|
|
|
|
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 1:51:48 AM | A nd I'm asking you to explain why you feel that I cannot support the war as a civilian.
...I never said you couldn't. What I am saying is that if you are able bodied and of sound mind (LOL) and support ANY war you should be willing to go fight in it. People of honor and true leadership do not ask of others what they are not willing to do themselves, one more reason why Bush/Cheney are worthless......and by the way HL, don't fall over when I tell you I enlisted in the Marine Corps at 17...
.... and yes HL you can only support the wars I say you can...
....and montanan's next bit of twisted logic will be to tell us how all of Saddams WMD's went to Jordan in special cartoon trucks drawn by Colin Powel.....
and i have to say that the post that referred to folks living in tents is wrong, unless they mean now since Iraq has something like 2 million refugees? Very few people live in tents anymore and when they do it just during some seasons. Iraq, was once a fairly modern, urban, and somewhat westernized country.... a long time ago now.... but the idea that folks in the Middle East live in tents needs to go away...
i would venture there are more homeless or people living in tents right now in the US thanks to the wonderful Republican Guard that has been leading this country for the last 8 years....
and to OP - you might want to give these guys a call when you get back. They need more folks like you. I know part of what they want to do is get Iraq Vets into political office. http://www.ivaw.org/ | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 4:03:30 AM | Excellent Post. Once again guys, ive gotten off duty and now can reply to all of these post. first off let me say this HL, Im on duty for a minimum of 13 hours a day. sometimes, im on duty for 22 hrs, come back to the TENT that i live in and sleep for two, then start up on another mission. You could ask crash about the work hours. mind you i dont sit online all day and wait for people to respond to me because i want attention.
Nick: On the article about the 48th Brigade BCT and TCNs, It opened my eyes to alot of what is going on with the workers i see everyday. Kinda reminds you of slavery or indentured servents, mostly ran by KBC (Kellogg, Bush, Chaney). But when Chaney filled his 3 million dollar tax return this year, im sure he didnt care too much.
eye8one2: Maybe i should have a masters before trying to read this thread. But i will reply to what i think you are saying, althrough i cant tell if your calling me a conspiracy nutter or not. I base my views on 3 things: My own first hand experence, 2. Other soldiers, who have served in Iraq, 3. FACTUAL and less biased sources. Some news sources, even through kewered, can be researched and parts proven factual.
Montreal: Couldnt put it any better. thanks for pulling those up. kinda limited on web surfing time over here. but let me ask a quick question? We all know that right now Al-quida is linked to several countries including Iran, who, if i have been hearing the news correctly is planning to make nukes. wow, sound familar anyone? Now we have to invade them and every other stinking country on the earth. so what if there was a link between saddam (for the sake of arguement)? what in the hell makes iraq special. We are looking at WW3 before this is over with. remember, i called this one.
montanan:
I personally believe slowly, with time, we will hear more and more from different Iraqi's that there was a connection because where there once was a threat of death hovering over them for speaking of what use to be unspeakable things is no longer there as it once was and are now slowly being spoken and told about by those who had first hand information of Saddam's connection to Al-Qaeda because they feel safer now to say what was, knowing the odds for being killed for speaking is much less then before.
First, im in iraq, hello? i do take time to read the entire forum, unless i cant understand your speech, just dont always have time to. but im sure you figured that one out.
Yeah, no threat. But what is the are thing we know speaks like death threats? Money. Power. Noticed how the first article used personal experience? No factual evidence at all. I saw my friend killed by al-quida so saddam must have arranged it. Get real. This is when i can tell your reaching for points to argue, reaching so far for that little piece of proof that may back your point up. this is the simple fact why our gov't/US corporation is so corrupt. everyone is afraid to state that they have nothing in their PLAN b, so lets make some shit up. Please tell me you honestly believe that official came up to the bush administration (or whoever) and said "YES THERE WAS A LINK" and he walked away empty handed? Notice the Official didnt state his prior position. because he didnt have one.
*thebestguyhere*: nope stud, i am the best, lol, j/k, idk. anyways, good point.
LM.....Yes, only wars i approve up. your like a spectator at a high school football game. You can give the players shit all you want.....from the sidelines, but when it comes to putting them pads on, you piss your pants. your 22 y/o male. Join up if you feel so incline to fight this ****er, because i joined for my country, not my president's wealth nor to finish the mess his daddy made.
Your second "attempt" to belittle the person who is fighting in the war you are talking about was obviously disproven by the proceeding reply. nuff said.
Let me ask you something on your third one. how many times on the news have their NOT been the word shia and sunni in the same word as bombing and deaths? show me where, IN IRAQ, there are marriages of the two? oh yeah, thats right, you dont. your stating alot of opinions, but very little facts. in deed, it is your job to research, especially if your trying to prove an opposing view of someone who has been there and done that.
My next point to you, was, i admit a little hazy. No i am not calling terrorist freedom fighters. but i am saying forgian invaders = people in the country attacking them. they dont have to have extreme beliefs. they just have to be invaded.
The simple truth is you havent watched enough political talk on the radio to argue with me here.
Correct, I haven't watched the radio. I haven't listened to it, either, nor have I watched any political television. As I said, I do not get my information from these sources. You can go on saying that I do, but the plain and simple truth is that I do not. And I don't argue any of my points as a representative of the Bush administration. It's quite possible to separate the two.
You said it yourself in your profile
A non-work day for me goes something like this: wake up around 11. Feed the dogs. Go online and catch up on world news, usually talk about it on a message board. Stay online and catch up on movie, video game and general nerd news. Discuss all of them, pausing occasionally to make something to eat, walk the dogs or play a game.
Without fail I watch or read at least 30 minutes of Christopher Hitchens every day. I'm very much an admirer of his, so naturally I love to have a good debate and feel strongly about certain issues(though not blindly!).
----your profile
yepp. ok, so no radio, a little tv
I don't watch much TV (because it's all the way in the living room
and a WHOLE LOT OF INTERNET. please, what is your primary news source. I can pretty much sum you up by saying this. if your too lazy to go watch TV, then you are obviously too lazy to do some real research. Your not a people person, so i know you dont talk to many people enough to get any opinion other then what you choose to listen to on the internet. And you obviously havent talked (in an actual 2 way conversation) with anyone that has any real knowledge of what is going on. So im going to kinda tune you out (except to your post before this reply) because obviously you cant find much creditable stuff on the internet these days to fit your cause. like i said. you can have an opinion all you want, but (and this is to you and only you in this thread at this point) your opinion matters jack shit to anyone. all you are is a source of entertainment, like the internet that you worship. And none of this was an attack on your character mind you, it is to show that you do not have any proof (you stated things, but provided no proof, not even a weblink)
As an REAL American Soldier, I say to you this: When you are man enough to accept your duties and responsibilities, to fight in a war that [you] believe in, then you matter.
Nashus : Good freakin point. We will always lose while we are still voting to losing officials.
Crash: for once the army and marines agree. Seems like im not the only service member who agrees.
For Everyone else, let me untwist some of my words for yall.
I am a patriot, first and foremost a defender of freedom, regardless of the country that needs it. I do not believe i ever said we shouldnt have went into iraq to get rid of saddam. we are the World's Policemen, not the UN. But the Iraq War (conflict) is nothing more but alot of unfinished business from the 90's, the pres's daddy, VP's greed, and OIL. You dont go starting wars, while your in the middle of one. and especially when your military is already underbudgeted and under-resourced as it was by Bill Clinton when he was in office (that is where a big part of that surplus came from). Dont over-stress your military while it is under-manned, under resourced or under -budgeted. Simple and to the point.
next, i do not speak directly for the military. public affairs deals with that enough. im a God-given born in the USA American citizen.
Also, im showing you what we all , and yes LH, i said all, including you, can agree with. OUR GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPTED AND WERE TAKING IT UP THE ASS LIKE CHAMPS. We have to get off our ass, draw the line, concede to other's views (while it is fun to argue) and do something about it. We rule the government, not the other way around.
So continue debating, but remember, unless you get off your ass and do something about it (hell bug or support your favorite senator or candidate), your talking to nothing but air. As much as Bush and Chaney are to blame, they had help. in the senate. Do something about it or else, you really dont have any room to speak. anywhere. about anything political.
So keep debating and have a great day. Its sleepy time here. | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 4:12:01 AM | | And just to clarify my statements. When talking about bush and chaney, I am referring to their administration NOT about their persons. Due to the regulations AR 600-20 APPEND B, i am limited to speaking about them individually, but not the administration. Please take that legal note into consideration while reading this thread | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 9:33:05 AM | You perfectly missed, or chose to miss, my point: Iraq harbored these known terrorist fugitives.
The man who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack went immediately to Baghdad, where the doors opened for him.
The ocean liner hijacking which resulted in the murder of wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer was organized by Abu Abbas. When he was later arrested by Italian authorities he was released because at the time he carried an Iraqi diplomatic passport.
As far as Abu Nidal, the simple fact that Saddam Hussein deemed him to be a threat does not by any means prove that he's a good guy. The fact remains that the man who planned the massacres in Rome and Vienna, not to mention the assassination of diplomats, was living openly and freely in Iraq despite being wanted for assassination.
