[BlackGriffen]

I need to ask myself: why would El Presidente Bush start beating the Iraq drum when he did? The economy has been in the crapper since really before 9/11. There wouldn't have been a better time than right after 9/11 to start start beating this drum, either. It probably isn't oil, because if Afghanistan was about oil, too, shouldn't we be well on our way to having enough by now? I just get this feeling like I'm watching a bad magic show, where the attempt at distraction is becoming so overdone and drawn out that its becomming obvious. So, what is going on right now that Pres Bush does not want to be front page news? Given his religious leanings, and his campaign talk of being a staunch supporter of Israel (not to mention mounting pressure to intervene and mediate fairly), is what's happening in Israel the obfuscated story? I doubt that it's about the economy, you can't hiide a sh!tty daily life from the person living it, and I doubt that people would be willing to make sacrifices like in WWII over Iraq. It feels like it's too early to be about the election, too. What else is happening that is being pushed off the front page by the constant harping on Iraq?

Just some thoughts.

BlackGriffen

[vmpaul]

Ever watch Frontline? They had a great show on the policy of recent events. Basically, the genesis of this policy written by Wolfowitz (sp?) during the first Bush administration.

You can watch it on the web. I found it really interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ows/iraq/view/

[Captain Obvious]

Opportune political mandate.


Saddam has a history of aggressive actions against his enemies and those he holds disdain for. He lost a war and has not abided by the terms forced upon him by the victors of that war. He will inevitably rearm and stock pile weapons. He hates the US and will most likely be the first in line to declare jihad on us should there ever be a conflict with the Mideast in the future. And if he dies his wacked out son will replace him if he is still in power at the time of his death. All very valid reasons why he is an imminent threat to us although not an immediate one

So why now? Because of 9-11 we have the support to take him down. Americans have become p*ssies about military conflict since the 70s. At the first American casualty the general public will question the reason for citizens getting involved in foreign conflict and politics will force us to pull out. So right now we can be preemptive and the government has the support to remove him by force. 5 years ago it would not have been possible because EVERYONE here would have had a shitfit if we went to war. 5 years from now the same might be true. Its not that he's done anything today to cause this war. It is that it is in our best interest (strategically) to defuse that threat anyway and now the President has enough of a mandate to do it.

[ambush]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I need to ask myself: why would El Presidente Bush start beating the Iraq drum when he did? The economy has been in the crapper since really before 9/11. There wouldn't have been a better time than right after 9/11 to start start beating this drum, either. It probably isn't oil, because if Afghanistan was about oil, too, shouldn't we be well on our way to having enough by now? I just get this feeling like I'm watching a bad magic show, where the attempt at distraction is becoming so overdone and drawn out that its becomming obvious. So, what is going on right now that Pres Bush does not want to be front page news? Given his religious leanings, and his campaign talk of being a staunch supporter of Israel (not to mention mounting pressure to intervene and mediate fairly), is what's happening in Israel the obfuscated story? I doubt that it's about the economy, you can't hiide a sh!tty daily life from the person living it, and I doubt that people would be willing to make sacrifices like in WWII over Iraq. It feels like it's too early to be about the election, too. What else is happening that is being pushed off the front page by the constant harping on Iraq?

Just some thoughts.

BlackGriffen

He's mentally disturbed (addicted to war)
AND he wants the oil.

[Zimmerman]

Originally posted by ambush:
He's mentally disturbed (addicted to war)
AND he wants the oil.

Obviously

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by ambush:
He's mentally disturbed (addicted to war)
AND he wants the oil.

Very insightful, moron.

[Adam Betts]

Pretty soon Zimphire will come in here and telling everyone here that all of you are projecting.

Personally, I don't think Bush is the best man fit for the job. He's just a typical college guy who happened to have an easy access to become a president.

I really don't care if any presidents have personal problems but I'm worrying about how president will *handle* the situation. Bush have went too far on Iraq. Number one rule: Never threat your allies even though if they disagree with you or it will make the relationship even worser.

If Bill Clinton is our current president at this time, France and Germany would join in with no problem... That's what I think so.

[Spliffdaddy]

France and Germany have contracts to buy Iraqi oil at attractive prices. No way in hell they are going to upset a good thing by joining a war against Iraq.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
France and Germany have contracts to buy Iraqi oil at attractive prices. No way in hell they are going to upset a good thing by joining a war against Iraq.

Yeah, I can see the point but if US win the war and own the oil, France and Germany would still get the oil at the same price.

"The Upgrade Price is free"

[clod]

Originally posted by ambush:
He's mentally disturbed (addicted to war)
AND he wants the oil.

I think your fantasies of "Québec Libre" are getting to your brain. x 1000

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Pretty soon Zimphire will come in here and telling everyone here that all of you are projecting.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

If my memory serve me correct, it must be that Brand New Thread Derailer, Sin-Sealed Knee-Jerking Model 1700 I saw in JC-Pimphire.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
If my memory serve me correct, it must be that Brand New Thread Derailer, Sin-Sealed Knee-Jerking Model 1700 I saw in JC-Pimphire.

Naw, you entered the thread derailing zone when you had to add your off topic personal rant about me there sugar thighs.


