| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Di Lemma" |
| Date: |
14 Nov 2006 11:52:58 AM |
| Object: |
The Iraq Dilemma |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The dilemma that no-one mentions and eveyone
pretends not to see is the underlying purpose of the iraq war .
The REAL object of the invasion -- and the definition of
victory--is the
establishment united states hegemony over the petroleum resources of
iraq and the establishment and maintenance of a permanent military
presence which would/will preserve that hegemony for the foreseeable
future. Until this goal is realized there will be no withdrawal of
troops so long as the petroleum is there.
This is why "stay the course", "finish the job", "victory" and similar
ambiguities are used to obscure the real goals of the occupation. The
iraqis cannot be allowed "sovereignty" or indeed any "unstable"
government which
might or could diminish U.S. Control of the oil. Meanwhile, the u.S.
Public is regaled with visions of "democracy", "standing down when they
stand up", all for the purpose of concealing the real purpose of the
occupation.
Until the politicians come to grips with this, there can be no "end" to
the "war" in Iraq.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the p[lan at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
| User: "Noparty Patriot" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Dilemma |
14 Nov 2006 12:17:44 PM |
|
|
Di Lemma wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The dilemma that no-one mentions and eveyone
pretends not to see is the underlying purpose of the iraq war .
The REAL object of the invasion
At this point, the *object* of the invasion pales in comparison to the
*result* of the ocupation. Now the object must neccessarily become: keeping
the $95 billion, that represents Iraq's pre-war annual oil profits, from
falling into the hands of an Al Queda-like or Taliban-like organization. If
that were to happen, we could end up seeing 9/11-type attacks increase
exponentially, not only to the west, but to weak regimes in Islamic
countries. How we deal with *that* problem has now become the issue! And
those who have yet to understand that point, need to read faster and catch
up with how the situation has changed since to America's disaterous
adventurism in Iraq began.
-- and the definition of
victory--is the
establishment united states hegemony over the petroleum resources
It is not only the U.S. The entire world has a greater thirst for oil now.
No oil coustomers can afford a disruption in the oil supply. That makes
Iraqi oil of world-wide concern.
of
iraq and the establishment and maintenance of a permanent military
presence which would/will preserve that hegemony for the foreseeable
future. Until this goal is realized there will be no withdrawal of
troops so long as the petroleum is there.
This is why "stay the course", "finish the job", "victory" and similar
ambiguities are used to obscure the real goals of the occupation.
Let's say that the *orginal* goal of occupation was to ensure that Iraq oil
production would not be disrupted; then our invasion could not have been a
*worse* strategy. Iraqi oil flow *has* been disrupted *to a much higher
degree* since our invasion. But the oil flow, though important, is much
less important than the result should that money ever get funneled to an Al
Queda-like or Taliban-like organization. They would then have the power to
disrupt more than just oil flow. They could disrupt virtually anything they
desired to disrupt---around the world.
$95 billion annually, could fund an awful lot of world disruption.
The
iraqis cannot be allowed "sovereignty" or indeed any "unstable"
government which
might or could diminish U.S. Control of the oil. Meanwhile, the u.S.
Public is regaled with visions of "democracy", "standing down when they
stand up", all for the purpose of concealing the real purpose of the
occupation.
Until the politicians come to grips with this, there can be no "end" to
the "war" in Iraq.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the p[lan at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Re Dux" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Dilemma |
14 Nov 2006 03:49:44 PM |
|
|
In article <455A254F.B1B11C4B@commonsense.net>, Noparty Patriot
<nopar@commonsense.net> wrote:
Di Lemma wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The dilemma that no-one mentions and eveyone
pretends not to see is the underlying purpose of the iraq war .
The REAL object of the invasion
At this point, the *object* of the invasion pales in comparison to the
*result* of the ocupation. Now the object must neccessarily become: keeping
the $95 billion, that represents Iraq's pre-war annual oil profits, from
falling into the hands of an Al Queda-like or Taliban-like organization.
That was the point. Bush and the Oil Barons want to control the oil
(and/or) the profits from sale of the oil. Conversely, by cutting off
access to the ail, they force up the world price of oil -- and
enormously increase the profits of the Oil barons from the higher
prices. They win either way
-- and the definition of
victory--is the
establishment united states hegemony over the petroleum resources
It is not only the U.S. The entire world has a greater thirst for oil now.