Pointing out that Mr. Zarqawi believes Osama bin Laden isn't serious enough about jihad does not help your argument, I don't know why you would think so. We're in a war against all Islamic extremists. Whether he calls himself al Qaeda or not he is a man who says
<div class="quote">We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it...Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion [and that is] against the rule of God.
And he was in Iraq before the invasion.
The final point you miss is the Fedayeen Saddam. This was a paramilitary group whose sole purpose was to wage jihad for Saddam Hussein. When Saddam finally died, this combination of Islamic extremism and Ba'athism would have been the ruling party in Iraq.
Furthermore, I would not say they were just for show. A quote from Saddam Hussein in 1990, five years before he began organizing these jihadists
<div class="quote">Maybe we cannot reach Washington but we can send someone with an explosive belt to reach Washington.
<div class="quote">We can send people to Washington...a person with explosive belt around him could throw himself on Bush's car.
Sooner or later the world was going to have to deal with this. Had we stayed out of it, however, there would regardless be intervention by third parties into Iraq except it would be from countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
As I said, this war isn't so much about punishing for the last one as it is preventing the next one. And I'd say the above examples, coupled with our responsibility for Saddam's rule in the first place and his never sleeping desire for WMD make this war more than valid.
Without fail I watch or read at least 30 minutes of Christopher Hitchens every day. I'm very much an admirer of his, so naturally I love to have a good debate and feel strongly about certain issues(though not blindly!).
----your profile
yepp. ok, so no radio, a little tv
You do understand that computers can play video now, right? Christopher Hitchens doesn't have a television show, he's just a man I admire. This is the last time I am going to tell you: I do not watch much TV at all. There are 3 or 3 sitcoms that I enjoy, I get zero news from TV.
please, what is your primary news source.
I don't have one primary news source.
if your too lazy to go watch TV, then you are obviously too lazy to do some real research.
Did you see that? The joke flew right over your head.
Your not a people person, so i know you dont talk to many people enough to get any opinion other then what you choose to listen to on the internet.
I live in Pittsburgh, so I really doubt listening to the opinions of those around me would give me further clarification on any world issues.
And you obviously havent talked (in an actual 2 way conversation) with anyone that has any real knowledge of what is going on.
Again, I live in freakin Pittsburgh. The internet gives me access to those people.
your like a spectator at a high school football game.
Quite untrue. The real spectators are those who want to just pull out of Iraq because it might be easier, ignoring the very real consequences halfway around the world of the unspeakable massacre an Islamic Iraq would bring, first to the Iraqi people, then to our democratic allies the Kurds, and beyond.
| |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 11:35:59 AM |
As I said, this war isn't so much about punishing for the last one as it is preventing the next one.
Actually, had we wanted to prevent another war we would have completed our stated mission of getting bin Laden dead or alive rather than invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. This whole thing should have and could have been over in less than one year just by concentrating our resources on finding bin Laden, even to the point of obliterating Afghanistan if that was what it took to do so. Doing that would have effectively shown our might and the stupidity of waking a sleeping giant. It would have shown our commitment to punish those who would dare attack us and would have gone far in showing Islamic governments that we do not differentiate between them and the terrorists they breed. Unleashing the entire force of our military upon those actually responsible, now THAT would have gone far toward deterring terrorism against the U.S. and our interests.
The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC attacks and Bush has admitted that publicly. There are no WMD's and Bush has also admitted that. Iraq posed no threat to us, and Bush knew that. There is no clear objective and was no real reason to invade, other than it was a convenient excuse to do so to further the agenda of PNAC. In short, it is a political war, not a war of necessity or even prevention. It is an abomination to continue to waste the lives of young Americans in nothing more than a chess game to fatten the coffers of the elite while giving short shrift to the actual "War on Terror" (if I could have used a shaky, scary font there, I would have.) If we truly wanted to defeat terrorists we'd start with Saudi Arabia, the real financier of terror groups, instead of playing footsie with them. .
Iraq is nothing more than a war of greed and avarice. Our actions have created many more terrorists than there were before. World opinion and the influence of the U.S. are at a low point and we are broke. And it's not over yet, kids. The boogey man is coming! Have you heard? Iran wants to wipe Israel from the map, and OH! Syria has a North Korean built nuclear site! Any of this sounding familiar yet?
The real spectators are those who want to just pull out of Iraq because it might be easier, ignoring the very real consequences halfway around the world of the unspeakable massacre an Islamic Iraq would bring, first to the Iraqi people, then to our democratic allies the Kurds, and beyond.
I'm sure the Kurds will be happy to hear of our commitment to their well being. We've done so much for them over the years.
And I must disagree...the real spectators are those who can still support such a clusterf*ck, who ignore the fact that our actions have resulted in even more destabilization in the region and who still cheer for more blood. Now Iran! Now Syria! Take 'em all out! Rah Rah, Go Team!
And you obviously havent talked (in an actual 2 way conversation) with anyone that has any real knowledge of what is going on.
Again, I live in freakin Pittsburgh. The internet gives me access to those people.
And here, courtesy of the internet, you have one who is there and giving his opinion. Yet rather than consider there might be some merit to his argument, you continue to put him down because his first hand experience doesn't fit in your neat little world of political pundits. Using the internet to find information to support your stance is a bit different than using it to gain insight on differing opinion.
One thing that is bothering me while reading your responses to combatveteran is your use of ridicule. You don't have to agree with him... after all, that's what he is over there ducking bullets for, correct? Your right to speak freely? He is 20 years old, and while he may not have the education you have, he has much more world experience than you will ever accumulate sitting in front of a computer in Pittsburgh. It's his ass on the line over there, not yours, but the support of constituents like you is what is keeping him and his bretheren over there. I think for that alone you owe him some measure of respect whether you agree with him or not.
And by the way...the Sunni/ Shia thing? Combatveteran's first hand experience with sectarian violence trumps your neocon propaganda.They used to intermarry. Now, not so much.
Welcome to Operation Iraqi Freedom:
Mixed marriage was very common in Iraq between Sunnis, Shia and Christians," explained her husband. "My mother is Shia and my father is Sunni, and we lived in a mixed Sunni-Shia neighbourhood. The stratification of society into religious sects was not part of our society."
The first year after the war was "OK", said Layla "but after that it became like hell. The neighbourhood where we used to live has been taken over by Shia – it is one kilometre from Sadr City. Sunnis and Shia have exchanged apartments and now you do not see a Sunni living in a Shia neighbourhood, or a Shia living in a Sunni neighbourhood."
http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/461e34e92.html | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 12:18:15 PM | The real spectators are those who want to just pull out of Iraq because it might be easier, ignoring the very real consequences halfway around the world of the unspeakable massacre an Islamic Iraq would bring, first to the Iraqi people, then to our democratic allies the Kurds, and beyond.
First off, the war industry and their employees in think tanks and policy making committees are the ones who first off, move to sell and train people to be terrorists who, upon their orders are put to work to overthrow elected governments in weak nations for the benefit of corporations like HellaBurn and reward wealth transfer systems such as centralized banking.
All war and strife is caused by the same people who are fighting themselves so as to steal resources, steal economies and put generations after generations in debt for toys the thieves need to produce their show.
But anyway, anyone with half a brain understands the true nature and agenda that is hidden, not to well (oil well) in war and in the hearts and minds of the soulless who promote injustice and death to innocent people, fools who believe the war drums are real are true enemies, you come with a sales pitch that was sold to us before and proven wrong and you and your kind have killed countless "people" and still wish to kill more innocent and you are trying to sell us more magic beans.
War is for plundering/oppressing either the advertised/promoted enemy or the nation that is lulled and tricked into it for the profits of greedy and cowardly men who need death and destruction to maintain their status within the inbred crowd. Least we not forget, there are those who just want in on a new one who will with no reservation, kill or lead others to kill under falsity.
Seeing as you are so pro war, are you familiar with General Smedley Butler?
He was twice award the highest honor a soldier can receive in the US of A.
If not, read his book, War is Racket. So that you know, his view and understanding from his vast experience leading men, serving the nation, may not be worth mention nor discussion as it seems to show your industry as one that is a sham.
My family has a vast history within the industry you are pumping and we have been involved in the political industry as well. We gave many lives and many souls for sake of war drum beaters and the press. WWII seen many enlist, volunteering even through they were to old draft, they could have been like Cheney and the others, stayed at home when called to show valor, await the opportunity to be a chicken hawk. men who cower can not lead men, they can only manipulate them and use them, it is their nature.
From direct experience and from reading and heeding the warnings of such great men as Eisenhower, Kennedy, General Butler and many others who have shown from their lives work, to have integrity and the best interests of those they serve at heart, I and many others who's family lost great wealth, potential, in the lives lost for sake of those who use media and money to further agendas that are detrimental to the earth and man.
Now you rant on and I'll put forth that you would not heed the words of General Butler, Kennedy nor Eisenhower and in fact, you would likely call them conspiracy theorists for warning people of the true nature and lack of morals and integrity that runs rampart within the hearts of those, like you, who are banging war drums and telling us to heed the opinions of fiat people and corporate advisers who tell their superiors that they need a new Peal harbor event to sell the country on the war they want.