Now come here and give me a big schlooopy kiss.

[Zimphire]

BTW to get back on topic, I think Bush had plans all along to do this. He saw Iraq and terrorism was still a major threat, and the last administration wasn't doing too much about it.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I need to ask myself: why would El Presidente Bush start beating the Iraq drum when he did?

Because he is a buffoon who listens to advisors that former Presidents were smart enough to ignore. He is almost literally unleashing the dogs of war. The question isn't what does Bush think he's doing (largely because he doesn't "think"). The question is what are his advisors doing and where do their interests lay.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
If my memory serve me correct, it must be that Brand New Thread Derailer, Sin-Sealed Knee-Jerking Model 1700 I saw in JC-Pimphire.

Hahaha!

[zigzag]

Most people seem to want to attribute everything that happens to a single reason - it's all about WMD, or it's all about oil, etc. I think that, as usual, it's a combination of things.

I think that even before 9/11, Bush was predisposed towards a reorganization of the Middle East (who isn't?), the battle being over how aggressive it should be - Powell on the go-slow side, and Wolfowitz et al. on the aggressive, Pax Americana side. I think he was inclined towards caution, but that 9/11 gave him an extra impetus/pretext to act. If you're gonna risk lives and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to pre-emptively attack another country, best do it under the unprecedented political cover of an event like 9/11. Thus the rather feeble attempts to link SH with al Queda - it sells. If it hadn't been for 9/11, I don't think we'd be on the verge of attacking Iraq right now.

I also think that Dubya genuinely believes in the "good vs. evil" paradigm, and that Iraq is as good a place as any to start combatting evil. Again, 9/11 provided an extra impetus/pretext for doing so.

Of course, the UN resolutions are important, but not even Bush was paying much attention to them before last year, so I don't think they serve as an explanation all by themselves. They provide an additional rationale and valuable additional political cover.

There is also the humanitarian rationale, but it doesn't appear to stand on its own in the administration's view. It's one in a list of rationales.

As for oil, I don't think it serves as the primary motive, but it would be naive to think that it isn't part of the equation. As one commentator said, if Iraq's main export was broccoli, we wouldn't be nearly as interested in it.

And Bush is an oil man surrounded by oil people - it can't help but shape their thinking. The argument that "We gave Kuwait back to the Kuwaitis" only goes so far to deflect this fact - even if we don't own the oil outright, huge financial rewards inure to the oil industry when it's able to do business with friendly governments. Even if our reasons for going into Iraq are completely honorable, there are a lot of people licking their chops over the prospect of doing business there.

[By the way, I don't think Afghanistan has significant oil resources, and I don't second-guess our reasons for going in there. Which isn't to say that it doesn't have other assets, such as a nice pipeline route.]

As for Israel, I think it's yet another element. Dubya is not unaware of who his core constituency is and how they feel about it. The growing alliance between conservative Christians and American Jews is one of the strangest I've ever seen in American politics.

In sum, I think that the overthrow of SH was a pipe dream with a variety of rationales, and that 9/11 gave the administration a unique opportunity to act sooner and more decisively than anyone expected.

To me, these are all political realities. Whether one is for or against an invasion depends mostly on how one weighs them. Either way, I don't think it comes down to just one thing, be it WMD or oil.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Because he is a buffoon who listens to advisors that former Presidents were smart enough to ignore.

Heh and look what the last administrations ignoring of the issues did to security of this country. I guess if we ignore the issues enough, they will just go away eh?

He is almost literally unleashing the dogs of war. The question isn't what does Bush think he's doing (largely because he doesn't "think").

I hope after typing that out, that you don't expect to be taken seriously.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I hope after typing that out, that you don't expect to be taken seriously.

And you think you are taken seriously by everyone?

Face Ache is one of the few people here that know how to debate and still have sense of humor unlike you. His recent post is very true, like it or not.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
And you think you are taken seriously by everyone?
Face Ache is one of the few people here that know how to debate and still have sense of humor unlike you. His recent post is very true, like it or not.

Adam I would be curious as to tally up all the posts you have made in the last week personally attacking me. I am sure it would be amusing. I thought you were going to stop? Can't help yourself?

The reason I said that about Face is his Bush doesn't think comments. When making statements like that, one shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

[alphasubzero949]

If this campaign was really about WMD, we would be after North Korea, China, India, Pakistan....


Oh wait, we have them too.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Pretty soon Zimphire will come in here and telling everyone here that all of you are projecting.

Personally, I don't think Bush is the best man fit for the job. He's just a typical college guy who happened to have an easy access to become a president.

I really don't care if any presidents have personal problems but I'm worrying about how president will *handle* the situation. Bush have went too far on Iraq. Number one rule: Never threat your allies even though if they disagree with you or it will make the relationship even worser.

If Bill Clinton is our current president at this time, France and Germany would join in with no problem... That's what I think so.

