". Klärend fügte die Sprecherin hinzu: "Ob wir oder ob wir nicht jedem einen Vortrag darüber halten, dass man wegen politischer Empfindlichkeiten darauf achten sollte, wie man seine Tankstellen benennt, ich weiß nicht ob das etwas ist, dass man tun sollte oder das getan werden könnte."

    Politische Gegner Bushs halten die derzeitige US-Regierung ohnehin für eine Marionette der der Energie- und speziell der Ölbranche. Das Argument ist nicht ganz aus der Luft gegriffen: Vizepräsident Dick Cheney war früher Vorstandschef des Ölausrüsters Halliburton. Sicherheitsberaterin Condoleezza Rice, nach der sogar ein Öltanker benannt wurde, arbeitete lange für Chevron. Der Präsident verfügte über exzellente Beziehungen zu Enron-Boss Kenneth Lay und nannte seinen Intimus schmeichelnd Kenny Boy. Die Energieindustrie war einer der größten Wahlkampfspender Bushs und hat die Energiepolitik der Regierung maßgeblich beeinflusst.

    Von Thomas Hillenbrand

    http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,242341,00.html
     
  168. So one idiot seizes on another idiot's story line. And both are wrong, in my estimation. The bases were named after gas stations, not oil company's per se, as in "Where'd ya get gas?" "I filled up down at the Exxon station." BFD.
     
  169. And you were so worried about Exxon and Shell being used for names of FARRPs. Here, bitch on, left wingers:

    http://slate.msn.com/id/2080793/

    Everyone says U.S. officials expect the situation to improve now that the weather has cleared—a much-needed C-130 transport plane landed yesterday at an airfield near Nasiriya that Marines, in a bold PR move, rechristened "Bush International Airport."


    BTW, this is from SLATE's daily newspaper summary, a daily morning must read, imo.
     
  170. Saudi Arabia is accused of harboring terrorists, 9/11, etc ... ooops ... but it is a major oil supplier ... hmmm .... get the Iraqi oil today ... attack saudi arabia next ....

    hmmm ... why Iraq ? well .... one of the world's largest oil suppliers ... maybe the only country who could replace saudi arabia .... also thought to be militarily weak ... oh well ... intelligence gurus were wrong on this last one ... so it's getting out of hands ... and soon would lead to a dear price ....

    but hey, could the US attack saudi arabia next, when it was saudi arabia who brought the US in the first place in 1991 and hosted all those US troops ? Oh well, the US also supported Bin Laden and Afghanistan on their war agaisnt the Russians, and Iraq on its war against Iran, and once done, it screwed both at the very first opportunity.

    Kind regards to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait :)
     
  171. I like your second post to ET:

    [size=-2]Who ? The Jews indeed.
    Why ? because they wrote so on the torah.
    They are the chosen race, and the rest of the world is a lower race, and some orthodox Jews even group the rest with animals in the same category. So it's like a Jew is free to kill, steal, wrape a non-Jew, but is forbidden to do so to a fellow Jew.

    Oh yes, and they teach it to their children at school.

    And one last thing, they detest every other religion on the world, and would do anything to destroy it.

    My regards to all Christian churches all across the US!
    [/size]

    It shows you're "another" nut case poster. The question is what was/is your former or concurrent alias(es)? This one seems to be a candle-twit/msfe combination of lunacy.
     
  172. Halliburton out of the running

    Dick Cheney's former employer won't have lead role in reconstructing Iraq
    March 28, 2003: 7:45 PM EST


    NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Halliburton, the energy and construction company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, is no longer in the running for a $600 million contract to rebuilt post-war Iraq, according to the United States Agency for International Development.

    The development is likely to spare Cheney, who was Halliburton's CEO from 1995-2000, and the Bush administration from conflict-of-interest criticism.

    A spokesperson for USAID, Ellen Yount, said there are two remaining firms bidding on the contract. No decision has been made on who will be awarded it, she said.

    Halliburton, which declined to comment, could still be awarded a sub-contractor role.

    Newsweek reported that it was unclear whether Halliburton took itself out of the running for the contract, was asked by the Bush administration to do so, or whether its bid was simply not deemed competitive.

    Post-war Iraq will require massive rebuilding centered on reconstructing oil wells. The work will also include emergency repair of electrical supply facilities, water and sanitation systems, roads and bridges, public buildings such as hospitals and schools, irrigation structures and ports.