It seems to me and I hope the rest of the world, that neocon (artists) are forever pushing war to kill people and benefit corporations.
See, you ask others to sacrifice their lives and the lives of our children because those you trained, at our expense, to be like you are now being like you but not under your orders, you are incompetent for one thing.
And you are claiming that a few of those who went sideways and are not following the War Racket Plan are better soldiers then the multitudes that are trained by you and your kind and that we need to make more people to be like the other ones you trained and lost so as to be able to fight the few bad apples. These alpha Islamic Fascist killing machines your advisors and trainers made must have got your super duper nothing held back training with even some secret stuff as you are proclaiming we should fear them, why, is it the imcompetence of those who serve that can not face the few?
But alas, all I wish to here in return is your thoughts on the American hero General Butler and his work entitled "War is a Racket". It is free online and will only take you away from promoting materialism and war for a moment. After reading that, please seek out speeches of JFK, especially the one he did for the Press regarding the work that is being done by materialists that is detrimental to people, this the people of the world not a niche little group that people like you name/label so as to create division and suspect. Also, review Eisenhower's last speech to the people of the US as president, his remarks about the military industrial complex, where he tells us to keep an eye on you war mongers as, you truly have no integrity.
So there you have it.
Explain to all why they should not listen to a man that served people and stopped a fascist coup by the corporate elite to overthrow the fed government and install a puppet dictator. You know they pitched him, he went along for a bit and then turned on them. They bribed and begged their way out and made many new millionaires and secured some new help. But you say, they are not to be worried about, those who were caught by a hero, general Butler. You see, listen to those who work with the ones who tried to form a coup, likely kill the president at the time. You say, people in tents who despise materialists are more danger to us. These are people who have never started a war on anyone. You rep those who tried to steal the nation.
Here is a video that details General Butler's experience with the conspirators. Ah, but Butler, a hero, wasn't a neocon nor a chicken hawk nor was he a materialists, his estate upon his death was valued at 2k but those facts and the more facts are nothing compared to the opinions of those who fear having to be a soldier but offer fiat-valor in the boardroom, claiming they fear and so we should fear. Hey wait a minute, the draft dodgers fear war, isn't that why they hid and cheated us from seeing them in action, safeguarding people.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7PUmMC5P8IE
While watching it, remember, you say we should follow the corporations, defend them, help them to profit, kill for them, die for them, get money, buy stuff, play with it, let it take your time, do not plant food, use your time to watch TV, learn about the true histroy we wish you to learn. Now you also say, by telling us to follow those ideals, that General Butler is a conspiracy theorist, who does not have the peoples best interest at heart. You say, he his a liar and the corporations of the time, which I might add have grown exceedingly in power/influence, are to be trusted today.
Food for thought? Do you really believe all the BS you spew?
To O/P, I have a soldiers view for you to watch and tellus about. he is not of the same mind as you or the neocons as you will see. is his thoughts, experience and words not worth listening to? If so, then what makes yours worthy of any consideration, since you are pro-war and likely, not a fan of General Butler. Why can;t people understand, people are not with people, corporations and employees are.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cI0keH8sKHs
This is from a soldier, I guess you word should have more weight then his and since he does not share your view, we should disregard his?
Gullibility and ignorance is less rampant since the Internet and wide spread communication. lies and rhetoric are quickly met with sound reasoning which generally attracts childish insult and attacks on personality of those whom speak truth and in essence, show your work as deception and attempt to abet an industry and a mindset that is juvenile and destructive to our shared world. "Infant"ry, "sold"iers and "office"rs, it is a business and it is based upon lies and works only when you are both sides of every dispute or earning from the funding of the destruction and injustices that always befall people.
Making something from nothing seems as the best and most profitable industries. You know the ones like war, fiat money and religion. In this production you people have all three in the mix and you even invented new products, Islamic fascists, it is as ridiculous as saying materialists (Zionists) are spiritual. Explain more about the ideology of a Islamic Zionist, I mean fascist, I need to understand these characters more to really truly understand the movie you people are producing. | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 1:17:23 PM | You just have to look back the father of the neo-con movement - Leo Strauss
The necessity of lies
Danny Postel: What is the relevance of Strauss’s interpretation of Plato’s notion of the noble lie?
Shadia Drury: Strauss rarely spoke in his own name. He wrote as a commentator on the classical texts of political theory. But he was an extremely opinionated and dualistic commentator. The fundamental distinction that pervades and informs all of his work is that between the ancients and the moderns. Strauss divided the history of political thought into two camps: the ancients (like Plato) are wise and wily, whereas the moderns (like Locke and other liberals) are vulgar and foolish. Now, it seems to me eminently fair and reasonable to attribute to Strauss the ideas he attributes to his beloved ancients.
In Plato’s dialogues, everyone assumes that Socrates is Plato’s mouthpiece. But Strauss argues in his book The City and Man (pp. 74-5, 77, 83-4, 97, 100, 111) that Thrasymachus is Plato’s real mouthpiece (on this point, see also M.F. Burnyeat, “Sphinx without a Secret”, New York Review of Books, 30 May 1985 [paid-for only]). So, we must surmise that Strauss shares the insights of the wise Plato (alias Thrasymachus) that justice is merely the interest of the stronger; that those in power make the rules in their own interests and call it justice.
Leo Strauss repeatedly defends the political realism of Thrasymachus and Machiavelli (see, for example, his Natural Right and History, p. 106). This view of the world is clearly manifest in the foreign policy of the current administration in the United States.
A second fundamental belief of Strauss’s ancients has to do with their insistence on the need for secrecy and the necessity of lies. In his book Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss outlines why secrecy is necessary. He argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons – to spare the people’s feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals.
The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many. In On Tyranny, Strauss refers to this natural right as the “tyrannical teaching” of his beloved ancients. It is tyrannical in the classic sense of rule above rule or in the absence of law (p. 70).
Now, the ancients were determined to keep this tyrannical teaching secret because the people are not likely to tolerate the fact that they are intended for subordination; indeed, they may very well turn their resentment against the superior few. Lies are thus necessary to protect the superior few from the persecution of the vulgar many.
The effect of Strauss’s teaching is to convince his acolytes that they are the natural ruling elite and the persecuted few. And it does not take much intelligence for them to surmise that they are in a situation of great danger, especially in a world devoted to the modern ideas of equal rights and freedoms. Now more than ever, the wise few must proceed cautiously and with circumspection. So, they come to the conclusion that they have a moral justification to lie in order to avoid persecution. Strauss goes so far as to say that dissembling and deception – in effect, a culture of lies – is the peculiar justice of the wise.
Strauss justifies his position by an appeal to Plato’s concept of the noble lie. But in truth, Strauss has a very impoverished conception of Plato’s noble lie. Plato thought that the noble lie is a story whose details are fictitious; but at the heart of it is a profound truth.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm
Edward Bernays saw it in very much the same way. One creates a mythology to fit a need for control of the masses. Propaganda can serve noble ends, or evil ones. Even Bernays reflected on the misuse of it towards the end of his life.
"'Propaganda' in its proper meaning is a perfectly wholesome word, of honest parentage,
and with an honorable history… Propaganda becomes vicious and reprehensive only
when its authors consciously and deliberately disseminate what they know to be lies, or
when they aim at effects which they know to be prejudicial to the common good."
- Edward Bernays
Need more proof ?
Check out the Rendon Group, Desert Storm, and the propaganda war that was waged behind the scenes.
When Reagan won the election, kicking off 12 years of Republican presidents, the Rendons’ consulting practice became more wide-ranging, John Rendon started doing contract work for the military. During the invasion of Panama in 1989, he helped direct the information war from a downtown Panama city high-rise. For the first Gulf war in 1991, his staff worked out of Taif, Saudi Arabia. For the Afghan war, he took part in a 9:30 a.m. conference call every morning with top-level Pentagon officials to determine the day’s war message.
One of his most famous messages, planted with the assistance of the Hill & Knowlton PR firm, was staged during the run up to the 1991 Gulf War. On October 10, 1990, the Congressional Human Rights Caucus held a hearing on Capitol Hill. California Democrat Tom Lantos and Illinois Republican John Porter introduced a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl named Nayirah. Weeping and shaking, the girl described a horrifying scene in Kuwait City. “I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital,” she testified. “While I was there I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns and go into the room where babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die.”
Seven pro-war senators brought up the baby-incubator allegations to argue for an invasion of Iraq, leading to a narrow five-vote win. Later it was discovered that the Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, daughter of the ambassador to the United States and that the incubator incident was fabricated.
Another media triumph Rendon brags about was the manipulation of media during the actual conflict. “If any of you either participated in the liberation of Kuwait City … or if you watched it on television, you would have seen hundreds of Kuwaitis waving small American flags. Did you ever stop to wonder how the people of Kuwait City, after being held hostage for seven long and painful months, were able to get hand-held American flags? And for that matter, the flags of other coalition countries? Well, you now know the answer. That was one of my jobs,” he told a National Security Conference in 1998.
