stevo

In addition, why invade iraq for oil? It seems kind of far away, as opposed to say, Venezuela. If we invaded venezuela for their oil it would be cheaper since its closer, it would yield at least as much. We'd still have the arguement that we're taking out a despot regime and liberating the people. But no, 9-11 was orchastrated by bush and his cronies for the oil (and ultimately a facist police state run by the trifecta of evil Bush-Rove-Cheney). If he's smart enough to pull that conspiracy off why wasn't he smart enough to blame venezuelan terrorists and invade south america? At least its in our hemisphere. Probably wouldn't have the problem with islamic extremists and a forien fuelled insurgency. Too bad I wasn't tapped when they were planning the 911 conspiracy.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

xepherys

We have this in the US... it's called the CIA. Field agents are often ex-military personnel highly skilled in specializations such as weapons, stealth, demo, etc. While their used to be more public use of them to assassinate foreign dignitaries, global "laws" stopped that. However, to assume that they do NOT still have such missions is ignorant. They have access to MUCH international intelligence. They also have personnel in place that DO monitor and "veto" or give the go-ahead to various tasks and operations. Agents in many positions are denied acknowledgement if caught. Also, they ARE well funded.

Charlatan

dksuddeth: there has actually been very little oil pumped out of Iraq at this point, it hasn't been stable enough to allow for exploitation... whether the US invaded for oil or not.

stevo: I don't support the theory that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government. I believe they used the fear of future attacks as a way to get what they wanted (i.e. invade Iraq). I don't think there is anyway to argue against that. It was just smart PR.

My belief is that this war was being planned well in advance of Bush winning the election. That it was on the agenda for Cheney and Rumsfeld from day one of their taking office.

This map of the Iraqi oil fields (http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf) was being passed around in closed meetings between Cheney and the heads of the US oil industry. At the same time, they were discussing the fact that sanctions against Iraq were about to be dropped. Corporations from around the world had tendered bids to exploit the various fields. This task force also had a list of these bids (http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilGasProj.pdf). There were no US companies on that list because the US would not allow it. The US oil industry was about to be shut out of the biggest untapped reserve of "easy oil" (i.e. easy to access) in the world.

One of the first things that the US did, after attacking Iraq, was declare all of those negotiated deals, null and void.

The US has had a long history of supporting the US oil industry. Iraq represents one of the greatest untapped reserves. To serve this up to Big Oil, makes strategic sense.

1) You get rid of a despot.
2) You might get a stable democracy in Iraq
3) You get oil reserves under the control of US corporations (i.e. oil and profit flow the the US)
4) Your friends in the oil industry are greatful for the additional income (this is remembered when you are out of office)

The think tank, New American Century, lays most of this out in detail (except for the profit to your friends, that just follows) in the missives found on their website.

I don't know why people are resistant to this, it makes perfect strageic sense when looked at it from the NAC point of view.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

The_Jazz

I wouldn't catogorize the arguement as old and dead, but I'm certainly not saying that this is the only motivating factor for us being there. Given that Bush started planning the invasion as early as 12/01, I think that there is more to it than a simple grab for oil. There was certainly an "unfinished business" mentality in the White House from the early days of the administration. There were other pertantent reasons, but I have no intentions of discussing them in this thread.

Wars are rarely if ever a single issue action, and this one is no different. Certainly the Nazis invaded the USSR for reasons other than the Caucasian oil fields, and I doubt that you'll find a historian alive who would be willing to public state that was the sole reason.

If 19% is an insignificant amount, please send me 19% of every paycheck that you get, Stevo. I promise to put it to good use. There's also the possibility that the intention to increase that percentage was circumvented by the unanticipated insurrection.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

rainheart

The oil is just one of the many profiteering moves that make businesses want the war to continue. The others include reconstruction (which attracts a large array of different businesses) and arms manufacturers.