No oil coustomers can afford a disruption in the oil supply. That makes
Iraqi oil of world-wide concern.
More of the point: the Oil barons are now reaping the highest profits
in history from the prices caused by the reduced supply of Iraq oil.
This is of world-wide concern, of course. And whether the supply is
enhanced by U.S. control -- or reduced -- by U.S. occupation, the
result is the same. Profit.
of
iraq and the establishment and maintenance of a permanent military
presence which would/will preserve that hegemony for the foreseeable
future. Until this goal is realized there will be no withdrawal of
troops so long as the petroleum is there.
This is why "stay the course", "finish the job", "victory" and similar
ambiguities are used to obscure the real goals of the occupation.
Let's say that the *orginal* goal of occupation was to ensure that Iraq oil
production would not be disrupted; then our invasion could not have been a
*worse* strategy. Iraqi oil flow *has* been disrupted *to a much higher
degree* since our invasion. But the oil flow, though important, is much
less important than the result should that money ever get funneled to an Al
Queda-like or Taliban-like organization. They would then have the power to
disrupt more than just oil flow. They could disrupt virtually anything they
desired to disrupt---around the world.
$95 billion annually, could fund an awful lot of world disruption.
Your "straw man" blinks the fact that the U.S. has already disrupted
the oil flow -- and so long as the U.S. occupation continues, the flow
of Iraqi oil remain disrupted -- and the profits of the U.S. Oil barons
will continue. The U.S. by controlling the Iraqi oil "could disrupt
virtully anything they desire to interupt -- around the world." YOU
GET IT. That was/is the primary objective of the invasion. Who
controls the oil controls the world economy. Welcome to the Neocon
dream. The PNAC plan calls for the permanent occupation of military
bases in the middle east; and if this requires a permanent state of
war, so be it.
The
iraqis cannot be allowed "sovereignty" or indeed any "unstable"
government which
might or could diminish U.S. Control of the oil. Meanwhile, the u.S.
Public is regaled with visions of "democracy", "standing down when they
stand up", all for the purpose of concealing the real purpose of the
occupation.
Until the politicians come to grips with this, there can be no "end" to
the "war" in Iraq.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the plan at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noparty Patriot" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Dilemma |
14 Nov 2006 05:34:31 PM |
|
|
Re Dux wrote:
In article <455A254F.B1B11C4B@commonsense.net>, Noparty Patriot
<nopar@commonsense.net> wrote:
Di Lemma wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The dilemma that no-one mentions and eveyone
pretends not to see is the underlying purpose of the iraq war .
The REAL object of the invasion
At this point, the *object* of the invasion pales in comparison to the
*result* of the ocupation. Now the object must neccessarily become: keeping
the $95 billion, that represents Iraq's pre-war annual oil profits, from
falling into the hands of an Al Queda-like or Taliban-like organization.
That was the point. Bush and the Oil Barons want to control the oil
(and/or) the profits from sale of the oil.
I don't think that's true. I think they want the Iraqi *people* to get the
profits. Of course, they may want American oil companies to earn money for doing
actual work, such as rebuilding oil fields and refinery equipment, and the like.
And they don't want anyone turning off the oil spigot. But I think they expect
that America will *pay* for the Iraqi oil we consume.
Conversely, by cutting off
access to the ail, they force up the world price of oil
Well, that's true. I mean, the decrease in oil coming out of Iraq has certainly
had an effect on the price of oil. But when the cost of oil goes up, so does the
costs of maintaining a strong millitary and waging war. They can't have it both
ways.
Of course it may be that they are expecting another world war, and want to be
close to the spigot just in case. Is so, they haven't admitted it.
-- and
enormously increase the profits of the Oil barons from the higher
prices. They win either way
The oil companies win. Everyone else loses.
-- and the definition of
victory--is the
establishment united states hegemony over the petroleum resources
It is not only the U.S. The entire world has a greater thirst for oil now.
No oil coustomers can afford a disruption in the oil supply. That makes
Iraqi oil of world-wide concern.
More of the point: the Oil barons are now reaping the highest profits
in history from the prices caused by the reduced supply of Iraq oil.
This is of world-wide concern, of course. And whether the supply is
enhanced by U.S. control -- or reduced -- by U.S. occupation, the
result is the same. Profit.