If Bill Clinton Was Are president there wouldn't be inspectors in Iraq. He had 8 years to take care of this mess before it got worse. He did Crap in the fight with Terrorism. None of these countries complained when Clinton Fired Cruise Missiles haphazardly into Iraq and the Sudan, to cover up his infedility. Bush I think IS the right man for the Job. You need someone who is willing to take a situation by the balls and go through with it whether or not people agree with you. With Clinton is was finger to the wind foreign policy. Clinton followed the Poll numbers when it came to his policies Bush doesn't. He does what He feels is the best interest in protecting the United States from Enemies Foreign and Domestic.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by typoon:
Clinton followed the Poll numbers when it came to his policies Bush doesn't. He does what He feels is the best interest in protecting the United States from Enemies Foreign and Domestic.

And while I don't always agree with everything Bush is for, this is why I respect the guy. He isn't a fence rider. His views don't change with the polls.

[tie]

Originally posted by typoon:
If Bill Clinton Was Are president there wouldn't be inspectors in Iraq. He had 8 years to take care of this mess before it got worse. He did Crap in the fight with Terrorism. None of these countries complained when Clinton Fired Cruise Missiles haphazardly into Iraq and the Sudan, to cover up his infedility. Bush I think IS the right man for the Job. You need someone who is willing to take a situation by the balls and go through with it whether or not people agree with you. With Clinton is was finger to the wind foreign policy. Clinton followed the Poll numbers when it came to his policies Bush doesn't. He does what He feels is the best interest in protecting the United States from Enemies Foreign and Domestic.

Fine. The problem is, Bush has completely messed the whole thing up. When I first thought about the coming war, last summer, I was for it. Overthrowing an evil dictatorship is good karma, and there must be some security reasons.

But now I'm totally opposed. Bush hasn't come up with any security concerns to the US. He's tried to make up some Al Qaeda links (e.g., Bin Laden mentioned Iraq in his last tape!!!!). He's pushed for war far too aggressively -- which I'm sure helped pressure Iraq, but it also turned our allies and the rest of the world against us. He's ignored real security threats: homeland security, North Korea. I don't see any threats from Iraq, I think attacking Iraq will only cause more terrorism, I see an enormous and costly war and reconstruction when the economy is in bad shape and we have record deficits.

Thomas Friedman wrote an editorial recently expresses some similar views: link

..something in Mr. Bush's audacious shake of the dice appeals to me. He summed it up well in his speech last week: "A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interest in security and America's belief in liberty both lead in the same direction — to a free and peaceful Iraq."

My dilemma is that while I believe in such a bold project, I fear that Mr. Bush has failed to create a context for his boldness to succeed, a context that could maximize support for his vision — support vital to seeing it through. He and his team are the only people who would ever have conceived this project, but they may be the worst people to implement it. The only place they've been bold is in their military preparations (which have at least gotten Saddam to begin disarming).

What do I mean? I mean that if taking out Saddam and rebuilding Iraq had been my goal from the minute I took office (as it was for the Bush team), I would not have angered all of Europe by trashing the Kyoto global warming treaty without offering an alternative. I would not have alienated the entire Russian national security elite by telling the Russians that we were ripping up the ABM treaty and that they would just have to get used to it. (You're now seeing their revenge.) I would not have proposed one radical tax cut on top of another on the eve of a huge, costly nation-building marathon abroad.

I would, though, have rallied the nation for real energy conservation and initiated a Manhattan Project for alternative energies so I would not find myself with $2.25-per-gallon gasoline on the eve of this war — because OPEC capacity is nearly tapped out. I would have told the Palestinians that until they stop suicide bombing and get a more serious leadership, we're not dealing with them, but I would also have told the Israelis that every new or expanded settlement they built would cost them $100 million in U.S. aid. And I would have told the Arabs: "While we'll deal with the Iraqi threat, we have no imperial designs on your countries. We are not on a crusade — but we will not sit idle if you tolerate extremists in your midst who imperil our democracy."

No, had Mr. Bush done all these things it would not have changed everything with France, Russia and the Arabs — or my wife. But I am convinced that it would have helped generate more support to increase our staying power in Iraq and the odds that we could pull this off.

So here's how I feel: I feel as if the president is presenting us with a beautiful carved mahogany table — a big, bold, gutsy vision. But if you look underneath, you discover that this table has only one leg. His bold vision on Iraq is not supported by boldness in other areas. And so I am terribly worried that Mr. Bush has told us the right thing to do, but won't be able to do it right.

[typoon]

Originally posted by tie:
Fine. The problem is, Bush has completely messed the whole thing up. When I first thought about the coming war, last summer, I was for it. Overthrowing an evil dictatorship is good karma, and there must be some security reasons.

But now I'm totally opposed. Bush hasn't come up with any security concerns to the US. He's tried to make up some Al Qaeda links (e.g., Bin Laden mentioned Iraq in his last tape!!!!). He's pushed for war far too aggressively -- which I'm sure helped pressure Iraq, but it also turned our allies and the rest of the world against us. He's ignored real security threats: homeland security, North Korea. I don't see any threats from Iraq, I think attacking Iraq will only cause more terrorism, I see an enormous and costly war and reconstruction when the economy is in bad shape and we have record deficits.