    Newsweek reported that a Cheney spokeswoman, Cathie Martin, said the vice president "hadn't even heard" that Halliburton would not be awarded the reconstruction contract and added, "The vice president has nothing to do with these contracts."

    Cheney sold his Halliburton shares when he re-entered politics as Bush's running mate. He held on to some options, but promised to donate all profits to charity.

    Timothy Beans, the chief acquisition officer for the U.S. Agency for International Development, would not identify the final bidders on the contract, the weekly magazine said.

    Halliburton has won one Iraq-related job. The company's Kellogg Brown & Root unit this week was awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires and make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure. Halliburton wouldn't speculate about the deal's monetary value.

    Shares of Dallas-based Halliburton (HAL: Research, Estimates) fell 6 cents to $21.44 Friday.
     
  173. Bomb before you buy

    What is being planned in Iraq is not reconstruction but robbery

    Naomi Klein
    Monday April 14, 2003
    The Guardian

    On April 6, deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz spelled it out: there will be no role for the UN in setting up an interim government in Iraq. The US-run regime will last at least six months, "probably longer than that". And by the time the Iraqi people have a say in choosing a government, the key economic decisions about their country's future will have been made by their occupiers. "There has to be an effective administration from day one," Wolfowitz said. "People need water and food and medicine, and the sewers have to work, the electricity has to work. And that's coalition responsibility."

    The process of how they will get all this infrastructure to work is usually called "reconstruction". But American plans for Iraq's future economy go well beyond that. Rather than rebuilding, the country is being treated as a blank slate on which the most ideological Washington neo-liberals can design their dream economy: fully privatised, foreign-owned and open for business.

    The $4.8m management contract for the port in Umm Qasr has already gone to a US company, Stevedoring Services, and there are similar deals for airport administration on the auction block. The United States Agency for International Development has invited US multinationals to bid on everything from rebuilding roads and bridges to distributing textbooks. The length of time these contracts will last is left unspecified. How long before they meld into long-term contracts for water services, transit systems, roads, schools and phones? When does reconstruction turn into privatisation in disguise?

    Republican congressman Darrel Issa has introduced a bill that would require the defence department to build a CDMA cellphone system in postwar Iraq in order to benefit "US patent holders". As Farhad Manjoo noted in the internet magazine Salon, CDMA is the system used in the US, not in Europe, and was developed by Qualcomm, one of Issa's most generous donors.

    Then there's oil. The Bush administration knows it can't talk openly about selling Iraq's oil resources to ExxonMobil and Shell. It leaves that to people like Fadhil Chalabi, a former Iraqi petroleum minister and executive director of the Center for Global Energy Studies. "We need to have a huge amount of money coming into the country. The only way is to partially privatise the industry," Chalabi says.

    He is part of a group of Iraqi exiles that has been advising the state department on how to implement privatisation in such a way that it isn't seen to be coming from the US. Helpfully, the group held a conference in London on April 6 and called on Iraq to open itself up to oil multinationals shortly after the war. The Bush administration has shown its gratitude by promising that there will plenty of posts for Iraqi exiles in the interim government.


    Some argue that it's too simplistic to say this war is about oil. They're right. It's about oil, water, roads, trains, phones, ports and drugs. And if this process isn't halted, "free Iraq" will be the most sold country on earth.

    It's no surprise that so many multinationals are lunging for Iraq's untapped market. It's not just that the reconstruction will be worth as much as $100bn; it's also that "free trade" by less violent means hasn't been going that well lately. More and more developing countries are rejecting privatisation, while the Free Trade Area of the Americas, Bush's top trade priority, is wildly unpopular across Latin America. World Trade Organisation talks on intellectual property, agriculture and services have all got bogged down amid accusations that the US and Europe have yet to make good on past promises.

    So what is a recessionary, growth-addicted superpower to do? How about upgrading from Free Trade Lite, which wrestles market access through backroom bullying at the WTO, to Free Trade Supercharged, which seizes new markets on the battlefields of pre-emptive wars? After all, negotiations with sovereign countries can be hard. Far easier to just tear up the country, occupy it, then rebuild it the way you want. Bush hasn't abandoned free trade, as some have claimed, he just has a new doctrine: "Bomb before you buy".

