Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: kappa on November 26, 2003, 02:19:31 PM
-
Peak oil (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100203_cnn_peak_oil.html)
More peak oil (http://www.countercurrents.org/peakoil.htm)
Pipelines (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html#p4)
Here (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/061203_simmons.html)
O ya (http://www.mbendi.co.za/indy/oilg/p0070.htm)
K
AoM
-
LOL, Well we need oil don't we? No matter what the reason or reasons are, the decisions our government make are in OUR best interest overall. There is always a bigger story that we, the general public don't know about. However OIL is not the only reason we are doing the things we do. Raptor
-
Just dropping the sanctions on Iraq would be much cheaper way to get Iraqi oil. And Saddam would more than gladly sell to the USA. Even if he did not wnant to sell directly to us there is no way he could stop the USA from getting it and even if that didnt work the reintroduction of Iraq as an open market parcticipant would drive down crude oil prices thus benefiting the Oil companies by loweing the costs of their inputs and so creating greater revenues and profits.
So really this war for oil argument is plain stupidity as it does not make economic sense not to mention the enormous political risk taken with this Iraq war.
However lets say Bush - the evil oil guy he is - did drop the sanctions on Iraq and started buying oil from Saddam, is there any doubt that you same guys who hate Bush wouldn't just come back here whining that Bush was ignoring the human rights issues in Iraq just so he can get at the oil?
My point is that you Bush haters simply have this oil fetish and that no matter what he did with Iraq you will say its evil because he is an evil oil guy.
Please stop embarassng yourselves with this war for oil argument.
-
Grunherz:
1.) Western society is based on the daily use of a vast amount of oil
2.) It is desirable to have cheap oil prices
3.) It is desirable to have influence on the source of oil in order to facilitate this
4.) Saudi Arabia is a cornerstone of Western influence in the oil producing Mid-East
5.) Saudi is increasingly unstable and the pro-Western government is more likely than ever to fall in the face of a radicalized Islamic militant body
6.) The West needs an ally and base of operations to for the reasons outlined above
7.) Iraq has large oil reserves and a much more secular society
8.) Iraq would be ideal as a 'New Saudi'
The 'War for Oil' argument is merely simplistic, rather than erroneous. The real reason is strategic influence in a major oil producing centre. But at least the 'No War for Oil' mantra it isn't as phoney as the 'Saddam was bad' humanitarian justification trotted out these days by those seeking to justify a war after the fact.
-
But if oil was the only thing then lifting the sanctions and inspections would have done it much more cheaply, with no dead, and far less political risk than a war. Say what you will but all of us know Saddam would love to sell that oil and enrich himself without inspectors or sanctions. And everyone knows it is was up to the USA/UK to lift the sanctions because the other big UN members were ready for them to be gone.
So Oil was not the main reason for this war - we could get at his oil by dropping the sanctions - although obviously Oil is the only reason anyone gives a damn about the mid east but a war in Iraq was not the easiest or most profitable way to get at it.
-
Dowding you say the humanitarian angle was a disingenous last minute argument to justify the wat after the fact.
Here is a part of President Bush's Address to the UN from September 2002 - well before the war. How do you explain the great amount of focus on human rights in this speech months before the war?
"Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.
In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.
Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.
To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.
He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.
In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.
Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.
-
MORE:
The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.
The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.
We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.
My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.
Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.
If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.
Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well.
Full Speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html
-
You've not read what I said. The control of the supply of oil, combined with a strategic presence in the region is the key. The Mid-East is critical in maintaining the Western lifestyle; while oil is available in plenty of other places, without the Mid-East, compromises would have to be made. Without a military presence in Saudi (in the probable event of a Saudi collapse), the West loses the ability to protect the oil supply in that region. If we could build up another large, oil producing country into a veritable ally, Saudi becomes less important from a strategic point of view. A secular Iraq, even if it wasn't particularly democratic, would be superb.
We can then make all kinds of economic gain off the back of such a move - lucrative arms deals, infrastructure re-building contracts etc etc. The big arms and engineering firms of the US, UK etc would have full order books for the next couple of decades. In terms of profitability, provided a stable government can be set-up in Iraq that is prepared to talk business, the bottom line of the whole endeavour will be very rosy indeed. Have no worry there.