How has he ignored Homeland security threats? If he hadn't pushed for war so agressively there wouldn't have been anything done in Iraq. How has he ignored North Korea? they are working on both fronts. Security concerns to the US? Possible links to Al Qaida is a security concern to the US. The reason why France is opposed is because of Chirac's friendship with Saddam and the Business that Frace does with them.

"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
-President Bill Clinton in 1998
Yet he still did nothing.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And while I don't always agree with everything Bush is for, this is why I respect the guy. He isn't a fence rider. His views don't change with the polls.

"I am constant as the Northern Star." -- Julius Caesar in Shakespeare's play by that name.

BG

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
"I am constant as the Northern Star." -- Julius Caesar in Shakespeare's play by that name.

BG

How Deep.

[Timo]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Most people seem to want to attribute everything that happens to a single reason - it's all about WMD, or it's all about oil, etc. I think that, as usual, it's a combination of things.

I think that even before 9/11, Bush was predisposed towards a reorganization of the Middle East (who isn't?), the battle being over how aggressive it should be - Powell on the go-slow side, and Wolfowitz et al. on the aggressive, Pax Americana side. I think he was inclined towards caution, but that 9/11 gave him an extra impetus/pretext to act. If you're gonna risk lives and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to pre-emptively attack another country, best do it under the unprecedented political cover of an event like 9/11. Thus the rather feeble attempts to link SH with al Queda - it sells. If it hadn't been for 9/11, I don't think we'd be on the verge of attacking Iraq right now.

I also think that Dubya genuinely believes in the "good vs. evil" paradigm, and that Iraq is as good a place as any to start combatting evil. Again, 9/11 provided an extra impetus/pretext for doing so.

Of course, the UN resolutions are important, but not even Bush was paying much attention to them before last year, so I don't think they serve as an explanation all by themselves. They provide an additional rationale and valuable additional political cover.

There is also the humanitarian rationale, but it doesn't appear to stand on its own in the administration's view. It's one in a list of rationales.

As for oil, I don't think it serves as the primary motive, but it would be naive to think that it isn't part of the equation. As one commentator said, if Iraq's main export was broccoli, we wouldn't be nearly as interested in it.

And Bush is an oil man surrounded by oil people - it can't help but shape their thinking. The argument that "We gave Kuwait back to the Kuwaitis" only goes so far to deflect this fact - even if we don't own the oil outright, huge financial rewards inure to the oil industry when it's able to do business with friendly governments. Even if our reasons for going into Iraq are completely honorable, there are a lot of people licking their chops over the prospect of doing business there.

[By the way, I don't think Afghanistan has significant oil resources, and I don't second-guess our reasons for going in there. Which isn't to say that it doesn't have other assets, such as a nice pipeline route.]

As for Israel, I think it's yet another element. Dubya is not unaware of who his core constituency is and how they feel about it. The growing alliance between conservative Christians and American Jews is one of the strangest I've ever seen in American politics.

In sum, I think that the overthrow of SH was a pipe dream with a variety of rationales, and that 9/11 gave the administration a unique opportunity to act sooner and more decisively than anyone expected.

To me, these are all political realities. Whether one is for or against an invasion depends mostly on how one weighs them. Either way, I don't think it comes down to just one thing, be it WMD or oil.

Yes. I think there are even more factors in Bush's thinking. For example, he may be reaching to analysis that shows wartime jumpstarts the domestic economy. As his father's history shows, it will be the economy, and not the outcome of one or two wars, on which the populace will judge him in November 2004. I think the economic angle also makes an appearance via oil: cheap oil prices (i.e., a stable market) also removes brakes on some parts of the domestic economy.

OTOH I think Bush is quite concerned about the WMD, because until they are operational Americans can invade with relative impunity, but after they area operational the choices are more limited. The North Korean stalemate demonstrates this: Bush himself has said he believes the solution lies along diplomatic lines. I'm not sure this Administration would bother to negotiate if massive artillery (let alone any future nuclear weapons) were not already trained on Seoul.

Strangely enough it is the weakness of Iraq which emboldens this coming attack...that's why these regimes are so busy developing WMD anyway...WMD bring you respect on the world stage.

[thunderous_funker]

If anyone really wants to know where the idea of invading Iraq and making it a US protectorate came from, please read this article published by MotherJones. It shows how this agenda has been floating around in one form or another (just waiting for excuse to do it) since the 70's. It also shows that it's been circulating in the same minds for all that time too. The same people who thought it was a good idea then are the ones selling our president on it now.

I'm sure a bunch of people will get their undies in a bind over the source of the article, but anyone who's interested can read it for themselves. The writer is a much respected and award-winning journalist and I think the work speaks for itself quite clearly.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The same people who thought it was a good idea then are the ones selling our president on it now.

Wow! What a conspiracy! It even includes President Jimmy Carter, that well-known oilman, and imperialist warmonger!!

Step one: The Rapid Deployment Force . . . .In January 1980, President Carter effectively declared the Gulf a zone of U.S. influence, especially against encroachment from the Soviet Union.

Thunderous, this kind of connect the dots conspiracy crap isn't very convincing except perhaps to those looking for a reason, any reason, to hang their paranoia on.