Yes, but it also represents increased *cost* for the U.S. government. Whatever
American oil companies are gaining, the U.S. government is losing, when it comes
to oil costs.
of
iraq and the establishment and maintenance of a permanent military
presence which would/will preserve that hegemony for the foreseeable
future. Until this goal is realized there will be no withdrawal of
troops so long as the petroleum is there.
This is why "stay the course", "finish the job", "victory" and similar
ambiguities are used to obscure the real goals of the occupation.
Let's say that the *orginal* goal of occupation was to ensure that Iraq oil
production would not be disrupted; then our invasion could not have been a
*worse* strategy. Iraqi oil flow *has* been disrupted *to a much higher
degree* since our invasion. But the oil flow, though important, is much
less important than the result should that money ever get funneled to an Al
Queda-like or Taliban-like organization. They would then have the power to
disrupt more than just oil flow. They could disrupt virtually anything they
desired to disrupt---around the world.
$95 billion annually, could fund an awful lot of world disruption.
Your "straw man"
You don't seem to understand the straw man fallacy. Just because I mention the
*possibility* of an Al Queda-like organization eventually gaining control of
Iraqi oil profits doesn't make it a straw man argument. That scenario *is* a
possibility. The straw man fallacy occurs when you defeat a straw man (a
fictional entitity, in regard to the argument in question) rather than
legitimately addressing the argument.
People make the same mistake with to ad hominem. If I call someone an "atheist
pinko ashole" that's not an ad hominem. It's an insult. But if I said that a
person's *arguments* were not valid because "he is an atheist pinko *****",
*that's* and ad hominem. It's only an ad hominem if you use a personal slur in an
attempt to defeat an argument.
blinks the fact that the U.S. has already disrupted
the oil flow --
That's what I said.
and so long as the U.S. occupation continues, the flow
of Iraqi oil remain disrupted -- and the profits of the U.S. Oil barons
will continue. The U.S. by controlling the Iraqi oil "could disrupt
virtully anything they desire to interupt -- around the world." YOU
GET IT.
But the U.S. government wants a *stable* Persian Gulf. Groups like Al Queda
don't. They *seek* to destablize and disrupt. For the U.S. destablization is a
seen as a temporary but unavoidable step in the process of achieving their goals.
For Al Queda it *is* the goal.
That was/is the primary objective of the invasion. Who
controls the oil controls the world economy.
If the plan was to somehow enhance our economic position by controling Iraqi oil,
then the plan failed miserably.
Welcome to the Neocon
dream. The PNAC plan calls for the permanent occupation of military
bases in the middle east; and if this requires a permanent state of
war, so be it.
The
iraqis cannot be allowed "sovereignty" or indeed any "unstable"
government which
might or could diminish U.S. Control of the oil. Meanwhile, the u.S.
Public is regaled with visions of "democracy", "standing down when they
stand up", all for the purpose of concealing the real purpose of the
occupation.
Until the politicians come to grips with this, there can be no "end" to
the "war" in Iraq.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the plan at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Re Dux" |
|
| Title: Re: The Iraq Dilemma |
14 Nov 2006 03:57:41 PM |
|
|
In article <141120060952581346%netpost@pochta.ru>, Di Lemma
<netpost@pochta.ru> wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The dilemma that no-one mentions and eveyone
pretends not to see is the underlying purpose of the iraq war .
The REAL object of the invasion -- and the definition of
victory--is the
establishment united states hegemony over the petroleum resources of
iraq and the establishment and maintenance of a permanent military
presence which would/will preserve that hegemony for the foreseeable
future. Until this goal is realized there will be no withdrawal of
troops so long as the petroleum is there.
This is why "stay the course", "finish the job", "victory" and similar
ambiguities are used to obscure the real goals of the occupation. The
iraqis cannot be allowed "sovereignty" or indeed any "unstable"
government which
might or could diminish U.S. Control of the oil. Meanwhile, the u.S.
Public is regaled with visions of "democracy", "standing down when they
stand up", all for the purpose of concealing the real purpose of the
occupation.
Until the politicians come to grips with this, there can be no "end" to
the "war" in Iraq.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the p[lan at:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The "state of chaos" and/or "disaster" and horrible consequences, etc,
etc., mostly constitute control of the petroleum resources by some
authority not subordinate to the U.S. It also means the end of the
obscene profiteering by the privateers who are sucking up truckloads
of taxpayer funds without delivering any significant "re-construction".
The Iraq adventure has been designed as a fantastically effective
machine for moving the contents of the U.S. Treasury to the Cronies
of Bush.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