-
What makes you think saddam wouldnt hire the same US companies to rebuild his oil capacity after the sanctions were lifted? As you anti-war types are so happy to point out Iraq has had many relationships with US companies before the Gulf War, no reason to not continue them if a good agreement could be reached by both sides.
And anyway, plese adress my question of human rights above. If that angle was simply a post war excuse how come it was featurd so prominantly in Bush arguments at the UN many months before the war?
-
Didn't he also mention something about WMD? I forget even what the letters stand for.
I honestly believe there is a difference between the relatively few references to humanitarian matters prior to the conflict and the seemingly inexhaustable source of humanitarian concern observed in the last few months.
I'm trying not to come to a very disturbing conclusion, and it goes something like this. You believe our governments give a rat's bellybutton about humanitarian rights. I find it deeply amusing that in one breath, people on this board can talk about how they mistrust their politicians in everything they do when it concerns internal affairs, but are not in the least bit skeptical when these same politicians exercise their power in world at large. These are the same people, with the same foibles and the same agendas. Where does this implicit trust that they 'will do the right thing' to people to whom they are completely unaccountable come from, given that at the same time these people are untrustworthy cads to the people who elected them?
Answer me that, my protest-by-non-voting friend.
-
Sure there was WMD mentioned, thats what the other half of the speech was about. but still half was devoted to Humanitarian issues. This wasnt some minor speech at some Oklahoma town hall meeting it was in fromt of the UN - so devoting half his time to talking about humanitarian issues months and months before the war on perhaps the worlds greatest political forum pretty much blows your argument away Dowding.
For me its not really an issue of trust in the long term, its about thair actual policies I agree with or not. Here is what I mean, I wont trust them to do what they say during the camaign beacuse campainging is just marketing so I wont invest myself in them by voting. However once they start doing things I will either agree or disagee to support it - if it matches their campaign promies all the better. For example I did not vote for clinton but I agreed with his bombing in kosovo and bosnia. I did not vote for clinton but I disagrred with the impeachement against him. I did not vote for clinton but I disagreed with his pardon of Marc Rich. Basicalli I decide whether to support polcies or actions rather than campaign promises. And since those policies occur after the election, i dont see much reason to be invested in a candidate by voting. Kinda convolted I guess, but its how i see it. So with Iraq, I support that polcy and how Bush has done it for the most part.
-
No government on earth, past or present, would do something as fabled as depose another government in the name of humanity. Well, they may say they are doing it in the name of humanity, but underlying motives of much lesser nobility would certainly exist. Consider that people who find themselves in power are opportunists to begin with, and it isn't hard to piece the logic together. However, if the people that were living under such conditions were to somehow benefit in the long term, even if the main reason behind their newly found freedom had nothing to do with their freedom at all, would the value of their freedom then be negated altogether?
What stumps the hell out of me is, what should be done when one government is known to abuse its populace the way Saddam or Milosovic were known to have done? This question is sincerely based on nothing more than curiosity, and for the sake of simplicity it is purely hypothetical. If Country-X is known to be committing heinous crimes against its own population, what would a viable and just response by the international community include, if any?
-
while oil is important, it's not the only reason we are there, it's not even the most important reason.
funnling money to your friends and past bussiness associates through reconstruction contracts is a much higher priority for war.
-
On target Dowding. You do leave out the PNAC/Wolfowitz/Perle/Feith/Rumsfeld think tank "democracy domino effect" that should be sweeping the region right about now... any day now... Basically, a concept for peace in the Middle East without an Israeli compromise with the Palestinians. More Iron Wall stuff. But hey, its about WMD, or was it Al Queda? Freeing repressed people? Hard to keep it straight week to week.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html
http://tvnewslies.org/html/pnac_neo-con_artists.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html
etc. Frontline has some good stuff, so does the Washington Post and even the Weekly Standard.
Apparently, though, they're starting to feed on themselves now:
While the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), acting on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations, played a key role in setting the stage for the pre-emptive war on Iraq, the power brokers behind-the- scenes will not hesitate, after such invasions, in "pulling the plug" on their own political puppets.
Witness Chairman of the PNAC, William Kristol, who coordinated the drafting of the PNAC's blueprint entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," (which contains the strategy of "multiple simultaneous war theaters"). He has not only acknowledged the issue of 'distorted intelligence' on national network TV, he is also blaming Bush for making certain misstatements on Iraq: "Statements by the president and by the secretary of state . . turn out to he erroneous." (Fox News, 8 June 2003.)