The reason for the creation of the Rapid Deployment Force was the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in 1979. It was created because there were no US troops on the ground in the region. The first time US combat troops entered the Gulf region was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. After the war, most of the 500,000 troops sent went home. They didn't snatch any oil, though they clearly had the power to do it. On the other hand, a very small number (about 5,000 I believe) have been there ever since as continued protection for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Your article therefore has cause and effect exactly backwards. It is the Iraqi threat that brought US troops to the region, not lust for Iraqi oil.

But I am obviously wasting my breath. This oil paranoia conspiracy mongering of the left is clearly entering Oliver Stone JFK assassination levels. No matter what happens to the oil fields, someone is going to repeat this nonsense for decades to come.

[pooka]

Originally posted by Timo:
WMD bring you respect on the world stage.

Werd.

Jus like my Glock gets me respect in my hood. You gots to have the juice or you gonna get rolled. Thass it and thass all.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Wow! What a conspiracy! It even includes President Jimmy Carter, that well-known oilman, and imperialist warmonger!!

Thunderous, this kind of connect the dots conspiracy crap isn't very convincing except perhaps to those looking for a reason, any reason, to hang their paranoia on.

The reason for the creation of the Rapid Deployment Force was the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in 1979. It was created because there were no US troops on the ground in the region. The first time US combat troops entered the Gulf region was when Iraq invaded Kuwait. After the war, most of the 500,000 troops sent went home. They didn't snatch any oil, though they clearly had the power to do it. On the other hand, a very small number (about 5,000 I believe) have been there ever since as continued protection for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Your article therefore has cause and effect exactly backwards. It is the Iraqi threat that brought US troops to the region, not lust for Iraqi oil.

But I am obviously wasting my breath. This oil paranoia conspiracy mongering of the left is clearly entering Oliver Stone JFK assassination levels. No matter what happens to the oil fields, someone is going to repeat this nonsense for decades to come.

And I find your insistence that Engery Security plays no role in geo-political decisions disingenuous at best and smoke-and-mirrors to cover your political leanings at worst.

What is conspiratorial about published articles? What is sinister about signed letters to presidents? What is cloak and dagger about publically announced opinions?

All of these men have publically, openly, purposefully argued for this strategy for decades. What's so unusual about that? Why are we supposed to ignore these obvious facts when considering our current foreign policy?

It's not even totally partisan, as you pointed out. Carter clearly saw that Energy Security was a vital national interest. Or was he just worried about who controls the Persian Gulf because he hoped to vacation there someday?

For pete's sake, people. What's so hard about this? What could possibly have made the Persian Gulf of vital strategic interest for the last 100 years other than religious shrines and oil? What?

How can anyone possibly ignore why the Persian Gulf has been a vital American interest? It's never been a secret. It's not even supposed to be a secret.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But I am obviously wasting my breath. This oil paranoia conspiracy mongering of the left is clearly entering Oliver Stone JFK assassination levels. No matter what happens to the oil fields, someone is going to repeat this nonsense for decades to come.

Simey, are you saying that oil plays no role whatsoever in our strategic thinking? That it is purely incidental? If it is merely incidental, then why would so many influential people, including Jimmy Carter, say otherwise?

I don't think that one has to be Oliver Stone to see that oil is at least an element, if not necessarily the only or primary element, in our strategic thinking.

[Edit: I posted this before I saw thunderous' earlier reply, so you can safely ignore me ]

[thunderous_funker]

As we can clearly see, the region is of no geo-political interests whatsoever. We only go there for occasional humanitarian reasons.

And we certainly aren't spending billions to maintain an intimidating military precense. Of course not.

For those of you too bashful to read the MotherJones article, the orginal idea for invading & occupying the Perian Gulf was publshed in Harper's magazine in 1975 in an article named "Seizing Arab Oil" under the pseudonym of Miles Ignotus (latin for unknown soldier). It even suggested using Texans and Oklahomans to run the oil fields.

Some even refer to it as the Kissinger Plan (since it's believed by some that he was behind the original anonymous article).

Invasion and control of the region been the pipedream of certain ideolouges for decades including several men who are now in Bush's administration.

It's not a conspiracy because it's not a secret. They have openly supported, argued for, and lobbied for the idea for a very long time. It's a publically published and endorsed strategy for securing American interests. You're free to agree with it or disagree with it, but the fact that it's an old idea isn't fiction. It's also not fiction which people in the current administration have openly supported and argued for it since then. They aren't timid men.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And I find your insistence that Engery Security plays no role in geo-political decisions disingenuous at best and smoke-and-mirrors to cover your political leanings at worst.

So, it's disingenuous for Simey to say that you and the other "no blood for oil" folks are just making up a reason?

The same "no war for oil" arguments were used before Desert Storm, and did GHW Bush take any oil from the region? (Read that again, TAKE oil, not purchase oil.) The answer is no.

In fact, due to sanctions, the ammount of oil that the US got from Iraq has been quite limited since then. So if it was a war for oil, it didn't work.

You have no facts to back up your "war for oil" claims with the Bush family. All you have is inuendo about Bush/Cheney and their oil connections.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
For pete's sake, people. What's so hard about this? What could possibly have made the Persian Gulf of vital strategic interest for the last 100 years other than religious shrines and oil? What?