The reason gas prices are high is because they are run by unregulated businesses. Imagine if the demand for oil dropped (and we all started driving hybrids)- would the price drop? No, it would raise, they would have to make the customer somehow pay for the lost profits.

If the supply of oil was at an all-time high, would the prices drop? Even if they did, I don't believe they would drop as much as they really should. Incentive for higher profits would be the same reason.

The aim of business in the industrialized economies of the world at the moment isn't to provide the customer with a decent product at a reasonable price- it is to perpetually increase profits by any means necessary. The implications are literally killing thousands. But they are actively attempting to raise the complicity of the populations in their respective nations, and doing quite well too.

In line with Charlatan's last post- I do want to point out that I don't believe there is one sole think tank responsible for shaping policies in government and businesses. There are a lot of institutions who take up the task of outlining the actions to conduct and measures to take for the United States. For example, the Daily Show makes a habit of interviewing such people to give a glimpse of how they think, and last night they were interviewing Michael Mandelbaum and were discussing his book "The Case for Goliath".

I searched for a video of the interview but I couldn't find it. Had I been able to, I could easily give you a direct translation of the policies that Michael Mandelbaum was supporting. If I do find it, I will post a link, make a transcript, and tell you what the message behind every sentence he utters is.

Elphaba

Regarding the question of what we are going to do about terrorism, I found the following Al Jazeera news video very enlightening on how difficult the solution to this problem is. I believe the woman gave very insightful information that I think most of us would agree with, but take special note of the response given her. "You are a heretic, and not worthy of rebuke."

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.a...050wmv&ak=null

Charlatan

I wouldn't say there is only one either, NAC is the just the most obvious (given the content of their arguments combined with the membership and it's affiliations with and within the current US administration).

Reconstruction is a good point as well. But so is war itself. Actually using the weapons means they have to replace them. There is big business in suppling the weapons and tools for war.

Seen in combination, these three things (war, reconstruction and ultimately oil) are good for the US economy. The seed of democracy and more or less, permanent precense in the Middle East, are good for foreign relations (at least as they are seen from a particular point of view).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

rainheart

If you mean the seed of democracy in the Mid East and such, well, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. To be honest I think that whole book, "The Case for Goliath" works out more as an attempt to rationalize away all the terrible negative effects of a war economy. We believe for example that democracy is a good thing, but in the context of how the system works in the United States, not many people would agree.

The problem I think is also that we assume there is a real democracy in the works across North America right now. But as far as I can tell, it's a very limited democracy and we fail to recognize it for it's problems. Realistically it seems effectively more like a hegemony than a democracy. In the U.S. and Canada alike, there is an indirect democracy where representatives are elected by the masses based on how the masses perceive those representatives. The problem is that once they are elected it is hard to get them out of office once their term expires, and they are not effectively bound to act as the electors wish for them to act. Instead, they are swayed by the people who help shape how the public perceives them, and who pay their expenses to allow them to step into office- and those are the people who run profitable businesses.

The businesses of course expect the legislators they have helped bring into office to help them make their businesses more profitable. On it's own this sounds harmless, but it can be deadly. Furthermore this type of democracy undermines the real point behind democracy, the very original definition which means "the common people rule". In reality it becomes "the elite rule". It can become, and I believe in many ways has become, the same crappy governments the common people have had to deal with for centuries.

Now, would you wish this upon every person in the world? Where do we get our balls telling the middle east to adopt our policies? It's effectively the same thing, but it fools their public into believing that it's better than it really is. Many of them understand this however, so many of them are not so quick to welcome "democracy" with open arms.

I'm not saying their hostage taking and terrorism and insurgencies are righteous, far from it. Terrorism is a threat to every person on earth and we need to unify in solidarity to stop it. But as they say, if you want to make the world a better place for all to live in, you have to start with the person in the mirror.

Charlatan

Like I said, as "seen from a particular point of view".

How it ultimately plays out is yet to be seen.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke