Interesting Read on Politics and Mid East

[JustRalph]

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200407090835.asp
July 09, 2004, 8:35 a.m.
Civilization vs. Trivia
Sometimes life’s choices are simple.

Last week, the carnivore Saddam Hussein faced the world in the docket. There was none of the usual Middle East barbarity. The mass murderer was not hooded and then beheaded on tape, in the manner of al Qaeda. Civilization has come to Iraq.

Nor was the destroyer of Iraqi dissidents hitched — Saudi-style — to a Humvee and dragged to pieces through the streets of Baghdad. The pillager of Kuwait did not lose a limb on the precepts of a sharia-inspired fatwa. A young Saddam-like Baathist assassin did not break in and shoot the desecrator of the Mesopotamian marshlands in the back of the head. And a West Bank-like mob did not lynch the torturer of dissidents in the public square. Even al Jazeera, an enthusiast of the usual barbarity, was wondering what the heck was going on in its own neck of the medieval woods.

Surely, the slow emergence of real civilization in Iraq is one of the seminal events in the history of an Arab and Muslim Middle East that has had no prior record of either consensual government or an independent judiciary. Unlike Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, a global criminal is facing his victims in a legitimate court administered by the beginnings of a free republican government. The more Washington, D.C., insiders insist that the transfer of power was a meaningless construct, the more we are beginning to see the future shape of an autonomous, free, and civilized Iraq. Don't listen to cynical American reporters and played-out professors who laugh at the idea of civilization. Watch instead how dictators and monarchs in the region recoil at it all. After all, such autocrats have lots to worry about: 70 percent of the world is democratic; excluding Israel, 0 percent of the Middle East is.

In response to the historic events of the week, one columnist for the New York Times decried George Bush's pronunciation of "Eye-rack." Another pundit trumped that profundity by whining that Bush had written "Let Freedom Reign," rather than "Ring" — a verb that, had Mr. Bush employed it, she would most likely have denounced as a hackneyed cliché.

At a time when tens of thousands are risking their lives to end the barbarism that has spawned a quarter century of worldwide terror, the New York Times wishes us to know that its columnists can properly pronounce Iraq and really do remember that freedom "rings" more often than "reigns."

Meanwhile, an even smugger Billy Crystal was introducing the billionaire John Kerry at a millionaires' banquet in L.A. with similar gravitas — comparing 9/11 to the president's SAT scores. Oh yes, 3,000 incinerated on September 11 add up to the president's combined SAT score. Analyze that: comparing charred corpses to multiple-choice tests taken by high-school seniors.

The message of this out-of-touch, spoiled idiotocracy seems to be something like, "How embarrassing for us to have an inarticulate president who has freed Iraq and inaugurated democracy in Saddam's place." Are all these people crazy and ignorant of history — or do they simply want a free civilized Iraq and the American soldiers who brought it about to fail?

Do the trivialists want Saddam and the Taliban back in power? Does a Mr. Allawi repulse them? Do they wish 10,000 American troops back in Saudi Arabia? Perhaps they want Libya to resume its work on nukes? Do they care whether Dr. Khan returns to his lab? Or do they think it is child's play to hike back through the Dark Ages into the Pakistani borderlands looking for bin Laden? And is it all that easy to have prevented another 9/11 attack for almost three years now of constant vigilance? Perhaps they would like to deal with the corrupt, duplicitous, and tottering Saudi Royal family, which just happens to sit on 25 percent of the world's oil reserves — without whose daily production the economies of Japan, Korea, and China would almost immediately grind to a halt.

Only belatedly has John Kerry grasped that his shrill supporters are often not just trivial but stark-raving mad. If he doesn't quickly jump into some Levis, shoot off a shotgun, and start hanging out in Ohio, he will lose this election and do so badly.

The war that Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards once caricatured as a fiasco and amoral is now, for all its tragedies, emerging in some sort of historical perspective as a long-overdue liberation. At some point, one must choose: Saddam in chains or Saddam in power. And the former does not happen with rhetoric, but only through risk, occasional heartbreak, and the courage of the U.S. military. If Iyad Allawi and his brave government succeed — and they just may — the United States will have done more for world freedom and civilization than the fall of the Berlin Wall — and against far greater odds. Deanism is dead. Moorism is a fatal contagion that will ruin anyone it infects.