Rugs. Persian Rugs.

But seriously, I don't think that I have said that there is no strategic energy related reason for interest in the Middle East. However, the implication being made is that Bush will personally take the oil and control it. And you know that is absolute horsesh*t.

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
How can anyone possibly ignore why the Persian Gulf has been a vital American interest? It's never been a secret. It's not even supposed to be a secret.

It isn't a secret. My problem is your contention that it's greed on Bush's personal part.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

But seriously, I don't think that I have said that there is no strategic energy related reason for interest in the Middle East. However, the implication being made is that Bush will personally take the oil and control it. And you know that is absolute horsesh*t.



It isn't a secret. My problem is your contention that it's greed on Bush's personal part.

You obviously haven't been paying any attention to the articles I've mentioned or to what I've been saying.

Of course it's got nothing to do with Bush getting rich off oil or anything so stupid. Anyone who says that is an ignoramus (which I'm sure fits the description of many protestors).

The economy of the entire world runs on cheap, stable oil markets. Ever since the oil crisis of the 70's it's been the pipedream of certain people that the US should never ever be beholden to anyone ever again when it comes to this vital interests. Energy Security.

This is deadly serious business. I'm not talking about gas prices. I'm talking about the entire economy. Right now, economists estimate that the $15/barrel increase in crude has equated to $105 Billion in reduced consumer spending. $15/barrel ==$105 Billion in reduced consumer spending. Just think about those numbers.

Our policy in the region has always centered on this one vital interest. Energy Security. It's been the pivotal interest since then. It will stay that way until the Fresh Water Security problem hits us in the coming decades. Just wait.

The question has always been, what's the best way to insure Energy Security? We've done it through propping up friendly regimes. We've done it through proxy wars. We've done it with bribery and intimidation.

Some people have always said, "why not just take and be done with it?". Especially after the oil crisis in the 70's. Why play around and be coy about it? It's too important to leave to chance.

Once you realize this underlying mentality, suddenly the entire history of middle east politics will make sense to you. You'll see why we like some dictators and hate others. Why we let some genocides happen but stop others. Why we care at all about all these petty civil wars, tribal conflicts, and religious fanatics.

This isn't conspiracy. This is US Insterests in the Persian Gulf 101. Ask anyone who's ever served in a diplomatic role in the region. Hell, the MotherJones article is almost entirely interviews with former diplomats and intelligence consultants. Check out Judith Kipper and her think tank if you don't believe me.

This isn't some hidden secret. It's really quite simple.

Our interests dictate our actions. That doesn't make us monsters, it makes us human.

<edited because I can't type worth a damn>

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Simey, are you saying that oil plays no role whatsoever in our strategic thinking? That it is purely incidental? If it is merely incidental, then why would so many influential people, including Jimmy Carter, say otherwise?

I don't think that one has to be Oliver Stone to see that oil is at least an element, if not necessarily the only or primary element, in our strategic thinking.

[Edit: I posted this before I saw thunderous' earlier reply, so you can safely ignore me ]

Clearly, the historical and still overriding reason the region is considered strategic is because of oil. For example, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the fear was that it was part of a strategic thrust toward the oilfields. It was to potentially counter such a thrust that the Carter Administration created the Rapid Reaction Force. And indeed, the Rapid Reaction Force was eventually used in 1990 in order to prevent Iraq from going into Saudi Arabia after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

So much, so accurate. What is not accurate and what goes into conspiracy mongering is the idea that events have been controlled in order to physically seize the oilfields by military means. This is plainly rubbish. The US did not ask the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan. It merely reacted to the invasion. The same goes for invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Others acted, the United States reacted. And at no time during those reactions has it ever taken anyone's oil even though it had the means to do so.

Now, I have no doubt that in the context of the oil embargoes of the early 1970s some people wrote papers suggesting that the US should take by force what is not ours by right. But papers are not policy. The US has never acted in that way, and it will not.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Clearly, the only reason the region is considered strategic is because of oil. For example, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the fear was that it was part of a strategic thrust toward the oilfields. It was to potentially counter such a thrust that the Carter Administration created the Rapid Reaction Force. And indeed, the Rapid Reaction Force was eventually used in 1990 in order to prevent Iraq from going into Saudi Arabia after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

So much, so accurate. What is not accurate and what goes into conspiracy mongering is the idea that events have been controlled in order to physically seize the oilfields by military means. This is plainly rubbish. The US did not ask the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan. It merely reacted to the invasion. The same goes for invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Others acted, the United States reacted. And at no time during those reactions has it ever taken anyone's oil even though it had the means to do so.

Now, I have no doubt that in the context of the oil embargoes of the early 1970s some people wrote papers suggesting that the US should take by force what is not ours by right. But papers are not policy. The US has never acted in that way, and it will not.

Rather than suggest that this is all part of an orchestrated plan 30 years in the making, I think the article merely points out that our Interests have never changed, only the tactics used to achieve them. And that it's quite telliing that the same people who came up with the idea in the 70's, reminded us of it in the 80's and lobbied for it in the 90's are now actually in a position to do it.