Not surprisingly, the INC (best known for its founder, Ahmed Chalabi, a now disgraced member of the Iraqi Governing Council) was created by the Rendon Group, according to a February 1998 report by Peter Jennings of ABC News which showed that the Rendon Group spent more than $23 million dollars under contract with the CIA. According to ABC, Rendon invented the name for the Iraqi National Congress. Indeed Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker magazine says the Rendon Group was “paid close to a hundred million dollars by the CIA” for its work with the INC.
Chalabi and the INC were a major “source” for information about Iraq’s mysterious “weapons of mass destruction” for major newspapers like the New York Times.
http://gnn.tv/articles/151/Information_Warriors
In the same way, the toppling of that statue of Saddam was actually a commercial. What Americans "saw" versus what actually occurred , was as carefully staged as an ad for Pepsi.
April 6th: Iraqi National Congress founder, Ahmed Chalabi is flown into the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah by the Pentagon. Chalabi, along with 700 fighters of his "Free Iraqi Forces" are airlifted aboard four massive C17 military transport planes. Chalabi and the INC are Washington favorites to head the new Iraqi government. A photograph is taken of Chalabi and members of his Free Iraqi Forces militia as they arrive in Nasiriyah.
April 9th: One of the "most memorable images of the war" is created when U.S. troops pull down the statue of Saddam Hussein in Fardus Square. Oddly enough... a photograph is taken of a man who bears an uncanny resemblance to one of Chalabi's militia members... he is near Fardus Square to greet the Marines. How many members of the pro-American Free Iraqi Forces were in and around Fardus Square as the statue of Saddam came tumbling down?
The up close action video of the statue being destroyed is broadcast around the world as proof of a massive uprising. Still photos grabbed off of Reuters show a long-shot view of Fardus Square... it's empty save for the U.S. Marines, the International Press, and a small handful of Iraqis. There are no more than 200 people in the square at best. The Marines have the square sealed off and guarded by tanks. A U.S. mechanized vehicle is used to pull the statue of Saddam from it's base. The entire event is being hailed as an equivalent of the Berlin Wall falling... but even a quick glance of the long-shot photo shows something more akin to a carefully constructed media event tailored for the television cameras.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
See the picture for yourself, and note how different it's image is from the close up view that was suddenly on TV's world wide.
Realize who is involved, and their history. Realize how they've been crucial to the PR side of the war, and that they've deliberately lied to the US public in doing that job - without prosecution.
Think about what this manipulation implies, when it provides misinformation to a mass audience.
The "noble lie" in action.... | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 2:00:29 PM | As I said, this war isn't so much about punishing for the last one as it is preventing the next one. <<<< This is hysterical. So we start a moronic and impossible war that kills a million people to avoid the next what?
Sadam was a secularist! Get it!
I used to respect Hitchens too, when he was covering the October Suprise where Bush senior commited treason by promising guns to the Iranian students in exchange for holding onto the hostages until Regan was innagurated.
I think after that he musthave fallen on his head or something, with Dennis Miller. | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 2:24:12 PM | Returning to this thread in spite of saying I would not ONLY to say I am glad to see the OP removed the photos with uniforms which had his last name on them.
And, the ONLY reason I stated that in the first place was not in reference to the rest of my post at that time... It was to bring to attention the safety aspect... not only for this OP, but, for all Posters. To be aware of what you are wearing/have in the background of photos.. to not include personal info. Unless you do it on purpose and want the data there.
I tend to notice things of that nature, subconsciously, due to my previous career paths.
Just wanted to clear that up. Nothing more or less to say on this thread now. | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 2:24:36 PM | And as far as propaganda goes. Im sure you are aware of the NY times article that came out about the Pentagons Propaganda machine that was pretty much all the analysts and retired military that were interviewed to support the war.
Here is the article. Of course it is no suprise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=2&pagewanted=4&oref=slogin | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 3:32:53 PM | Veteren830, I get some inside opinions for info as I have a cousin who was involved in the first wave to hit Iraq and have a couple nephews over there now. My cousin was an officer. They, like you have opinions just as we over here have opinions. No disrespect here but because your on the front lines, that does not mean you have any more information about what may or what may not have transpired between al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime prior to the war then of what anyone here can learn. Now unless you have been out asking Iraqi's what is their opinion of whether Saddma's regime and al-Qaeda had ties prior to the war and they have all said "no way!" then your info will take precedence for most anyone here.
People also get this debate confused. The debate is not of whether al-Qaeda and Saddam had ties connecting them to 9/11. The debate is did al-Qaeda/Bin-Laden have ties to Saddam's regime/Saddam prior to 9/11. Bush and Cheney have presented strong circustantial evidence showing there were in-direct ties between the two parties that went back into the 1990's.
Is there direct evidence that these two parties had direct ties? Not to my knowledge of all that is avalible to be read about.
Is there indirect evidence that these two parties had indirect ties? Yes, it is out there to be read of.
Saddam did allow terrorist organizations into his country for safe harbor. They set up camps and trained for their acts of terrorism within his country. That would make him an indirect supporter of any actions/plans of terrorism they would carry out within his own country, against his own enemys and the same for any acts of terrorism they completed out side of Iraq.
The following was your comment to my post....[Please tell me you honestly believe that official came up to the bush administration (or whoever) and said "YES THERE WAS A LINK" and he walked away empty handed? Notice the Official didnt state his prior position. because he didnt have one.]
First, his name was Barham Salih. The following states his position....
[WASHINGTON — A deputy prime minister of Iraq yesterday offered a sharp contradiction of the conventional wisdom here that Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda had no connection before the 2003 war, flatly contradicting a recent report from the Senate's intelligence committee.]
Below is the entire article............
September 14, 2006 Edition > Section: Foreign
Iraqi Official Testifies to Links Between Saddam and Al Qaeda
BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 14, 2006
URL: http://www2.nysun.com/article/39631
WASHINGTON — A deputy prime minister of Iraq yesterday offered a sharp contradiction of the conventional wisdom here that Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Qaeda had no connection before the 2003 war, flatly contradicting a recent report from the Senate's intelligence committee.
In a speech in which he challenged the belief of war critics that Iraqis' lives are now worse than under Saddam Hussein, Barham Salih said, "The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told." He went on to say, "I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam's regime."
A Kurdish politician who took his high school exams from inside a Baathist prison, Mr. Salih said he was the target of the alliance between jihadists, Baathists, and Al Qaeda in 2001, when a group known as Ansar al-Islam tried to assassinate him. In 2002, envoys of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of the two Kurdish parties sharing sovereignty over northern Iraq between the two Iraq wars, presented the CIA with evidence that the organization that tried to kill Mr. Salih had been in part funded and directed by Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard.
Those words directly contradict a recent report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that declassified a 2005 CIA assessment of Iraq's pre-war ties to Al Qaeda and found that none existed. In an interview after the speech yesterday, Mr. Salih said he was unaware of the CIA assessment. But he added, "There were links between Ansar al-Islam and Al Qaeda. The information at time [in 2002] was quite different. Now, we could not prove this in a court of law, but this is intelligence."
The Senate's report declassifies a July 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency study of Ansar al-Islam as a possible link between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda that concludes that, even if it can be proven, as Mr. Salih at the time alleged, that the Baathist regime supported the group, "it will not necessarily implicate the regime in supporting Al Qaeda." The DIA concludes that Ansar al-Islam "receives assistance" from Al Qaeda but is not a branch of the terrorist organization.
Democrats in the last three days have used the Senate report as a stick with which to beat the White House. On Tuesday, the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Jane Harman of California, wrote a letter to Vice President Cheney urging him to rescind his remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday when he said he did not know whether an accused September 11 hijacker, Mohammed Atta, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. On that program, Mr. Cheney dismissed the Senate committee's report and said he had not read it.
On Tuesday and yesterday, the Senate Democratic leader's communications office sent out press releases accusing White House press secretary Tony Snow of misleading the public on Iraq when he insisted the president asserted that no a relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq existed before the war. The Senate committee's report quotes the 2005 CIA report as saying Saddam Hussein did not know that the former commander of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi, was in his country before the war.
Clinging to the assessments of the intelligence agencies, the Democrats have used the finding to make the broader point that the Iraq war is in no way related to the war on terrorism. Rep. Ike Skelton, a senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee from Missouri, yesterday issued a statement saying, "Our country is engaged in two separate wars. The first is the war against terrorism, which has its genesis in Afghanistan."
He went on to say, "The second war, in Iraq, originated because of the alleged threat of weapons of mass destruction against America and our interests. This was a war of choice." The two war theme was repeated by President Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in a speech on new directions for American foreign policy.
But Mr. Salih at the Brookings Institution yesterday rebutted this point. "The terrorism that we are facing is therefore not an aberration caused by the liberation of Iraq. It is not an expression of a legitimate grievance. It is the failure of the political culture that is the rotted offspring of the old order, the results of decades of inequality, intolerance, injustice, and officially-sponsored fanaticism," he said. A few breaths later, Mr. Salih said, "We are your allies in the global war against Al Qaeda."
Mr. Salih, who was in Iran last week on official business for Iraq, also said that he had "candid" conversations with Iranian officials and had raised the issue of improvised explosive devices from Iran getting into the hands of Iraqi insurgents. | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 4:25:19 PM | Barham Salih's statement should be taken in the following context.