Kristol, who is also the editor of the influential New York publication, the Weekly Standard, has been part of the disinformation ploy from the very outset. In the months leading up to the war, his Weekly Standard has consistently upheld the Administration's lies on WMDs and al Qaeda without batting an eye lash.
And yet in his June 23rd issue he does an about face, when his Weekly Standard points to: "... serious questions the Bush administration will have to answer, to wit: "How did a forged document about Iraq's pursuit of uranium make it into the State of the Union address?" And "Why would President Bush tell the world that 'we have found weapons of mass destruction,' when quite plainly we have not? "
Under a system of bogus democracy, political leaders in high office are often 'disposable'. To maintain continuity in the US doctrine of 'pre-emptive war' and 'homeland defense', the behind-the-scenes architects require a scapegoat or a 'fall guy' to blame, in order to save their own secret agenda. Now that "the cat is out of the bag" regarding Iraq's WMDs, somebody has to pay the price (namely Bush and Blair). Meanwhile PNAC rides off into the sunset victorious ... Meanwhile, corporate America has struck gold, black gold.
In other words, those who were most actively involved in spreading phony intelligence in the news chain are now accusing the Bush Administration of misleading public opinion. Moreover, there are indications that the actual timing of the disinformation campaign, from the planting of the lies to the "pulling of the plug", was coordinated in consultation with the architects of a this new 'Pax Americana.'
Charon
-
Yes it is all PNAC! Do tell me though whatever happend to the ZOG? You remember the Zionist Occupied Government which your predecessor kooks said was the real power behind all the decisions in Washington? :rolleyes:
-
Yes it is all PNAC! Do tell me though whatever happend to the ZOG? You remember the Zionist Occupied Government which your predecessor kooks said was the real power behind all the decisions in Washington?
Your comparison is embarrassingly feeble. You apparently haven't looked into the PNAC, since it is one of the least secret organizations currently active in Washington politics. Or, you’re just trying to discredit the organization off hand, with the hope that most people won’t take the time to look into it and make a determination for themselves. Painting me as some ZOG supporting white supremacist type is a bit below the belt, but I just consider the source.
As PNAC chairman William Kristol himself says:
Look, all doctrines, or all foreign policy doctrines, or governing agendas, parts are always around beforehand. Very few people come into government and invent something out of whole cloth. I think we at The Weekly Standard and the Project for the New American Century -- and many other people, Wolfowitz way back in 1992 -- had articulated chunks and parts of what later became the Bush Doctrine: the focus on regime change, the focus on democracy promotion, possibly the preemption, in this new post-Cold War world, of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Certainly there was a lot out there that could be stitched together into the Bush Doctrine. But certainly, even people like me were kind of amazed by the speed and decisiveness with which the Bush administration, post-9/11, moved to pull these different arguments together and to construct arguments into a pretty coherent document.
Now, the Nightline link you ignored, a good general overview from a reasonably credible source:
The Plan
Were Neo-Conservatives’ 1998 Memos a Blueprint for Iraq War?
March 10 — Years before George W. Bush entered the White House, and years before the Sept. 11 attacks set the direction of his presidency, a group of influential neo-conservatives hatched a plan to get Saddam Hussein out of power.
The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.
And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."
That event came on Sept. 11, 2001. By that time, Cheney was vice president, Rumsfeld was secretary of defense, and Wolfowitz his deputy at the Pentagon.
The next morning — before it was even clear who was behind the attacks — Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Saddam's Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism," according to Bob Woodward's book Bush At War.
What started as a theory in 1997 was now on its way to becoming official U.S. foreign policy.
Links to Bush Administration
Some critics of the Bush administration's foreign policy, especially in Europe, have portrayed PNAC as, in the words of Scotland's Sunday Herald, "a secret blueprint for U.S. global domination."
The group was never secret about its aims. In its 1998 open letter to Clinton, the group openly advocated unilateral U.S. action against Iraq because "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition" to enforce the inspections regime.
"The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power," they wrote, foreshadowing the debate currently under way in the United Nations.