Kerry is only now starting to grasp that a year from now Iraq more likely will not be Vietnam, but maybe the most radical development of our time — and that all the Left's harping is becoming more and more irrelevant. Witness his talk of security and his newfound embrace of the post-9/11 effort as a war rather than a DA's indictment. It is not a good idea to plan on winning in November by expecting us to lose now in Iraq.

So John Kerry is starting to get it that the conventional ignorance of Michael Moore, the New York Times, and George Soros is already anachronistic. You can see that well enough when a grandee like Tom Brokaw, Christiane Amanpour, or a Nightline flunky starts in with the usual cheap, cynical hits against Iraq reformers — only to be stunned mid-sentence, like deer in the headlights, with the sense that they are berating noble and sincere men and women — far better folk than themselves — who at risk to their lives are crafting something entirely new in the Middle East.

There is a great divide unfolding between the engine of history and the dumbfounded spectators who are apparently furious at what is going on before their eyes. Mr. Bush's flight suit, Abu Ghraib, claims of "no al Qaeda-Saddam ties," Joe Wilson, and still more come and go while millions a world away inch toward consensual government and civilization.

For over a year now, we have witnessed a level of invective not seen since the summer of 1964 — much of it the result of a dying 60's generation's last gasps of lost self-importance. Instead of the "innocent" Rosenbergs and "framed" Alger Hiss we now get the whisk-the-bin-Laden-family-out-of-the-country conspiracy. Michael Moore is a poor substitute for the upfront buffoonery of Abbie Hoffman.

The oil pipeline in Afghanistan that we allegedly went to war over doesn't exist. Brave Americans died to rout al Qaeda, end the fascist Taliban, and free Afghanistan for a good and legitimate man like a Hamid Karzai to oversee elections. It was politically unwise and idealistic — not smart and cynical — for Mr. Bush to gamble his presidency on getting rid of fascists in Iraq. There really was a tie between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein — just as Mr. Gore and Mr. Clinton once believed and Mr. Putin and Mr. Allawi now remind us. The United States really did plan to put Iraqi oil under Iraqi democratic supervision for the first time in the country's history. And it did.

This war — like all wars — is a terrible thing; but far, far worse are the mass murder of 3,000 innocents and the explosion of a city block in Manhattan, a ghoulish Islamic fascism and unfettered global terrorism, and 30 years of unchecked Baathist mass murder. So for myself, I prefer to be on the side of people like the Kurds, Elie Wiesel, Hamid Karzai, and Iyad Allawi rather than the idiotocrats like Jacques Chirac, Ralph (the Israelis are "puppeteers") Nader, Michael Moore, and Billy Crystal.

Sometimes life's choices really are that simple.

[Tom]

good article, Ralph, Refreshing to see some truth posted here.
Life's choices usually are are simple, but unfortunatly, we have to many simpletons here to realize it.
Some have the gall to call MM a patriot! When I see what are brave soldiers are doing over there, what they are accomplishing,
to hear MM called a patriot is a sign of mental illness. Or treason.
The only rish MM has ever encountered is choking on a chicken bone while blitzing the buffet line.

[PaceAdvantage]

Ralph, thank you for that.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Ralph, thank you for that.

I thought it was a good one. I notice that this article hasn't produced too many posts.....? Interesting by the absence of comments................?

[schweitz]

Ralph---excellent article---I'm sure that one of the liberals will finally post some spin on this article, because the now Far Left Democratic Party has reached the sad state of offering nothing but negatism and doom and gloom. Lifelong middle of the road Democrats are really facing a challenge in the election.

[Suff]

Thats not an article... its an op-ed. And it has so many lies in it and misrepresentations...

First off... All Americans... No matter what Party... now know... we went to war on False and overstated intelligence...

and its disigenious when republicans try and sell this war as "freeing" people. Republicans.....in truth.. Could'nt give a RATS ASS about an Iraqi persons civil liberties or Civil Rights.

While this War has been going on... 300 Thousand people have been Killed in Africa... Three Genocides...and Millions driven from thier homes...and 10's of thousands of women (many of them adolescents) RAPED...

But you care about civlizing Iraq right? And you care about Iraqis quality of life right? And you wanted Kids to Die to free Iraq right? And you wanted to divert resources away from fighting Al Queda to free Iraq right? You "really" don't care about Iraq. You care about Yourselves, and George Bush. Nothing else.

Where is your manifesto on Africa? huh?

You phonies

[schweitz]

Like I said---one would post and spin--and we get a bonus---he tells us what we think and care about.:rolleyes:

[Suff]

Originally posted by schweitz
we we

you have a mouse in your pocket

[Suff]

Originally posted by JustRalph
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200407090835.asp
July 09, 2004, 8:35 a.m.
Civilization vs. Trivia
Sometimes life’s choices are simple.

Last week, the carnivore Saddam Hussein faced the world in the docket. There was none of the usual Middle East barbarity. The mass murderer was not hooded and then beheaded on tape, in the manner of al Qaeda. Civilization has come to Iraq.

.

Iraq and AL QUEDA?

[Suff]

Originally posted by JustRalph
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200407090835.asp
July 09,

Meanwhile, an even smugger Billy Crystal was introducing the billionaire John Kerry at a millionaires' banquet in L.A. with similar gravitas — .

Kerry a Billionaire? Kerry doesn't have a net worth of over 5 million...

[Suff]

Originally posted by JustRalph
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200407090835.asp
July 09, 2004, 8:35 a.m.

Do the trivialists want Saddam and the Taliban back in power?

comical rhetoric

[Suff]

Originally posted by JustRalph
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200407090835.asp
July 09, 2004, 8:35 a.m.
This war — like all wars — is a terrible thing; but far, far worse are the mass murder of 3,000 innocents and the explosion of a city block in Manhattan, a ghoulish Islamic fascism and unfettered global terrorism, and 30 years of unchecked Baathist mass murder.e.

another attempt to convince people Iraq had anything to do with 9-11-01..

Iraq had nothing to do with it. Paksitan and Saudi Arabia did.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Suff
you have a mouse in your pocket

phonies is plural--thus we

[Suff]

I attempt to live in the truth. We meaning US... all of us... all americans... have to accept that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11-01... and POSED NO THREAT to our National Security...

If we want to console ourselves with "No harm no Foul" Because
the world is better off....and so are 25 million Iraqi's...Then so be it.

I don't absolve John Kerry... I don't absolve myself either..As I supported the War . After all. I went to Iraq in March of 2004. But I'm not going to just rah-rah my way through the mistakes.

I believed that Saddam Hussien had WMD's... and was actively planning on using them on us.

I'm as Guilty as any other citizen that didn't challenge my Goverment... Because in Hindsight... wasn't Powells presentation to the UN kinda weak... But I was and still am very angry about 9-11-01 ...and maybe like my Govt. I just wanted to hurt anyone that posed a threat to us with WMD's. Now I know that Pakistan, Saudia Arabia and N. Korea are WMD threats and CHINA is a major economic threat....and we've diminished ourselves by misfiring with Iraq.

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Suff
.and we've diminished ourselves by misfiring with Iraq. [/B]

I don't think we have---I think that the world now knows that if we have to, we will do what is necesary to protect ourselves---at least this President will.

[JustRalph]

Suff, I agree Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. And Bush never said they did.............end of story.

Now the point that we are diminished, is in my opine, way off base. The leaders of those countries you mention as responsible are now well aware that we can roll over them just as easy. They also are aware that we are only a day away now. Instead of a 6 week "ramp up" This does not diminish us in their eyes.

[Tom]

Invading Iraq....PRO CHOICE!
:rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Suff
We meaning US... all of us... all americans... have to accept that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11-01... and POSED NO THREAT to our National Security...

BULLSHIT!

[Secretariat]

Let's see JR says Bush never said that there were 911 links to Iraq. But Cheney certainly has made those allusions with the supposed debunked Czech meeting over and over. The 911 Commission has interviewed him twice and obviously Cheney has nothing - excpet his typical profanity. THe CIA and even Bush say "I never said imminent threat." That is interesting because if you go back and read the Senate Floor speeches on the 2002 Iraqi War Resolution, the word imminent is thrown around in all the speeches. Where did the Senators get this impression, on BOTH sides? Read those speeches. Some are incredible. I wish that debate had been covered more by the press, because no matter what side you are on this debate, the speeches are incredible re-reading them and document the thought process of Congress at that time.

Here's what Kerry said if you are less than satisfied with 30 second political ad soundbites:

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

[Suff]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
BULLSHIT!

How so?

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/viewpoints/viewpoint.asp?ObjID=LNUnjrpUTq&Content=193

[PaceAdvantage]

You're going to sit here with a straight face and tell me Iraq posed no threat to our national security? Come on. Even you can't be that naive.

[Tom]

Revisionist history makes for fun reading.

[Secretariat]

Thanks Suff. I've read a lot of PNAC info, but not that one. I've been saying this was a pre-ordained war for oil since PNAC's own papers in the late 90's.

Let's look at the results.

1. No Iraqi connection to 911 - 911 Commission concludes

2. No stockpile of WMD's found which was a supposed slam dunk. - Tony Blair recently admitted we may have been wrong.

3. The war is not about Regime Change - George Bush before the Iraqi Resolution in 2002

What's left? And terrorism has increased worldwide (Ask Colin Powell) and certainly in the region where we are fighting.

Good post Suff. This administration will never admit a mistake was made. This was one of the worst foreign policy decisions since the Bay of Pigs.

[PaceAdvantage]

This is a war about oil??!! So, I assume you have pictures of the oil tankers lined up in the Gulf whisking away stolen Iraqi oil home to America, right?

Wrong. Until that day arrives (which it won't), the whole "war about oil" claim (which was argued as well during the FIRST Gulf War, and NEVER materialized) is hogwash.

Where's all this oil we won? Is Bush storing it in his backyard, and only sharing it with former employees of Halliburton?

[schweitz]

You know the left is worried when they recycle old talking points----Kerry was a war hero-----the war is all about oil. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

So the nukes taht Libya gave up are...chopped liver?
They are WMD and they are out of the hand of terrorists as a direct result of our taking out SH.
Spin that.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
This is a war about oil??!! So, I assume you have pictures of the oil tankers lined up in the Gulf whisking away stolen Iraqi oil home to America, right?

Wrong. Until that day arrives (which it won't), the whole "war about oil" claim (which was argued as well during the FIRST Gulf War, and NEVER materialized) is hogwash.

Where's all this oil we won? Is Bush storing it in his backyard, and only sharing it with former employees of Halliburton?

You are kidding right. Heres' a site which details where that oil is going.

http://www.fairandbalanced.org/docs/StoryID515.htm

And here's one on that patriotic American company responsible for rebuilding and guarding those oil fields:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5333896/

Looks like none of them are doing too badly. Of course it was about oil. Oil is power.

I saw Carmen Bin Laden on CBS News tonight talking about her new book Inside the Kingdom. She talked about the rest of the Bin Laden family. The ones we helped flee America shortly after 911. Apparently, they are aware of the power of oil, and she also added that some of them still have close ties to old Osama. Interesting that the wife of one of the Bin Laden family gets it and now fears for her life. Not from Osama, but from the some of the Bin Laden family we helped flee America shortly after 911.

[JustRalph]

I don't know..........what are the odds of the largest oil companies in the world having oil contracts with oil producing countries?

Who did you expect? Walmart and Sears? Come on.......?

[Secretariat]

JR,

Did you read the same link I posted?

"But legally there is not much that the Iraqis or Russians can do to contest this in the United States because of an executive order signed by president George Bush in late May. Executive order number 13303 states "any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void", with respect to "all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein."


With this, Bush granted Iraqi oil a lifetime exemption provided US companies are involved in the oil's production, transport, or distribution. This order applies to Iraqi oil products that are "in the United States, hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons." (Under US law, corporations are "persons.")


"In other words, if ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, anything they or anyone else does with it is immune from legal proceedings in the US," explained Jim Vallette, an analyst with the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC.


"Anything that has happened before with oil companies around the world -- a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; or lawsuits by Iraq's current creditors or the next true Iraqi government demanding compensation -- anything at all, is immune from judicial accountability," he says.


"Effectively Bush has unilaterally declared Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of US oil corporations," Vallette added."

Now all this was done BEFORE an Iraqi Governing Council even was in effect, let alone elections. Don't tell me it wasn't about oil, that's where the money is and Bush and <Cheney Expletive> know it.

I encourage you to read the whole link about the oil and about Halliburton.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
"Effectively Bush has unilaterally declared Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of US oil corporations," Vallette added."

To the victor, goes the spoils I guess.....

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
To the victor, goes the spoils I guess.....

Not sure what victory Halliburton acheived unless having the VP in their back pocket counts.

[hcap]

Posted some of this on the "War"

More on Black gold

Does anyone remember this? Back in May 2000, way before the Iraq war, we were having a little trouble with Iraq and thier refusal to sell us any oil. The "Seven Sisters" and their lobyists had their head handed to them by Saddam.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/n...?ArticleID=4174

Iraq crude boycott targets U.S. oil import reliance
New York |Reuters | 05-12-2000

" Iraq's decision to impose a crude oil export boycott on the U.S. comes at a time when America's refiners have become more dependent on Baghdad's oil than ever before.

U.S. thirst for Iraqi crude has doubled in the past two years to some 750,000 barrels daily (bpd) - nine per cent of total U.S. oil imports - with No 1 U.S. oil firm Exxon Mobil, the No 2 Chevron and independent refiner Premcor leading the way.

Other purchasers Iraqi oil for their U.S. refineries include major BP and other leading independent refiners Koch Petroleum, Valero and Tosco. While U.S. oil companies do not have official contracts to buy Iraqi oil under the Opec producer's oil-for-food programme with the UN, they can import quite legally through oil trading middlemen.

The imports were threatened at the weekend when Iraq said it would boycott companies and countries that sold its crude oil to countries it regards as hostile. "Any company found supplying Iraqi crude to a country in a state of war with Iraq will be put on the blacklist and there will be a partial or full ban in dealing with it," said Iraqi Trade Minister Mohammed Mehdi Saleh."



In addition to this threat to US oil interests Saddam was in the process of switching oil trading to euros instead of dollars. This scared the sh*t out of the SEVEN SISTERS. For close to a century western policy has been driven by acquiring and controlling oil from this entire region. To think otherwise is naieve. The Mid East was carved up by western powers, primarily the british
in early part of the century. Do you think it was divied up to bring "democracy to the region?. Good luck.
Do you also think that the people of the
Mid East have forgotton their colonialistic rebirth as the gas station for the west???


The Euro...

See
SADDAM'S UNFORGIVABLE SIN
http://www.cfoss.com/sin.html

Also....

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/sovereign/dollar/2003/03oil.htm
OIL DOLLARS

"The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil. Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971 (after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US dollar the de facto major international trading currency. If other nations have to hoard dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that hoard for other trading too. This fact gives America a huge trading advantage and helps make it the dominant economy in the world.

As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to the USA's economic position, and it created the euro to challenge the dollar in international markets. However, the EU is not yet united behind the euro -- there is a lot of jingoistic national politics involved, not least in Britain -- and in any case, so long as nations throughout the world must hoard dollars to buy oil, the euro can make only very limited inroads into the dollar's dominance.

In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq had just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two years on, alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the dollar, Iraq had given itself a huge economic free kick by switching.

Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th largest oil producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out the dollar by bartering oil with several nations including America's bete noir, Cuba. Russia is seeking to ramp up oil production with Europe (trading in euros) an obvious market.

The greenback's grip on oil trading and consequently on world trade in general, was under serious threat. If America did not stamp on this immediately, this economic brushfire could rapidly be fanned into a wildfire capable of consuming the US's economy and its dominance of world trade. "

Some more background

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5305462/site/newsweek/

"Given this picture of underdevelopment, it is realistic to assume that Iraq has far more oil reserves than documented so far probably about 200 billion barrels more. These numbers make Iraq together with a few others the fulcrum of any future equilibrium in the global oil market."