He left Iraq in 1979, and lived outside of it's borders until the invasion.
The CIA learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, according to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/14/AR2006091401545.html
His opinion isn't reflected in the reality on the ground, inside Iraq.
A taped message believed to be from fugitive militant Osama bin Laden on Tuesday warned Arab nations against supporting a war against Iraq as threatened by the United States -- but branded Saddam Hussein an infidel.
While urging Muslims to support the Iraqi people and repel any attack on their country, the tape said Saddam's secular "socialist" government had lost credibility.
"Socialists are infidels wherever they are," the statement said. But it added: "It does not hurt that in current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists in the war against crusaders."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm
Saddam was the antithesis of what Bin Laden stands for. | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 4:33:48 PM |
It was to bring to attention the safety aspect
....thats a scary thought isn't it? the soldiers have to be scared to say what they think.....
.....I'm sure Pat Tillmans's family found that out the hard way, but no harder than Pat himself. See there HL? See how we treat people who walk their talk and then find out they were getting lied to?
and just as a point of clarification, I did enlist in the Marines but lied to get in. I said I was fine when I had messed up knees and they said bye bye...
but I did take an oath... | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 4:49:07 PM |
.thats a scary thought isn't it? the soldiers have to be scared to say what they think.....
Actually, it's OPSEC , operational security.
That's not a bad thing, as it can lead to accidental information being leaked that puts others at risk. Just think of the implications of a serviceman posting details identifying the death of your loved one - before you officially are notified.
It's a delicate balance, but a needed one. | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 5:00:00 PM | | I get that MG. What is scary is they can get into trouble saying George Bush is a war criminal. That is different than talking about blowing up a bridge with uncle phil in Toledo. | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/26/2008 6:52:13 PM | Montreal you state .....[He left Iraq in 1979, and lived outside of it's borders until the invasion. ]
But according to web sources he was the ....[The Prime Minister of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan region of Iraqi Kurdistan (January 21, 2001 - July 4, 2004)]....which would have put his residence in Iraq prior to the 9/11, Iraq invasion. And though he left in 1979 for education purposes and then served as spokesman for the PUK in London and the US that didn't mean he did not go back home for business and family. So that implys his ties to Iraq while being away were still strong and tended to. I am guessing those are probably the central reasons for why his opinions before a hearing in DC were given time to be listened to.
Of Saddam and Bin-Laden, Bin-Laden may not of seen Saddam in any better of a light then Bush but indirect links are still there tieing Bin-Laden's associates to Saddam's regime/associates. I am guessing that Saddam had some very pro-Bin-laden goverment officials of whom without direct knowledge to Saddam were giving Bin-Ladens associates/friends help and safe harbor. But that is my opinion of all that I have read.
Go to this link if it works, this guy has a lot of interesting things to say that were pre-9/11 that he said in an interview in 8/11. http://www.meib.org/articles/0109_iri.htm
In the above interview Barham was asked about the oil for food program. The question made me laugh though it was from truth of how the Iraq people felt then and maybe now.....
(reporter)
[Local residents in northern Iraq joke that the numbers in UN Security Council Resolution 986, the "oil-for-food" program, stand for "900 parts for New York, 80 parts for Geneva, and 6 parts for the Kurds." Is SCR 986 working? Could it be more effective?]
(response)
The oil-for-food program is a great and truly revolutionary concept. In fact it is historic, in the sense that never in our history have we had a government obliged by international law to devote Iraq's oil revenues to the wellbeing of the Iraqi people. It is refreshing to see these revenues not used on weapons and repression.
The program suffers from serious management problems emanating from the complexities of the Iraq-UN political framework, as well as the inefficiencies inherent in the UN system itself. Some UN agencies are better than others: UNICEF and UNDP are generally well-regarded. The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) is singled out as uniquely wasteful and inefficient. The World Health Organization is not that well regarded either.
Despite these serious problems, we cooperate with UN agencies to ensure that projects are implemented more effectively. While we are critical of the inefficiencies of the system and the bureaucratic waste, we must not lose sight of the overall success and vitality of the program.
The program can surely be made more effective. Five years on, I believe, the time has come for a serious review of the Memorandum of Understanding between Iraq and the UN Secretariat. This review must duly consider the unique nature of the situation of Iraqi Kurdistan and focus on sustainable development of our region. The UN has yet to realize the full potential of this program in Iraqi Kurdistan, and therefore it may be losing an important opportunity to score a far greater success story.
| |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/27/2008 3:37:42 AM | Ok, my daily two cents. I actually gave it thought when i had a few seconds to stop and think about it. First off, I have never said, or ment to imply that my opinion was better then anyone elses, with the exception of LH. LH is an idiot, i asked him to show me proof to back up some of his arguements or stop trying to argue points. It is as simple as that. he could only keep stating his opinion about something but he had no reasoning behind it, and when he was proved wrong about something, he never conceded the point, he simply moved on to pick something else apart. his little post will be ignored by my eyes until i see that he actually did some research on a topic, and sorry, but 2 sentences can not show throughly researched material.
To O/P, I have a soldiers view for you to watch and tellus about. he is not of the same mind as you or the neocons as you will see. is his thoughts, experience and words not worth listening to? If so, then what makes yours worthy of any consideration, since you are pro-war and likely, not a fan of General Butler. Why can;t people understand, people are not with people, corporations and employees are.
have you read any of my messages. My views are that there was NO major difference in the link between saddam and Al-quida, if any at all. Like i said what makes iraq different from any other country that al-quida was linked to?
Also, it may just be me, but the language in which you write your language is quite difficult to understand. i guess it could be the way you word things, or it could just be me. But i do not believe i have ever said i was pro-war (and for that fact against the war, althrough it seems i have argued that point, i just didnt feel that the timing was correct for a pointless war).
I simply said that Iraq is not a part of the war on terror campaign, it should have either been done with in the 90's or waited until we received revenge on al-quida (in which, if you want to say that is the reason we came into Iraq, then you would have to agree that we would now have to go into Iran and every other country that may be helping these insurgents, which could quite possibly make this a war against the world.
And thirdly, if Bush would have lost the election in 2000....wait, ok, if Bush wouldnt have used his connections to become president, who knows, we may have never been attacked in the first place. But ill say this. on September 11th, 2001, he didn't look very suprised or upset about it in that florida classroom and his vacation time did sure cut down a little (42% of his Pre-9/11 administration, i believe). remember, i am not referring to the man himself, but his administration 
MG, and montana76, debating once again (LH, pay close attention. see how they dont just say stuff and then make the other guy prove it wrong? each comes with proof).
On a personal note. The argument that Iraqi citizens arent terriorist. Here is the deal. I can say that yes, there are Iraqi Citizens who are considered to be security risk, and who are detained. There are also Iraqi Citizens who have been found guilty, but the Iraqi Court Systems, who are serving in prison. In argument to LH, Unlike in US prisons, there are laws prohibiting the exposure of any identifiable information of detained persons in this conflict. I guess you will have to take my word on it, or look up a story about it, althrough once again, most of the times, news articles will not publish that information. If you would like access to that information, you must have a security clearence high enough (yes it is classified, but i can not tell you what level it is), and a need to know. for more information, type in detainee facilities in Iraq into google. But you can take my word on it.
Also guys, i know i dont do much research around here, and i quite simply do not have time. For those people MG especially who will take post directed towards me and respond to them, thank you. and thank you all for participating in HEALTHY debating and conversation. In some respects, i feel that through this, we all (especially me) learn a great deal more, and even through we may not change our views, we are attempting to see it both ways. Thanks
As i am "on the front lines", remember, there are no real front lines in this war. everywhere in the country is a war zone. I remember reading in a previous post that the iraqi citizens have over 100,000 dead so far, and thats from a conservative count. We have lost a little over 4,000. That is 4,000 mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, etc. we have been in afghanistan for 78 months, Iraq totals 61 months. Compared to other wars:
U.S. Civil War--April, 1861 to April, 1865= 48 months
World War II--December, 1941 to September, 1945= 45 months
World War I--April, 1917 to November, 1918= 19 months
Korean War-- June, 1950 to July, 1953= 37 months
War of 1812--June, 1812 to February, 1815= 32 months
U.S.-Mexican War-- May, 1846 to February, 1848= 21 months
Spanish-American War--April, 1898 to August, 1898= 5 months
Gulf War--January, 1991 to March, 1991= 3 month
.
Want to know my point? If we would have concentrated on terriorism and al-quida in Afghanistan, and took the focus there, and no invaded Iraq, YET, we would have completed the afghanistan campaign, and maybe had a little more troops to support Iraq with, and maybe, JUST MAYBE done the invasion with a surgicial knife instead of a sledgehammer.
Most of you can agree that we made more enemies in iraq that day (the initial invasion) then we would have ever had in this country. Saddam killed their mother, and the US dropped a bomb on their father.
Think about this. Ponder this over. This is what my true argument was 91 post ago.
BTW, the only wars to last longer then this one was the Vietnam War--August, 1964 to April, 1975= 116 months (American involvement began in the late 1950s, but major U.S. combat forces began taking part in large unit combat in 1964) and the American Revolution--April, 1775 to September, 1783= 100 months. Only 2. If you even count the American Revolution as a war in this topic. It was more of woman in labor with us, Americans.
So i leave you with this (until tomorrow), God bless America, Thank You for the Support, and Thank God (Or allah, or budda) that we have all made it through another day in the game we call life. (and yes, i am still a patriot defending our country, not a war-cutter or want-a-be deserter)
O/P | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/27/2008 4:26:48 AM | .
Here you go OP. Welcome to the "real" wmd's.
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William R. Clark
(Friday, August 5, 2005)
"A successful Iranian bourse will solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations."
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on the table."
-- President George W. Bush, February 2005
Contemporary warfare has traditionally involved underlying conflicts regarding economics and resources. Today these intertwined conflicts also involve international currencies, and thus increased complexity. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran's nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian "petroeuro" system for oil trade. Similar to the Iraq war, military operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of 'petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.
It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam's long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining strategic control over Iraq's hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 information provided by former administration insiders revealed the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam.[1][2] Candidly stated, 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of global Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency ( i.e. "petroeuro").[3] However, subsequent geopolitical events have exposed neoconservative strategy as fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia evaluates this option with the European Union.
In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world's governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China – were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed inside a hostile Iraq. In 2002 I wrote an award-winning online essay that asserted Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced on September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN's Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq's oil export currency.[4] Indeed, my original pre-war hypothesis was validated in a Financial Times article dated June 5, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in U.S. dollars – not euros.
The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar. [5]
The Bush administration implemented this currency transition despite the adverse impact on profits from Iraqi's export oil sales.[6] (In mid-2003 the euro was valued approx. 13% higher than the dollar, and thus significantly impacted the ability of future oil proceeds to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure). Not surprisingly, this detail has never been mentioned in the five U.S. major media conglomerates who control 90% of information flow in the U.S., but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial – yet overlooked – rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.
Concerning Iran, recent articles have revealed active Pentagon planning for operations against its suspected nuclear facilities. While the publicly stated reasons for any such overt action will be premised as a consequence of Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are again unspoken macroeconomic drivers underlying the second stage of petrodollar warfare – Iran's upcoming oil bourse. (The word bourse refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.)
In essence, Iran is about to commit a far greater "offense" than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro for Iraq's oil exports in the fall of 2000. Beginning in March 2006, the Tehran government has plans to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades – using a euro-based international oil-trading mechanism.[7] The proposed Iranian oil bourse signifies that without some sort of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project of U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on dollar supremacy in the crucial international oil market.
From the autumn of 2004 through August 2005, numerous leaks by concerned Pentagon employees have revealed that the neoconservatives in Washington are quietly – but actively – planning for a possible attack against Iran. In September 2004 Newsweek reported:
Deep in the Pentagon, admirals and generals are updating plans for possible U.S. military action in Syria and Iran. The Defense Department unit responsible for military planning for the two troublesome countries is "busier than ever," an administration official says. Some Bush advisers characterize the work as merely an effort to revise routine plans the Pentagon maintains for all contingencies in light of the Iraq war. More skittish bureaucrats say the updates are accompanied by a revived campaign by administration conservatives and neocons for more hard-line U.S. policies toward the countries…'
…administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran – by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary. Papers on the idea have circulated inside the administration, mostly labeled "draft" or "working draft" to evade congressional subpoena powers and the Freedom of Information Act. Informed sources say the memos echo the administration's abortive Iraq strategy: oust the existing regime, swiftly install a pro-U.S. government in its place (extracting the new regime's promise to renounce any nuclear ambitions) and get out. This daredevil scheme horrifies U.S. military leaders, and there's no evidence that it has won any backers at the cabinet level. [8]
Indeed, there are good reasons for U.S. military commanders to be 'horrified' at the prospects of attacking Iran. In the December 2004 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, James Fallows reported that numerous high-level war-gaming sessions had recently been completed by Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who has run war games at the National War College for the past two decades.[9] Col. Gardiner summarized the outcome of these war games with this statement, "After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers: You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work." Despite Col. Gardiner's warnings, yet another story appeared in early 2005 that reiterated this administration's intentions towards Iran. Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh's article in The New Yorker included interviews with various high-level U.S. intelligence sources. Hersh wrote:
In my interviews [with former high-level intelligence officials], I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. Everyone is saying, 'You can't be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,' the former [CIA] intelligence official told me. But the [Bush administration officials] say, 'We've got some lessons learned – not militarily, but how we did it politically. We're not going to rely on agency pissants.' No loose ends, and that's why the C.I.A. is out of there. [10]
The most recent, and by far the most troubling, was an article in The American Conservative by intelligence analyst Philip Giraldi. His article, "In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran," suggested the resurrection of active U.S. military planning against Iran – but with the shocking disclosure that in the event of another 9/11-type terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Vice President****Cheney's office wants the Pentagon to be prepared to launch a potential tactical nuclear attack on Iran – even if the Iranian government was not involved with any such terrorist attack against the U.S.:
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President****Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing – that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack – but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. [11]
Why would the Vice President instruct the U.S. military to prepare plans for what could likely be an unprovoked nuclear attack against Iran? Setting aside the grave moral implications for a moment, it is remarkable to note that during the same week this "nuke Iran" article appeared, the Washington Post reported that the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of Iran's nuclear program revealed that, "Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years."[12] This article carefully noted this assessment was a "consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, [and in] contrast with forceful public statements by the White House." The question remains, Why would the Vice President advocate a possible tactical nuclear attack against Iran in the event of another major terrorist attack against the U.S. – even if Tehran was innocent of involvement?
Perhaps one of the answers relates to the same obfuscated reasons why the U.S. launched an unprovoked invasion to topple the Iraq government – macroeconomics and the desperate desire to maintain U.S. economic supremacy. In essence, petrodollar hegemony is eroding, which will ultimately force the U.S. to significantly change its current tax, debt, trade, and energy policies, all of which are severely unbalanced. World oil production is reportedly "flat out," and yet the neoconservatives are apparently willing to undertake huge strategic and tactical risks in the Persian Gulf. Why? Quite simply – their stated goal is U.S. global domination – at any cost.
To date, one of the more difficult technical obstacles concerning a euro-based oil transaction trading system is the lack of a euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil 'marker' as it is referred to in the industry. The three current oil markers are U.S. dollar denominated, which include the West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI), Norway Brent crude, and the UAE Dubai crude. However, since the summer of 2003 Iran has required payments in the euro currency for its European and Asian/ACU exports – although the oil pricing these trades was still denominated in the dollar.[13]
Therefore a potentially significant news story was reported in June 2004 announcing Iran's intentions to create of an Iranian oil bourse. This announcement portended competition would arise between the Iranian oil bourse and London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). [Both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S. consortium, and operated by an Atlanta-based corporation, IntercontinentalExchange, Inc.]
The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian bourse are noteworthy. Considering that in mid-2003 Iran switched its oil payments from E.U. and ACU customers to the euro, and thus it is logical to assume the proposed Iranian bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency. This event would remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades. From a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro system is a logical development given that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounted for 45% of exports sold to the Middle East. (Following the May 2004 enlargement, this percentage likely increased).
Despite the complete absence of coverage from the five U.S. corporate media conglomerates, these foreign news stories suggest one of the Federal Reserve's nightmares may begin to unfold in the spring of 2006, when it appears that international buyers will have a choice of buying a barrel of oil for $60 dollars on the NYMEX and IPE - or purchase a barrel of oil for €45 - €50 euros via the Iranian Bourse. This assumes the euro maintains its current 20-25% appreciated value relative to the dollar – and assumes that some sort of US "intervention" is not launched against Iran. The upcoming bourse will introduce petrodollar versus petroeuro currency hedging, and fundamentally new dynamics to the biggest market in the world - global oil and gas trades. In essence, the U.S. will no longer be able to effortlessly expand credit via U.S. Treasury bills, and the dollar's demand/liquidity value will fall.
It is unclear at the time of writing if this project will be successful, or could it prompt overt or covert U.S. interventions – thereby signaling the second phase of petrodollar warfare in the Middle East. Regardless of the potential U.S. response to an Iranian petroeuro system, the emergence of an oil exchange market in the Middle East is not entirely surprising given the domestic peaking and decline of oil exports in the U.S. and U.K, in comparison to the remaining oil reserves in Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. What we are witnessing is a battle for oil currency supremacy. If Iran's oil bourse becomes a successful alternative for international oil trades, it would challenge the hegemony currently enjoyed by the financial centers in both London (IPE) and New York (NYMEX), a factor not overlooked in the following (UK) Guardian article:
Iran is to launch an oil trading market for Middle East and Opec producers that could threaten the supremacy of London's International Petroleum Exchange.