Of the 18 people who signed the letter, 10 are now in the Bush administration. As well as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, they include Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; John Bolton, who is undersecretary of state for disarmament; and Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition. Other signatories include William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board.
According to Kristol, the group's thinking stemmed from the principles of Ronald Reagan: "A strong America. A morally grounded foreign policy ... that defended American security and American interests. And understanding that American leadership was key to not only world stability, but any hope for spreading democracy and freedom around the world."
Pushing for a More Assertive Foreign Policy
After the 1991 Gulf War ended with Saddam still in position as a potential threat, Kristol told Nightline, he and the others had a sense that "lots of terrible things were really being loosed upon the world because America was being too timid, and too weak, and too unassertive in the post-Cold War era." In reports, speeches, papers and books, they pushed for an aggressive foreign policy to defend U.S. interests around the globe.
Clinton did order airstrikes against Iraq in 1998, but through the rest of his presidency and the beginning of Bush's, America's "containment" policy for Saddam lay dormant — until September 2001.
"Before 9/11, this group ... could not win over the president to this extravagant image of what foreign policy required," said Ian Lustick, a Middle East expert at the University of Pennsylvania. "After 9/11, it was able to benefit from the gigantic eruption of political capital, combined with the supply of military preponderance in the hands of the president. And this small group, therefore, was able to gain direct contact and even control, now, of the White House."
Like other critics, Lustick paints PNAC in conspiratorial tones: "This group, what I call the tom-tom beaters, have set an agenda and have made the president feel that he has to live up to their definitions of manliness, their definitions of success and fear, their definitions of failure."
Kristol dismisses the allegations of conspiracy, but said the group redoubled its efforts after 9/11 to get its message out. "We made it very public that we thought that one consequence the president should draw from 9/11 is that it was unacceptable to sit back and let either terrorist groups or dictators developing weapons of mass destruction strike first, at us," he said.
Predicting Vindication
Now that American bombs could soon be falling on Iraq, Kristol admits to feeling "some sense of responsibility" for pushing for a war that will cost human lives. But, he said, he would also feel responsible if "something terrible" happened because of U.S. inaction.
Kristol expressed regret that so many of America's traditional allies oppose military action against Iraq, but said the United States has no choice. "I think what we've learned over the last 10 years is that America has to lead. Other countries won't act. They will follow us, but they won't do it on their own," he said.
Kristol believes the United States will be "vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq." He predicts that many of the allies who have been reluctant to join the war effort would participate in efforts to rebuild and democratize Iraq.
This report originally aired on Nightline on March 5, 2003.
Frontline also did an exhaustive coverage of the influence the Neo-cons had post 9/11, the fight among Powell and the Neo Cons for policy support, and the eventual victory of the NeoCons. Again, no big secret. At the time, NeoCons like Kristol were more than willing to talk about it, in fact brag about it.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html
The president has a variety of advisors to draw from. Before 9/11 he leaned more towards Powell and the Powell doctrine (supported by his father as far as one can tell). After 9/11, the NeoCons were able to win the battle for their agenda. We are now following that agenda. Things like Al Queda and WMD are primarily the means to an end, a way to sell a broader policy for remaking the Middle East that would likely be unsellable on their own merits. To say they have no influence in current foreign policy is like saying Macnamara had no influence in the Kennedy or Johnson administrations’ policies towards Vietnam.
Cont.
-
heh, anytime I see a link with pbs in it, I know not to even bother clicking it.
-
Here are some more examples.
First, the organization’s Web site: http://www.newamericancentury.org/
The need to invade Iraq pre 9/11:
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.
1998 open letter to Clinton. Individuals who sighned off on this 1998 letter to Clinton include Elliott Abrams; Richard L. Armitage; William J. Bennett; Robert Kagan; William Kristol; Richard Perle; Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Additional:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqjan0799.htm
A counter to Saudi Arabia:
So in addition to hoping for and encouraging change from within Saudi Arabia, we should develop strategic alternatives to reliance on Riyadh. In the military sphere, we have already begun to hedge, with agreements and deployments to other Gulf emirates. Although still the strongest influence on oil prices, other source -- in Russia, the Caspian Basin, Mexico and elsewhere -- can be developed and brought to market at a reasonable cost. The attacks of September 11 remind us that it is not just what we pay at the pump but what we pay in lives, security and international political stability that comprise the true price of Saudi oil.
In particular, removing the regime of Saddam Hussein and helping construct a decent Iraqi society and economy would be a tremendous step toward reducing Saudi leverage. Bringing Iraqi oil fully into world markets would improve energy economics. From a military and strategic perspective, Iraq is more important than Saudi Arabia. And building a representative government in Baghdad would demonstrate that democracy can work in the Arab world. This, too, would be a useful challenge to the current Saudi regime.
William Kristol, Testimony Before The House Committee on International Relations
Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia, May 22, 2002
http://www.newamericancentury.org/saudi-052302.htm
Peace in the Middle East on Israel's terms:
…Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel. Iraq has harbored terrorists such as Abu Nidal in the past, and it maintains links to the Al Qaeda network. If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors. Moreover, we believe that the surest path to peace in the Middle East lies not through the appeasement of Saddam and other local tyrants, but through a renewed commitment on our part, as you suggested in your State of the Union address, to the birth of freedom and democratic government in the Islamic world.
Open letter to Bush on April 23, 2003, signed by the remaining PNAC members who are not currently members of his senior foreign policy staff.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter-040302.htm
…The basic fact is this: Only when confronted by the prospect of a United States firmly behind Israel will Palestinian and Arab leaders, and the Palestinian and Arab peoples, take seriously their own interest in and obligation for restoring peace. At the present time, the best hope for a "peace process" -- and certainly for peace -- in the Middle East is for the United States to give Israel a green light.
Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Weekly Standard, August 27, 2001
http://www.newamericancentury.org/middleeast-20010827.htm
”…What appears to be uppermost in Powell’s mind is assembling the largest possible coalition behind the United States, even to the point of “working with” Syria and Iran, both of which the State Department reported to be among the most active state sponsors of terrorism last year. And now it appears that working with such states will exempt their terrorist surrogates, the Hezbollah and Hamas organizations, from accountability.
The price of such a coalition is too high, both morally and strategically. Hezbollah has American blood on its hands, and Hamas has dedicated itself to wrecking hopes for peace in Israel. It is one thing to conduct the war against terrorists by phases and by making tactical judgements of priorities. It is quite another thing to preemptively constrain fundamental war aims. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is right to say that the mission should determine the coalition, not the coalition the mission.
Memorandum to “Opinion Leaders” by William Kristol
http://www.newamericancentury.org/terrorism-092501.htm
Additional:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1990s/instituteforadvancedstrategicandpoliticalstudies.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/061603H.shtml (An interesting Newsweek article here offering some counter positions/adjustments to common wisdom)
Middle Eastern Democracy Goals
The case for removing Saddam stands on its own. ... [The] great danger is in his ability to develop and use weapons of mass destruction. Having said that, I do think Bush also went beyond the particular case of Iraq in his thinking after Sept. 11. The way I would reconstruct his thought process might be something like this:
If he really looked to the Middle East, and he said, "Look, we live in the 21st century in a world in which the Middle East continues on the path it's been on for the last 10, or 20 years; which, despite all of our good efforts on the Arab/Israeli peace process, and despite our close, or allegedly close relations with the Saudi ... and Egyptian governments, the big picture story in the Middle East has been increased extremism, increased anti-Americanism, increased support for terrorism, dictators developing weapons of mass destruction. And you can't just sit back and let that go on."
And I think Bush has made the fundamental decision, therefore, that in addition to Iraq, which is the most immediate danger, we need to rethink our general Middle East policy and get serious about trying, with all the limitations that, obviously, one has to accept, about beginning to remake the Middle East.
Now, I don't think the administration has thought through all the implications of that; so they don't really want to see all the implications for now; this is too daunting. What does it say about our relations with the Saudis over the long run? But I do think the administration is committed, and Bush personally has a sense that he can't just sit back and let it go the way it was going. We tried that. We made good faith efforts on the Arab/Israeli peace process in the 90s. We made good faith efforts in all kinds of ways to help the Middle Eastern countries in the 90s. But, we weren't serious about fighting terrorism, didn't crack down at all on the export of extremist Islam. We've seen the dictators developing weapons of mass destruction and getting away with it. And the effect of that was really disastrous. That has to be reversed.
William Kristol, Frontline interview noted earlier
Axis of Evil speech sums it up pretty well.