[hcap]

From

http://corpwatch.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=5529
The New Oil Order
Washington's War on Iraq is the Lynchpin to Controling Persian Gulf Oil
by Michael Renner, Foreign Policy in Focus
February 14th, 2003

"The pariah state of Iraq, however, is a key prize, with abundant, high-quality oil that can be produced at very low cost (and thus at great profit). At 112 billion barrels, its proven reserves are currently second only to Saudi Arabias. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that additional probable and possible resources could amount to 220 billion barrels. And because political instability, war, and sanctions have prevented thorough exploration of substantial portions of Iraqi territory, there is a chance that another 100 billion barrels lie undiscovered in Iraqs western desert. All in all, Iraqs oil wealth may well rival that of Saudi Arabia.8

At present, of course, this is mere potentialthe Iraqi oil industry has seriously deteriorated as a result of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, the 1991 Gulf War, and inadequate postwar investment and maintenance. Since 1990, the sanctions regime has effectively frozen plans for putting additional fields into production. It has also caused a severe shortage of oil field equipment and spare parts (under the sanctions regime, the U.S. has prevented equipment imports worth some $4 billion). Meanwhile, questionable methods used to raise output from existing fields may have damaged some of the reservoirs and could actually trigger a decline in output in the short run.9

But once the facilities are rehabilitated (a lucrative job for the oil service industry, including Vice President Cheneys former employer, Halliburton) and new fields are brought into operation, the spigots could be opened wide. To pay for the massive task of rebuilding, a post-sanctions Iraq would naturally seek to maximize its oil production. Some analysts, such as Fadhil Chalabi, a former Iraqi oil official, assert that Iraq could produce 8-10 million b/d within a decade and eventually perhaps as much as 12 million.10

The impact on world markets is hard to overstate. Saudi Arabia would no longer be the sole dominant producer, able to influence oil markets single-handedly. Given that U.S.-Saudi relations cooled substantially in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacksrifts that may widen furthera Saudi competitor would not be unwelcome in Washington. An unnamed U.S. diplomat confided to Scotlands Sunday Herald that a rehabilitated Iraq is the only sound long-term strategic alternative to Saudi Arabia. Its not just a case of swapping horses in mid-stream, the impending U.S. regime change in Baghdad is a strategic necessity.11

Washington would gain enormous leverage over the world oil market. Opening the Iraqi spigot would flood world markets and drive prices down substantially. OPEC, already struggling with overcapacity and a tendency among its members to produce above allotted quotas (an estimated 3 million barrels per day above the agreed total of 24.7 million b/d), might unravel as individual exporters engage in destructive price wars against each other.12

A massive flow of Iraqi oil would also limit any influence that other suppliers, such as Russia, Mexico, and Venezuela, have over the oil market. Lower prices could render Russian oilmore expensive to produceuncompetitive, which would cloud the prospects for attracting foreign investment to tap Siberian oil deposits.13 Russias weak economy is highly dependent on oil export revenues. Its federal budget is predicated on prices of $24-25 per barrel.14 Aleksei Arbatov, deputy chairman of the Russian parliaments defense committee, predicts that if a new Iraqi regime sells oil without limits, our budget will collapse.15"

[hcap]

http://www.juancole.com/
Read the entire comment

"Arguing with Bush yet Again"

"The UK ambassador to the US maintains that it was Tony Blair who talked Bush into going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan first, with a promise that he would later support an Iraq war. MI6 would have been briefing Tony about the dire threat coming from Afghanistan, and he, unlike the Bush team, could see the dangers of getting bogged down in an Iraq quagmire while al-Qaeda and the Taliban were still in control of Afghanistan. (Can you imagine the full scope of that disaster that Bush had planned for us?)"

[hcap]

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm


"In Muammer Gadaffi's case, this proposition is questionable. In fact, Libyan representatives offered to surrender WMD programmes more than four years ago, at the outset of secret negotiations with US officials. In May 1999, their offer was officially conveyed to the US government at the peak of the "12 years of diplomacy with Iraq" that Mr. Bush now disparages. Back then, Libya was facing a deepening economic crisis produced by disastrous economic policies and mismanagement of its oil revenues. United Nations and US sanctions that prevented Libya importing oilfield technology made it impossible for Mr. Gadaffi to expand oil production. The only way out was to seek rapprochement with Washington."