…Some industry experts have warned the Iranians and other OPEC producers that western exchanges are controlled by big financial and oil corporations, which have a vested interest in market volatility. [emphasis added]
The IPE, bought in 2001 by a consortium that includes BP, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, was unwilling to discuss the Iranian move yesterday. "We would not have any comment to make on it at this stage," said an IPE spokeswoman. [14]
During an important speech in April 2002, Mr. Javad Yarjani, an OPEC executive, described three pivotal events that would facilitate an OPEC transition to euros.[15] He stated this would be based on (1) if and when Norway's Brent crude is re-dominated in euros, (2) if and when the U.K. adopts the euro, and (3) whether or not the euro gains parity valuation relative to the dollar, and the EU's proposed expansion plans were successful. Notably, both of the later two criteria have transpired: the euro's valuation has been above the dollar since late 2002, and the euro-based E.U. enlarged in May 2004 from 12 to 22 countries. Despite recent "no" votes by French and Dutch voters regarding a common E.U. Constitution, from a macroeconomic perspective, these domestic disagreements do no reduce the euro currency's trajectory in the global financial markets – and from Russia and OPEC's perspective – do not adversely impact momentum towards a petroeuro. In the meantime, the U.K. remains uncomfortably juxtaposed between the financial interests of the U.S. banking nexus (New York/Washington) and the E.U. financial centers (Paris/Frankfurt).
The most recent news reports indicate the oil bourse will start trading on March 20, 2006, coinciding with the Iranian New Year.[16] The implementation of the proposed Iranian oil Bourse – if successful in utilizing the euro as its oil transaction currency standard – essentially negates the previous two criteria as described by Mr. Yarjani regarding the solidification of a petroeuro system for international oil trades. It should also be noted that throughout 2003-2004 both Russia and China significantly increased their central bank holdings of the euro, which appears to be a coordinated move to facilitate the anticipated ascendance of the euro as a second World Reserve Currency. [17] [18] China's announcement in July 2005 that is was re-valuing the yuan/RNB was not nearly as important as its decision to divorce itself form a U.S. dollar peg by moving towards a "basket of currencies" – likely to include the yen, euro, and dollar.[19] Additionally, the Chinese re-valuation immediately lowered their monthly imported "oil bill" by 2%, given that oil trades are still priced in dollars, but it is unclear how much longer this monopoly arrangement will last.
Furthermore, the geopolitical stakes for the Bush administration were raised dramatically on October 28, 2004, when Iran and China signed a huge oil and gas trade agreement (valued between $70 - $100 billion dollars.) [20] It should also be noted that China currently receives 13% of its oil imports from Iran. In the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, the U.S.-administered Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) nullified previous oil lease contracts from 1997-2002 that France, Russia, China and other nations had established under the Saddam regime. The nullification of these contracts worth a reported $1.1 trillion created political tensions between the U.S and the European Union, Russia and China. The Chinese government may fear the same fate awaits their oil investments in Iran if the U.S. were able to attack and topple the Tehran government. Despite U.S. desires to enforce petrodollar hegemony, the geopolitical risks of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would surely create a serious crisis between Washington and Beijing.
It is increasingly clear that a confrontation and possible war with Iran may transpire during the second Bush term. Clearly, there are numerous tactical risks regarding neoconservative strategy towards Iran. First, unlike Iraq, Iran has a robust military capability. Secondly, a repeat of any "Shock and Awe" tactics is not advisable given that Iran has installed sophisticated anti-ship missiles on the Island of Abu Musa, and therefore controls the critical Strait of Hormuz – where all of the Persian Gulf bound oil tankers must pass.[22] The immediate question for Americans? Will the neoconservatives attempt to intervene covertly and/or overtly in Iran during 2005 or 2006 in a desperate effort to prevent the initiation of euro-denominated international crude oil sales? Commentators in India are quite correct in their assessment that a U.S. intervention in Iran is likely to prove disastrous for the United States, making matters much worse regarding international terrorism, not to the mention potential effects on the U.S. economy.
…If it [ U.S.] intervenes again, it is absolutely certain it will not be able to improve the situation…There is a better way, as the constructive engagement of Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has shown...Iran is obviously a more complex case than Libya, because power resides in the clergy, and Iran has not been entirely transparent about its nuclear programme, but the sensible way is to take it gently, and nudge it to moderation. Regime change will only worsen global Islamist terror, and in any case, Saudi Arabia is a fitter case for democratic intervention, if at all. [21]
A successful Iranian bourse will solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations. Multilateral compromise with the EU and OPEC regarding oil currency is certainly preferable to an 'Operation Iranian Freedom,' or perhaps another CIA-backed coup such as operation "Ajax" from 1953. Despite the impressive power of the U.S. military, and the ability of our intelligence agencies to facilitate 'interventions,' it would be perilous and possibly ruinous for the U.S. to intervene in Iran given the dire situation in Iraq. The Monterey Institute of International Studies warned of the possible consequences of a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities:
An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities…could have various adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's international stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. [23]
Synopsis:
It is not yet clear if a U.S. military expedition will occur in a desperate attempt to maintain petrodollar supremacy. Regardless of the recent National Intelligence Estimate that down-played Iran's potential nuclear weapons program, it appears increasingly likely the Bush administration may use the specter of nuclear weapon proliferation as a pretext for an intervention, similar to the fears invoked in the previous WMD campaign regarding Iraq. If recent stories are correct regarding Cheney's plan to possibly use a another 9/11 terrorist attack as the pretext or casus belli for a U.S. aerial attack against Iran, this would confirm the Bush administration is prepared to undertake a desperate military strategy to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions, while simultaneously attempting to prevent the Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a euro-based system for oil trades.
However, as members of the U.N. Security Council; China, Russia and E.U. nations such as France and Germany would likely veto any U.S.-sponsored U.N. Security Resolution calling the use of force without solid proof of Iranian culpability in a major terrorist attack. A unilateral U.S. military strike on Iran would isolate the U.S. government in the eyes of the world community, and it is conceivable that such an overt action could provoke other industrialized nations to strategically abandon the dollar en masse. Indeed, such an event would create pressure for OPEC or Russia to move towards a petroeuro system in an effort to cripple the U.S. economy and its global military presence. I refer to this in my book as the "rogue nation hypothesis."
While central bankers throughout the world community would be extremely reluctant to 'dump the dollar,' the reasons for any such drastic reaction are likely straightforward from their perspective – the global community is dependent on the oil and gas energy supplies found in the Persian Gulf. Hence, industrialized nations would likely move in tandem on the currency exchange markets in an effort to thwart the neoconservatives from pursuing their desperate strategy of dominating the world's largest hydrocarbon energy supply. Any such efforts that resulted in a dollar currency crisis would be undertaken – not to cripple the U.S. dollar and economy as punishment towards the American people per se – but rather to thwart further unilateral warfare and its potentially destructive effects on the critical oil production and shipping infrastructure in the Persian Gulf. Barring a U.S. attack, it appears imminent that Iran's euro-denominated oil bourse will open in March 2006. Logically, the most appropriate U.S. strategy is compromise with the E.U. and OPEC towards a dual-currency system for international oil trades.
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few…No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
(keeping in mind that this war on the shape shifter call "terrorist" will be the 100 year war -GWB) Also keep in mind that the patriot act defines terrorism as "ANY CRIME" and that includes us citizens!
Finally dont forget; complacency will kill you!
Footnotes:
[1]. Ron Suskind, The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O' Neill, Simon & Schuster publishers (2004)
[2]. Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, Free Press (2004)
[3]. William Clark, "Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth," January 2003 (updated January 2004)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
[4]. Peter Philips, Censored 2004, The Top 25 Censored News Stories, Seven Stories Press, (2003) General website for Project Censored: http://www.projectcensored.org/
Story #19: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/19.html
[5]. Carol Hoyos and Kevin Morrison, "Iraq returns to the international oil market," Financial Times, June 5, 2003
[6]. Faisal Islam, "Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro," [UK] Guardian, February 16, 2003
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,896344,00.html
[7]. "Oil bourse closer to reality," IranMania.com, December 28, 2004. Also see: "Iran oil bourse wins authorization," Tehran Times, July 26, 2005
[8]. "War-Gaming the Mullahs: The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike," Newsweek, September 27 issue, 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6039135/site/newsweek/
[9]. James Fallows, 'Will Iran be Next?,' Atlantic Monthly, December 2004, pgs. 97 – 110
[10]. Seymour Hersh, "The Coming Wars," The New Yorker, January 24th – 31st issue, 2005, pgs. 40-47
Posted online January 17, 2005. Online: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050124fa_fact
[11]. Philip Giraldi, "In Case of Emergency, Nuke Iran," American Conservative, August 1, 2005
[12]. Dafina Linzer, "Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements," Washington Post, August 2, 2005; Page A01
[13]. C. Shivkumar, "Iran offers oil to Asian union on easier terms," The Hindu Business Line (June 16, ` 2003). http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2003/06/17/stories/
2003061702380500.htm
[14]. Terry Macalister, "Iran takes on west's control of oil trading," The [UK] Guardian, June 16, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1239644,00.html
[15]. "The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill," Speech given by Javad Yarjani, Head of OPEC's Petroleum Market Analysis Dept, on The International Role of the Euro (Invited by the Spanish Minister of Economic Affairs during Spain's Presidency of the EU) (April 14, 2002, Oviedo, Spain)
http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm
[16]. "Iran's oil bourse expects to start by early 2006," Reuters, October 5, 2004 http://www.iranoilgas.com
[17]. "Russia shifts to euro as foreign currency reserves soar," AFP, June 9, 2003
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7214-3.cfm
[18]. "China to diversify foreign exchange reserves," China Business Weekly, May 8, 2004
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-05/08/content_328744.htm
[19]. Richard S. Appel, "The Repercussions from the Yuan's Revaluation," kitco.com, July 27, 2005
http://www.kitco.com/ind/appel/jul272005.html
[20]. China, Iran sign biggest oil & gas deal,' China Daily, October 31, 2004. Online: Online: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/31/content_387140.htm
[21]. "Terror & regime change: Any US invasion of Iran will have terrible consequences," News Insight: Public Affairs Magazine, June 11, 2004 http://www.indiareacts.com/archivedebates/nat2.asp?recno=908&ctg=World
[22]. Analysis of Abu Musa Island, www.globalsecurity.org
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/abu-musa.htm
[23]. Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster, "A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences," Monterry Institute of International Studies, August 12, 2004 (updated September 9, 2004) http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17450
. | |
|
| If your here to talk about Iraq, look here first.