THE PNAC WAR CABINET
Dick Cheney: Vice president of the United States, former defense
secretary (under the senior Bush), White House chief of staff (under
Ford) and U.S. congressman. Signed group's 1997 statement of
principles. Note: before 2000 election, Cheney was CEO of
Halliburton.
Donald Rumsfeld: U.S. defense secretary, served in the same post during
the Ford administration, where he was also White House chief of staff.
Also served in Congress. Signed group's statement of principles and
1998 letter urging war on Iraq.
Paul Wolfowitz: Deputy U.S. defense secretary, served in a similar post
under Cheney during the first Bush's administration. Considered the
leading advocate of force on Iraq, he signed the group's 1998 letter on
Iraq and the founding statement.
I. Lewis Libby: Vice President Cheney's chief of staff. A former
Defense Department aide, and a wealthy attorney, Lewis signed the
group's founding statement.
Richard Armitage: Deputy secretary of state under Colin Powell and
longtime foreign policy trouble-shooter, especially in the Middle East.
Signed the group's 1998 letter on Iraq.
(among others)
Charon
-
heh, anytime I see a link with pbs in it, I know not to even bother clicking it.
Frontline is actually an excellent and balanced source of in depth journalism on a variety of topics. A political/social counterpart to the Nova series. One of the few programs that does in-depth analysis with primary sources.
FWIW, most of the people interviewed, and most of the slant was provided by PNAC members. It didn't draw any "conclusions" just stated the White House in fighting, and the goals of the PNAC contingent. The PNAC participants certainly were not ashamed or secretive about it at the time. Finally after the Clinton and Bush Sr eras they were getting their long standing policies turned into reality.
But hey, if you think what you read will be unpleasant to your world view, by all means ignore it. Ignore where they say the same things in their own, primary source material.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Frontline is actually an excellent and balanced source of in depth journalism on a variety of topics. A political/social counterpart to the Nova series. One of the few programs that does in-depth analysis with primary sources.
FWIW, most of the people interviewed, and most of the slant was provided by PNAC members. It didn't draw any "conclusions" just stated the White House in fighting, and the goals of the PNAC contingent. The PNAC participants certainly were not ashamed or secretive about it at the time. Finally after the Clinton and Bush Sr eras they were getting their long standing policies turned into reality.
But hey, if you think what you read will be unpleasant to your world view, by all means ignore it.
Charon
I tend to ignore slander and leftist slants.
-
I tend to ignore slander and leftist slants.
Which you define as that which makes you uncomfortable? Try their own Web site. Neoconservatives are far from liberal, and you can directly see what senior officials in the current administration have to say, in their own words, about this subject.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Charon
Which you define as that which makes you uncomfortable? Try their own Web site. Neoconservatives are far from liberal, and you can directly see what senior officials in the current administration have to say, in their own words, about this subject.
Charon
Actually, no, that isn't how I define it at all.
-
Which you define as that which makes you uncomfortable?
no, you have it completely backwards. he deffines anything he finds uncomfortable as "slander and leftist slants".
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
no, you have it completely backwards. he deffines anything he finds uncomfortable as "slander and leftist slants".
Wrong. Thank you for playing, though. You're really fitting into the leftist mold. It's nice that I have you to think for me. Just a little more tweaking, and I'll get you to do it correctly.
-
Wrong. Thank you for playing, though. You're really fitting into the leftist mold.
hey, you called me a leftist. my post must've made you uncomfortable
thanks for re-enforcing my point.
-
The US ruling the world is good with me...what's the problem here?
-
Well it does sort of rule the world. We just want some small adjustments in how..no big deal..long live the king!
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
hey, you called me a leftist. my post must've made you uncomfortable
thanks for re-enforcing my point.
Caution. You've entered a liberal spin zone. Please sit back and allow capt. apathy to think for you.
-
I lost this thread over the holidays and I just wanted folks to see Charon's post on PNAC again.. He did such an outstanding job....imo
k
AoM
-
Originally posted by kappa
I lost this thread over the holidays and I just wanted folks to see Charon's post on PNAC again.. He did such an outstanding job....imo
k
AoM
I thought Martlet's impersonation of an Ostrich was good also.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
I thought Martlet's impersonation of an Ostrich was good also.
lmao agreed... hes very predictable.
k
AoM