[Suff]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
This is a war about oil??!! So, I assume you have pictures of the oil tankers lined up in the Gulf whisking away stolen Iraqi oil home to America, right?

Wrong. Until that day arrives (which it won't), the whole "war about oil" claim (which was argued as well during the FIRST Gulf War, and NEVER materialized) is hogwash.

Where's all this oil we won? Is Bush storing it in his backyard, and only sharing it with former employees of Halliburton?

1.The war was probably about WMD's and we were wrong..

2. His Invasion of Kuwait in 1991 and we're right

3. His Financing of Suicide Bombers in isreal and we're right again

4. His Constant Violations of UN Resolutions and we were right

5. His abuse of the OIL for food Program and we're right agaiin there

6. His Brutality and wer'e right again there


7. His Previous use of Chemical weapons

8. His attempt to coordinate an assisnation of Bush I


and maybe a few things we don't know about...


But with that said.... I'm interested in Killing the 9-11-01 supporters and conspirer's. Invading Iraq with 140K troops and then having the War Plan go Crooked...while simaltanousley pissing off our best friends in the world was NOT what I think we should have done

[Secretariat]

Hcap,

Thanks I have bookmarked those sites. Suff, disagree. The war was about oil. The stated reason by the Bush admin and debated in Congress was about WMD's and enforcing inspections. Yet the CIA said there was NEVER any imminent threat from Iraq, and Hussein WAS allowing inspections by Blix. Blix did a pretty good job it appears because no real stockpiles of WMD's have ever been found.

Hcap, your articles, those from PNAC, and my previous links tell the tale about the oil saga of Iraq. As well as the priority of training American soldiers to deal with the oil fields. Not the infrastucture, not the water supply, not electricity in the cities, but the O-I-L fields. And BP immediately gets in and gets the oil flowing bfore the country is even stabilized. Bush's Executive Order makes evident the priority, done witohut any consultation with the Iraqi government or people. I think the administration priorities were shown by their actions, not the rhetoric.

Suff I do agree about the 911 conspriacy stuff. It's not worth the effort. The Bush admin wasn't conspriatorial with Al Queda, they were just asleep on 911.

Good post Hcap.

[Tom]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
To the victor, goes the spoils I guess.....


When do the prices go down????
And while we're at it, I would say the oil field in Kuwat are OURS as well.
To the victor goes the oil!

[hcap]

Sec,

Bush and the neocons have "failed miserably. " Iraqi oil at the moment, and in the near future, is far from the number of barrels Iraq should be producing to satisfy the oil interests. The insurgency is growing, not decreasing. The region is now more and more anti american than ever. I think if the invasion and occupation had been sucessful from the oil perspective, bush would be a shoe in for election. Now in addition to alieinating most of the country and the world, he has lost support fron the Seven Sisters. The worst possible political fate.

The operative word is "control". Soon Opec will be trading oil for Euros. And as peak oil approaches, the slovenly scramble for the remaining easy to pump barrels will be shared by more non american and non british interests.
Not what the sleazecons wanted.
So although the geopolitical gamble was for black gold, and regional dominence, it has failed.
Saudia Arabia and maybe Iran are next on their agenda. Problem is political support is nonexistant for those adventures. How come we never invade countries with no oil??
Oh yeah the peace process is down the tubes. Sharon is as bad as bush. And so is blair

Bye bye bush.

[Tom]

"How come we never invade countries with no oil??
Oh yeah the peace process is down the tubes. Sharon is as bad as bush. And so is blair"


What a piece of work you are. We invaded France to liberate them and the rest of the ignorant eurpopeans. We invaded Kuwait to liberate them and didn't touch their oil. We pushed the japs out of thier strongholds of domination in the far east and no oil was involved. We send peacekeeping troops all over the place and get nothing in return. We send humanitarian aid to everyone, even out enemies, and are always the first ones there to help in times of natural diators. Shaorn is reacting to madmen-crazy, murderers blowing up innocent citizens on his streets. Bliar has now been exonerated by THREE independent investigations.
You have a learning disability. And you are disgrace to this country by ignoring all the good, no, GREAT things we have done for the word.