In fact, are doing it. Luckily, the cold political calculus can be conveniently spun into the current political climate of War on Terror to make it more palatable to the masses.

What else is invading and occupying Iraq if it's not taking direct military control of the region? Why else would we advocate installing a US regime and an occupying force rather than supporting some local opposition or UN security forces?

We are about to assume full control. Even by conservative estimates, our plan calls for direct US rule for a minimum of 2 years. If the Saudi family should falter during this period, you think the US will stand by and watch a Wahabi regime come to power?

Hey, if this all goes as cheery and smoothly as the administration seems to think it should, the real question will become why didn't we follow through on this idea in 1975 and spare all the madness and horror of the last 30 years?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Clearly, the only reason the region is considered strategic is because of oil. For example, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the fear was that it was part of a strategic thrust toward the oilfields. It was to potentially counter such a thrust that the Carter Administration created the Rapid Reaction Force. And indeed, the Rapid Reaction Force was eventually used in 1990 in order to prevent Iraq from going into Saudi Arabia after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

So much, so accurate. What is not accurate and what goes into conspiracy mongering is the idea that events have been controlled in order to physically seize the oilfields by military means. This is plainly rubbish. The US did not ask the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan. It merely reacted to the invasion. The same goes for invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Others acted, the United States reacted. And at no time during those reactions has it ever taken anyone's oil even though it had the means to do so.

Now, I have no doubt that in the context of the oil embargoes of the early 1970s some people wrote papers suggesting that the US should take by force what is not ours by right. But papers are not policy. The US has never acted in that way, and it will not.

Agreed - I think we're talking past each other somewhat. I don't think that thunderous or I (or the MJ article) are asserting that Bush intends to "take" the oil outright. As I indicated in my first post, one doesn't have to own the oil outright in order to benefit - the key is making sure that you have access to the oil (and to contracts for the attendant services), and in order to do that you have to protect and/or install friendly governments. There is no question in my mind that this is, at the very least, an element of our strategy.

[SimeyTheLimey]

This is an interesting phrase you use:

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think the article merely points out that our Interests have never changed, only the tactics used to achieve them.

Interests aren't something you "achieve." They just are. I agree that the US has an interest in the oil in the region. Protecting that interest has clearly been the driving thrust of US policy. Going out and taking it by force never has.

As for the same people who wrote papers 30 years ago now being in a position of power, this is not a big mystery. Washington has a revolving door and people climb the beaurocratic rungs of power. So they wrote a paper 30 years ago advocating a policy that was never adopted. Big deal. We might as well ask if Germany's policy is driven by the fact that 20 years ago its foreign minister had friends who were terrorists. I bet I could build a much better conspiracy argument out of that than MJ can out of some dusty memos and random geopolitical events taken out of context. But then again, I don't write for Mother Jones.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is an interesting phrase you use:



Interests aren't something you "achieve." They just are. I agree that the US has an interest in the oil in the region. Protecting that interest has clearly been the driving thrust of US policy. Going out and taking it by force never has.

As for the same people who wrote papers 30 years ago now being in a position of power, this is not a big mystery. Washington has a revolving door and people climb the beaurocratic rungs of power. So they wrote a paper 30 years ago advocating a policy that was never adopted. Big deal. We might as well ask if Germany's policy is driven by the fact that 20 years ago its foreign minister had friends who were terrorists. I bet I could build a much better conspiracy argument out of that than MJ can out of some dusty memos and random geopolitical events taken out of context. But then again, I don't write for Mother Jones.

Why shouldn't people consider if a German politician had terrorist friends 20 years ago? It's a hell of lot more important than who he slept with 20 years ago or even last week.

You make it sound like we're reading something into the innocent private diary entries of these guys.

What part of vocal, public, enthusuastic supporters of this particular geo-political strategy is so troublesome? They've certainly never shied away from advocating it, why do you feel the need to cover for them?

I'm fairly confident that the only thing that keeps this sort of thing from being the real topic of debate is that most Americans don't have the stomach for exactly the kinds of strategic machinations that our government deals in each and every day. We'd rather think it's about good and evil and not so much about the vital structures of global power.

It's not conspiracy. It's just the grim reality faced by leaders every day. Some think the best thing we can do is control the persian gulf. Economically, I don't think you can argue against that. It's pretty clear to anyone that it's perfectly true.

Where it gets dodgy is trying to weigh the cost/benefits of those strategies and anticipating the unintended consequences.

Like I said, if Bush can pull off what he claims (all that nice imagery of Liberated Iraq and Democratic Springtime for the region) with out tanking the economy or bringing down the wrath of the Muslim world, he'll have single-handedly solved the biggest, hairiest, nastiest perpetual dilemma facing the US since WWII.

I just happen to think the strategy won't work like that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You make it sound like we're reading something into the innocent private diary entries of these guys.

I think that you (and MJ) are reading way too much into policy papers written 30 years ago. One thing you do in government is to think of the possibilies and the angles. Think of the context of the 1970s. The world was plunged into stagflation by the use of oil embargoes as a weapon. In 1979, the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan and Iran has its revolution. It's hardly surprising that people started considering military seizure as an option. Heck, they would have been unimaginative indeed if they hadn't thought through that possibility.