Posted: 4/27/2008 5:39:54 AM | OP here is some more for you:
PEAK OIL
A long-predicted tsunami is heading toward the shores of America, a wave of incredible proportions,
gathering momentum with each passing day. America has had many, many warnings of how this giant
wave would develop, but these warnings have been totally ignored. Very soon our American society
will experience an extremely painful awakening to the dark specter of "Peak Oil" as it looms on our
horizon and then comes crashing down upon our nation. Peak Oil will result in drastic and dramatic
changes to our society and our lifestyles, the likes of which we will find extremely difficult to comprehend.
By now, most Americans know what a tsunami is. However, the vast majority of America has no clue
as to what Peak Oil is. In the simplest of explanations, Peak Oil is that point when the total world
production of oil and all known reserves are surpassed by the world demand. At that point the supply
will be steadily reduced and the ravages of Peak Oil will begin.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Venezuela the New Niger?
The Bush Administration is Trying to Link Hugo Chavez to Iran's Nuclear Program
By LARRY BIRNS and MICHAEL LETTIERI
Washington is no stranger to flimsy pretexts when it comes to justifying its ill-conceived, and at
times illicit, Latin American initiatives. The contra epoch, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban missile
crisis, Ollie North, former U.S. ambassador John Negroponte's skullduggery in Honduras, and countless
acts of chicanery aimed at Havana, Santiago, Grenada and Guatemala come to mind.
A spate of articles tying Hugo Chávez to Iran's covert nuclear program suggests that Washington may
now be finding it increasingly difficult to resist further calumniating Venezuela by working to forge a
new weapon for its anti-Caracas jihad.
The only problem is that the basis for such a charge would be a complete concoction, more worthy to
be put to work in Iraq, where anything goes, than in Latin America. Such a scenario would intimate that
ties exist between alleged Venezuelan uranium supplies and the Iranian nuclear program. In other words,
Caracas would be presented as a terrorist nation, illicitly involved in trafficking bootleg uranium to the
pariah Iranian regime in exchange for nuclear devices and maybe other considerations.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Karl Schwarz Questions Peak Oil
This email will come as a shock to those aficionados of Peak Oil. There is no shortage of oil, just a
shortage of truth coming from the people who are so greedy they cannot get out of the stuck-on-stupid mode.
Back in December I sent out an email update that reduced 9-11 down to three simple issues. Quoting from that email:
“For those interested in the underlying reasons we have invaded Iraq, the document available at
that link and the two books Neoconned and Neoconned Again will give you the information needed to
understand the bigger picture. My book One-Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas provides even more
background and proof that the true terrorists and the true enemies of Americans are the RNC and
DNC and their wealthy elite masters.
It is really quite simple:
· The U.S. goal of remaining the only military Superpower and even regional powers
eliminated; and
· The U.S. insistence that all oil sales will be in petro-dollars, not the Euro; and
· The U.S. intent to dominate the world oil and gas supplies because that will ensure that
oil sales will remain denominated in dollars, not Euro. Whomever controls the oil and gas can
control entire economies by denying energy supplies.
____________________________________________________________________________
Oil, War and the Euro
Submitted to Axis of Logic by author Allan Rubin
December 23, 2003
In attempting to make sense of the Bush administration's drive to war in Iraq, we have heard much
from the White House of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. When that rationale proved to be an
illusion, the administration turned to “liberating” Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime.
What has become clear is that the administration’s primary goal is liberation—liberating Iraq from its
oil reserves. This immediate goal satisfied three of the administration's longer term goals: establishing
permanent bases in the region (in order to facilitate US dominance of this oil-producing region, especially
after having pulled out of all our bases in Saudi Arabia); ensuring control over the world’s second largest
oil reserves—to ensure oil supplies for the US and dominance over potential rivals such as the European
Union (EU), Russia or China; and protecting the value of the dollar from threats that Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and other oil-producing countries will price their oil in euros
(the EU currency). And certainly, there are financial benefits to administration-connected oil-producing,
oil services and construction companies.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Dollar vs EURO -- Weapons of Mass Destruction
There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in the form of EURO currency. The petrodollar
depends upon Iraq's oil reserves to defend the United States dollar against the EURO and other currencies.
In 2001, well before Iraq's invasion, the dollar faced uncertainty as an overpriced, debt heavy currency
against a new and robust EURO. In early 2004, the dollar is losing ground.
The economics will change however. Now that The United States of America has taken both Iraq and
Afghanistan and owns those country's natural resources, the dollar plans a brighter future, or a stable
one at best. Iraq trades (again) in dollars. The White House said all along they were freeing Iraqis and
Afghanis from tyranny, and searching for weapons of mass destruction, and that the US-military was
not invading those countries for oil, but that wasn't true.
War protesters claimed George W Bush was invading Iraq for oil. That was only partly true, and their
cries for peace were uninformed. US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were for oil, but not for
consumption. Pre-Iraq invasion, Saddam Hussein was trading in EUROs. Afghanistan is key to piping
oil out of the Caspian Basin.
________________________________________________________________________________
Nationalized Oil is the Terror Threat
By acaryatid,
Wed Nov 2nd, 2005 at 07 02 AM EDT :: War on Terror
It's all a matter of terminology. If you substitute the term Nationalized Oil for terror,
it's easy to predict the path of US military action. Korea had nationalized oil before
we waged war; so did Vietnam and so many more countries who became "Democratic"
with the addition of US oil and gas operations.
_____________________________________________________________________
Trading Oil In Euros –Does It Matter?
By Cóilín Nunan
31 January, 2006
Energy Bulletin
So protecting your own currency is the main reason for keeping foreign exchange
reserves, but in which currency should you keep them? Well the answer to this question
depends nearly entirely on the answer to the question 'against which currency would a sudden
and unwanted devaluation of your own currency be most damaging?' If the answer to the
second question is 'by far the most damaging unwanted currency devaluation would be a
fall of my currency versus the dollar', then it makes sense to keep the vast majority of your
currency reserves in dollars: doing so will enable you to buy your own currency with dollars,
thus supporting its dollar exchange rate.
For all of the rich countries in the world, a sudden devaluation against the dollar has
the potential to be far more damaging than a sudden devaluation against the euro, the
yen, the yuan, the rubble, etc. This is because most of the goods and services traded
internationally are priced and paid for in dollars and, virtually all commodity trade,
including the trade of oil which is by far the most important good traded internationally,
is denominated in dollars. If your currency falls suddenly against the dollar, then the price
of oil will suddenly increase for you...
________________________________________________________________________________
Dollar Diplomacy Has Become Dollar Hegemony
Congressman Ron Paul, Texas Republican
Congressman Ron Paul's excellent address to the House is more than a much-needed economics
lesson; it's also a lesson in modern U.S. foreign policy. Simply put, he shows us how the U.S.
has used the dollar to try to rule the world economically and militarily. He shows us, by looking
purely at the destruction of our currency, how money has ruled U.S. decisions to threaten and
make war for the past 100 years -- and with great success, until now. But, because this turns
out to be an ultimately self-defeating game, in evidence of which the dollar is already failing, so
will the dreams of a global U.S. empire fail -- just as all similar dreams have failed throughout
history.
_________________________________________________________________________
Peak America – Is Our Time Up?
By Pat Murphy
26 January, 2006
Measuring U.S. Inequity
There are several ways to measure the quality and health of a society. We can
look at the distribution of income and wealth over time. We can ask how generous
we are at home and abroad and seek an honest answer. We can compare the level
of violence in our society to the world’s norm. And we can compare our spending
for the social good with our spending on military might. Finally, we can ask if
confidence in the honesty of our government, business and other institutional leaders
is increasing or decreasing?
Dr. Colin Campbell, the world’s leading figure on the topic of Peak Oil, describes
in his book “The Coming Oil Crisis” the five-million-year period of Early and Modern
Man leading up to the time of Christ. He designated the period from the birth of Christ
to 1850 as the period of Sustainable Man. He designates the period from 1850-1950 as
the time of Industrial Man and the period from 1950 – 2050 as the time of Hydrocarbon
man. Campbell says the end of Hydrocarbon man is the end of consumerism and the
beginning of a period of New Sustainable Man. We will reach that stage creatively |
| | |
Home
login 