    It goes much further than one unlucky country. Investors are openly predicting that once privatisation takes root in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will all be forced to compete by privatising their oil. "In Iran, it would just catch like wildfire," S Rob Sobhani, an energy consultant, told the Wall Street Journal. Pretty soon, the US may have bombed its way into a whole new free trade zone.

    So far, the press debate over the reconstruction of Iraq has focused on fair play: it is "exceptionally maladroit", in the words of the European Union's commissioner for external relations, Chris Patten, for the US to keep all the juicy contracts for itself. It has to learn to share: Exxon should invite France's TotalFinaElf to the most lucrative oil fields; Bechtel should give Britain's Thames Water a shot at the sewer contracts.

    But while Patten may find US unilateralism galling, and Tony Blair may be calling for UN oversight, on this matter it's beside the point. Who cares which multinationals get the best deals in Iraq's pre-democracy, post-Saddam liquidation sale? What does it matter if the privatising is done unilaterally by the US, or multilaterally by the US, Europe, Russia and China?

    Entirely absent from this debate are the Iraqi people, who might - who knows? - want to hold on to a few of their assets. Iraq will be owed massive reparations after the bombing stops, but in the absence of any kind of democratic process, what is being planned is not reparations, reconstruction or rehabilitation. It is robbery: mass theft disguised as charity; privatisation without representation.

    A people, starved and sickened by sanctions, then pulverised by war, is going to emerge from this trauma to find that their country had been sold out from under them. They will also discover that their new-found "freedom" - for which so many of their loved ones perished - comes pre-shackled by irreversible economic decisions that were made in boardrooms while the bombs were still falling. They will then be told to vote for their new leaders, and welcomed to the wonderful world of democracy.
     

  174. that's right- and don't forget BP, Lukoil, TotalFinaElf, Petrobras, Syncrude, PetroChina, Pemex....

    Iraq will be as rich as Kuwait in 20 years.

    long live free enterprise

    p.s. by the way, Shell's home base is in the Netherlands- oops
     
  175. Which reminds me....

    There is a certain man named Paul Desmarais, the head of one of the richest families in Canada. He sits on the Board of Paribas, Vivendi, as well as Total. He also owns a significant chunk of Total.

    This man's son, is married to a woman who happens to be the daughter of Jean Chretien. Who in turn happens to be the Prime Minister of Canada.

    Does that explain why Canada sat out the war?
     
  176. Saddam's Ouster Doesn't Quell Suspicion

    Monday April 21, 2003 7:30 AM


    DOHA, Qatar (AP) - The ouster of Saddam Hussein has done little to quell the world's suspicions about U.S. motives in Iraq despite the Bush administration's insistence that its soldiers came as liberators, not conquerers.

    The distrust of U.S. intentions could hinder reconstruction if Iraqis resist American attempts to restore order. It also could hurt attempts to repair frayed relations with allies and promote Middle East peace.

    Demonstrators in Iraq last week chanted ``America is God's enemy!'' and clerics accused the United States of invading Iraq to please Israel.

    ``It is tremendously important that the United States not be perceived as Imperial Rome in this world,'' said David Elliott, a political scientist at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif.

    U.S. officials repeatedly have said the war was fought to free a nation from a brutal dictator stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

    ``There is nothing more important in what we are doing right now within Iraq than providing opportunities for the Iraqi people,'' Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of the war in Iraq, said last week.

    But in some parts of the world, a different view persists: that the war in Iraq was for oil, for profit or some kind of neo-imperialist conquest.

    That may have been exacerbated by a decision last week to award a multimillion dollar postwar reconstruction contract to the politically connected San Francisco-based Bechtel Group. The bidding process was limited to a group of U.S. firms, most with strong connections to the Bush administration.

    U.S. officials defended the process, saying a swift reconstruction needs companies with known track records and employees with security clearances. But the move stoked the perception that profit, not liberation, was behind U.S. action in Iraq.

    Another factor that makes some doubt America's sincerity is that weapons of mass destruction - the primary reason for invading Iraq - have not been found.

    Oil, too, has critics up in arms. The size of Iraq's oil reserves is second only to Saudi Arabia's, and many Iraqis were quick to note that nearly every ministry in Baghdad was bombed and looted during the bombardment, except the oil ministry.

    After his Baghdad theater was torched by looters, actor Fadel Abbas lamented that U.S. soldiers failed to protect the city's cultural treasures.