Nevertheless, the policy wasn't carried out, and those particular circumstances in which those memos were written have changed. You seem to think that once a policy memo is written then the author is like a coiled spring waiting to unleash his opinions on the world. "Damn! Carter didn't follow my wisdom. I'll wait for Reagan. Damn! Reagan didn't follow it either. I'll wait for Bush. Damn! Bush didn't follow it. Maybe Clinton will" etc. I doubt very much that anyone has that much invested in any of those papers. They are working from current policy papers that contain current proposals about how to deal with current events. Not some archive stuff dredged up.

[thunderous_funker]

um, PNAC published it's opinion in 1998. It's still on their website. They all signed the letter to Clinton saying our best interests would be served by assuming control of the region. I'm not sure if they were the first to specifically target Iraq as the best way of kicking down that door, but they did say it loud and clear.

This isn't ancient history. It's current events.

[Face Ache]

I love how the Right caricatures the Left as paranoid oil conspiracy theorists in one sentence and then in the next says "Iraq is about to attack us so we must preemptively bomb them!"

Nope. No paranoia there.

Slightly OT, how did Richard Perle earn his "Prince of Darkness" nickname?

[thunderous_funker]

Here's some thoughts by the leader of a dissident Iraqi exile group. He sounds as pessemistic as I do.

"No way," says Dr Haider Abas, London spokesman of Da'wa, Iraq's moderate Islamic party. "When we met Zalmay Khalilzad (the US special envoy for Iraq) we told him we didn't want to give a cover to US military operations. It's not our role. We won't be respected by our people."

His party has other reservations. It fears the US will retain control of Iraq long after Saddam is toppled and will not hand power to Iraqis for months to come - and then only to its placemen. Da'wa also doubts US plans for ethnically based federalism, arguing that this will create the risk of Balkan-style discrimination and pogroms, when the reality of Iraq is that every major city is culturally mixed. Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and Arabs are found everywhere.

Saddam's repression cost Da'wa thousands of its members over the past two decades. It argued for human rights in Iraq long before Washington and London stopped backing Saddam and took up the cause - another reason why it distrusts US motives. Dr Abas says there is a paradox in that while his party opposes the war he believes many Iraqis inside the country have become so desperate that they may support it. His argument reflects the psychological dilemma which keeps Iraqis awake at night. "People in hell think nothing can be worse. They just want to end it. But we see the bigger picture as well as fearing it will lead to death and destruction for our families at home. We have two problems with the United States. First, its track record. In 1991, when the aim was simply to get Saddam out of Kuwait, they destroyed the infrastructure of the country. People couldn't understand why they bombed power stations and bridges all over Iraq."

His other doubt is over US intentions. One camp in Washington, he feels, wants to rebuild Iraq. The other wants to keep it undemocratic by only removing Saddam and his closest colleagues. "We don't know which camp will win," he says. In the meantime, any Iraqi group which ties its flag to a foreign invader's mast without any guarantee of its postwar intentions loses its patriotic and democratic credentials.

I've heard similar from other dissident groups.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Slightly OT, how did Richard Perle earn his "Prince of Darkness" nickname?

AFAIK, from Star Wars (the Strategic Defense Initiative). Pearle was an early advocate in the Reagan Adminstration. When the press dubbed the program star wars, he got dubbed the Prince of Darkness (usually with a Darth Vader picture accompanying it), At least, that's how I remember it.

[mr. natural]

Why is Bush getting Tough on Iraq Now?

1. The US economy is a mess.

2. So when in doubt about the economy, start a war.

3. A war can boost the economy. Especially as the US economy consists of catering to big business; just think of all the lucrative big business income to be gained rebuilding Iraq's ruined infrastructure, never mind the oil riches to be had with US troops protecting us as we suck Iraq dry.

4. Oil runs our economy, and those pesky liberals in the Senate won't let us drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

5. Saddam is EVIL.

6. Attacking EVIL is an easy sell after 9/11.

7. He has WMD.

8. Never mind that we have plenty more; he's EVIL and we are GOOD.

9. Saddam's snubbed the UN! OMG!

10. It's about the economy stupid.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Here's some thoughts by the leader of a dissident Iraqi exile group. He sounds as pessemistic as I do.

I've heard similar from other dissident groups.

I've also heard the opposite. On the other hand, the Iraqi National Congress was very hostile to reports that the US would not simply appoint them as a government in exile. Chalibi went as far as to write critical op-eds in the Wall Street Journal.

The US position is that the new Iraqi goverment will have to take account of Iraqis in Iraq and not just the exile community. Therefore (so the Administration says) it is premature to decide who the new government should be headed by.

Both positions have their points. Iraq clearly should be run by Iraqis as soon as possible, not by US generals. It is therefore understandable that Iraqi exiles (the only Iraqis with a free voice) should make it clear that Iraq should not become a colony. On the other hand, it would be equally bad for the US to simply appoint Chalibi, who hasn't lived in Iraq since he was 12, even though Chalibi seems poised and eager to take that role.