    ``They didn't want to protect these places - only the oil ministry,'' he said.

    U.S. officials insist that revenue from Iraqi oil will help pay for reconstruction, which is expected to cost as much as $600 billion over the next decade.

    Some Iraqis have said they want nothing do with Jay Garner, a retired U.S. general put in charge of Iraq's reconstruction by President Bush. And Iraqi crowds have denounced Ahmed Chalabi, a former exile and opposition leader whom they believe Washington wants to install as leader.

    Chalabi told reporters in Baghdad last week that he doesn't see himself as a candidate to lead Iraq.

    Establishing a broad based postwar government with help from the international community could help dispel negative perceptions. But that, too, is uncertain, with the United States resisting a major role for the United Nations in choosing a new government.

    U.S. officials had argued even before the war that ousting Saddam could promote democratization in the Middle East, making the region less of a breeding ground for terrorists.

    Yet U.S. ties with undemocratic governments like Saudi Arabia and its staunch support of Israel make it unlikely that Mideast reformers will look to Washington for help.

    Arab distrust of U.S. intentions may also stymie prospects for a breakthrough in the standoff between Israelis and Palestinians, though many are hoping that regional shifts in power resulting from the Iraq war will make one possible.

    Many countries believe ``the United States is a hyperpower out of control that simply acts on its own whims without taking into account the interests and concerns of everyone else,'' said Elliott, the political scientist.
     
  177. friendly suggestion msfe: in light of your obvious strategy here on ET, maybe you should change your handle to 'goebbels'
     
  178. I think the actions by the US to move without UN approval indicates we don't really care about world opinion.

    You don't get that yet, do you Wild?

    Nearly 75% of Americans approve of Bush's actions, so why do they care, or why would Bush care what people like you think?
     
  179. who/what is "goebbels" ?
     
  180. Your pal Adolph's propaganda chief for the Nazi regime. Here's an excerpt from his last known pulished article titled "The Year 2000" published in February 1945:

    "Germany, however, will still be [in the year 2000] under military occupation according to the plans of the Yalta Conference, and the English and Americans will be training its people in democracy."

    Same crap the Arab street is predicting.
     
  181. “Repeat a lie, often, and it becomes the truth.”

    – Dr. Joseph Goebbels
     
  182. Interesting quote. The English and Americans are in fact still in Germany, aren't they? Or at least the Americans are, as you can see on CNN when they unload their POWs.

    I'd like to see what they have tought the Germans as far as democracy is concerned. I only know very little about that country, but at least I know there is a prohibition of the Nazi party and related acticities. By contrast, there is an American Nazi party. And I do not only mean those jerks in the "Bluesbrothers" movie. These are dangerous criminals. The do adore "your pal Adolph", whose birthday was by the way a couple of days ago.

    If you really want to know more about Joseph Goebbels, have a look at this site: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbels.html : I guess the Jewish Virtual Library is beyond any suspicion of being a supporter of the Nazis!
     
  183. Hardly an occupying force.
     

  184. Why should the rest of the world care what Americans think?


    The rest of the world: it's their world too you know.



    Just out of interest, a couple of friends and I took a poll of 500 people in the Sydney CBD over the last week. The question was:

    "Have the unilateral actions taken by the US against Iraq changed your views on the September 11 terrorist attacks on America?"

    1 I now have less sympathy for the Americans. -- 73%

    2 The action in Iraq hasn't changed my views. -- 24%

    3 I never had sympathy for the Americans. -- 3%


    (My preference was to have response (2) read, "the action in Iraq hasn't substantially changed my views", to weed out those who might only feel a tiny bit less sympathy, but I was outvoted.)
     
  185. This alleged poll is highly suspect by virtue of item #3. You obviously don't know your Aussies very well.
     
  186. What a sophomoric exercise!

    You obviously know very little about constructing polls, especially about attempting to conceal the pollster's own biases and expectations from respondents.

    You and your friends probably even thought you were bending over backward to be fair and objective.
     
  187. Which is cool because I live in America. We need to focus on #1, ourselves. I'm sick and tired of seeing all the taxpayer dollars we give away to countries and in turn their people hate us, well screw them, cut them off. I think your poll speaks for itself. Oil and American bases in Iraq next to Syria, Iran et. al. Kill two birds with one stone. It's like my Dad told me, "Not everyone is going to like you, the ones who don't, screw 'em".
     
  188. Bush and his cronies clearly learned their lesson
     
  189. We are stealing from Iraq just like we stole this land from the American Indians and I sleep just fine at night. I wasn't one of those naive types who actually believed it was about the Iraqi people. However I do think they will benefit long term as opposed to Saddam's rule. This kind of stuff has been going on since Cain slew Abel. Every country has blood on their hands, some you have to go further back than others to find it.


     

  190. I think what is really sophomoric is your reaction, Kymar.

    Firstly, the poll itself wasn't my idea, and my I had my own ideas about how to better pose the question, but I went along because I was quite interested to see the results.
    If you have specific qualms over the wording of the question or a better way to have addressed the topic, please, put your ideas forward, instead of just kicking and screaming because the numbers aren't too flattering. Otherwise it's you (not me) that comes across sounding like a juvenile whinger.

    You can see what the question was, you can see what the responses offered were, just make your own mind as to what the results mean. Pretty simple.

    And Max, lol, just what the hell was the problem with including an option to say that no sympathy was ever felt over 9.11? Sydney is a very multicultural city, you know. Many Asians and Arabs here. Many who, as the poll indicates, didn't -- *shock* *gasp* *horror* -- see 9.11 as the Tragedy of the Ages.
     


  191. That's quite a frank response khorne, and it's quite representative of the way I used to feel. However, I no longer find any comfort in just throwing my hands up and saying, "hey, it's always been a dog-eat-dog world, there's never been a time when the world was fair, why expect it to ever be? I think I'll just go and look after me and my own.".
     
  192. "Bush and his cronies clearly learned their lesson"

    LOL ! HA HA !

    this thread is funny !
     
  193. Lame - you presented the poll, and you are now defending it. So, take responsibility for it.

    This poll question shows a complete lack of understanding of polling methodology - or perhaps a complete lack of interest in achieving un-influenced, theoretically "fair" results. Great effort is normally expended by serious pollsters to conceal their own preferences or expectations from respondents. In this instance, the poll question embodies an obvious bias on the part of the questioner(s), and would suffer from high susceptibility to skewed results.

    The question presumes a) that US actions were "unilateral," and b) that they were "against Iraq." A less biased, more accurate formulation might simply have dropped the word "unilateral" and have substituted the preposition "in" for "against." A reasonable respondent might, for instance, object to those aspects of the action that someone (such as the questioner) might consider "unilateral," but feel positive about whatever else about the operation had a multilateral character. Considering that the question was apparently being asked of Australians - citizens of country allied with the US - the reference to unilateralism is extremely suspect: It implies to the minimally well-informed respondent that his or her country has somehow been tricked or forced into participating in a US adventure. Another alternative might have referred to actions "against Saddam Hussein" or "against the regime of Saddam Hussein" - and would very likely have results more favorable to the American side.

    In short, the question already makes the pollsters' desired and expected responses clear. The choices for respondents confirm and extend these biases:

    Respondents were not given the option to respond that the action had increased their "sympathy." Even where such questions are not considered likely to be chosen, the presentation of the full range of logical alternatives is thought by pollsters and market researchers to help draw a more honest response from any significant opinion sampling. Excluding this choice further underlines the pollster's obvious belief that the answer to which they gave first position is the "correct" one.

    Someone interested in receiving a fair, objective opinion sampling would also strive to make the choices as similar to each other as possible in phraseology. In this poll, the "correct" answer is also the only choice that offers an affirmative, yet non-absolute statement. Both "2" and "3" require the respondent to adopt absolute and negative positions - of having "views" that have not changed at all, or of "never" having had any sympathy. Furthermore, while "1" and "3" refer specifically to the issue of "sympathy for the Americans," "2" stands apart, in the passive rather than active voice, and makes no reference to the Americans, and substituting the notion of "changed.. views."

    It's worth noting that the use of the word "sympathy" is also tendentious, though in a way that bears more on the potential usefulness of the poll rather than on its construction as above: Somebody who fully supported American actions might feel less "sympathy," in the sense of feeling less pity for Americans. It could be argued that the poll merely inquires about a relatively narrow issue - the effect of the Iraqi operations on 9/11-related "sympathy." It should be obvious that, as a defense of the poll's methodology, this argument would also militate against making any broader conclusions about the feelings of respondents about the war in Iraq per se: It's quite possible for someone to feel uncertain or even very favorable about the war, yet also note a reduction in "sympathy" for the war's victor. It would be natural even and especially for American war-supporters to feel less sorry for themselves in the aftermath of self-assertion and victory on the world stage.

    The poll does a much better job of exposing the questioners' biases than it does of drawing meaningful results.
     
  194. Then you just shot yourself in the foot. Your poll claims:

    "3 I never had sympathy for the Americans. -- 3%"

    I said it was bogus by virtue of the above #3. You don't know Aussies very well, 3% is way to low a response.
     
  195. Ok,

    I've disappeared for a few cause this has gotten so negative.

    But, to equate this war for oil is so moronic its embarrassing.

    When you see major media figures bring it up, well, think about it.

    As far as an economic benefit?

    This war is now going to cost us at least a few hun bail.

    Once we get get the oil flowing, revenues are going directly to the city.

    This action, weather legal or not, will cost the US public prolly around 200 billion. To start.

    Yeah, we did this fo money.
    Geez.
     
  196. yeah jayford, they really are that brainwashed. if they were all in other countries maybe I could understand, but these people live IN THE UNITED STATES ! There is only one explanation, and that is indoctrination from a young age, possibly in high school or college.
     
  197. American to oversee Iraqi oil industry

    David Teather in New York
    Saturday April 26, 2003


    The US is preparing to install an American chairman on a planned management team of the Iraqi oil industry, providing further ammunition to critics who have questioned the Bush administration's agenda in the Middle East.

    The administration is planning to structure the potentially vast Iraqi oil industry like a US corporation, with a chairman and chief executive and a 15-strong board of international advisers.

    According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, it has lined up the former chief executive of the US division of Royal Dutch/Shell, Philip Carroll, to take the job of chairman.

    Large scale decisions on investment, capital spending and production are likely to need the approval of the advisory board, which will act like a board of directors. The day-to-day management team will be vetted by US officials and is likely to be made up of existing and expatriate Iraqi oil officials.

    The structure is likely to anger opponents of the administration who argue that the US is wielding too much power in Iraq.

    By involving non-Iraqis, the US could also expose itself to the accusation that it is attempting to take control of the industry and open the door to foreign investment by major western oil companies - a perception the Bush administration is keen to avoid.

    The Middle East has, since the early-to-mid-1970s, largely closed the door on foreign oil firms - but contracts have been awarded to engineering and construction firms such as Bechtel, which was recently handed a $600m (£380m) commission in Iraq by the US Agency for International Development.

    US and Iraqi engineers have resumed modest oil production in the south of the country, in fields close to Basra.

    The other major field in the north, near Kirkuk, has yet to be restarted, but is expected to begin pumping oil in the next few days. The Basra fields produced 60% of Iraq's pre-war production of around 2.5m barrels a day.

    The US is pushing for an end to economic sanctions to allow the oil to be freely exported.

    A handful of Iraqi oil officials have been attempting to restore some order to the country's energy infrastructure and have been meeting regularly with the US military in Baghdad. The US has been eager to get the cooperation of the skilled Iraqi oil administration, but an attempt to impose a structure on the industry with outside involvement could cause friction.

    The oil minister in the ousted Saddam regime, Amer Mohammed Rasheed, is on the US's most-wanted list.

    Iraq, with 112bn barrels of proven reserves, is second only to Saudi Arabia, and has the potential to become a superpower in the oil industry. Experts believe that with billions of dollars of investment in the nation's crippled infrastructure it could produce up to 6m barrels a day within five or six years. There are believed to be 200bn barrels of probable reserves.

    The oil beginning to pump in Iraq is being used for domestic purposes. Once exports are up and running again, US and British officials have said the aim is to put the proceeds into a fund to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. But details of the fund, including who would administer it, have been scant.

    The new management team and part of the advisory board are expected to be named next week. The chief executive would play a similar role to the former oil minister and would represent Iraq at meetings of Opec, the organisation of oil exporting nations. The position of vice chairman is expected to be filled by Fadhil Othman, who led Iraq's oil marketing group before Saddam came to power 24 years ago.

    Thamir Gadhban, a senior oil ministry official working to restore order to the industry in Baghdad, told the Journal that he expected the chief executive to come from the ranks of the existing hierarchy. "The Iraqi oil industry is not a new one, and there are experienced people in the ministry of oil and its organisations," he said.