• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Topic: For robgb

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    For robgb

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/20...-2004/f911.htm

    Edited to add:
    I don't 100% agree with them about Bush's hesitation in the class room, and I think they go a little easy on Moore, but over all, I agree with this article.

  2. #2

    Re: For robgb

    The article above has an evenhanded tone, but comes unhinged on the UN topic.

    Yes, the Bush Administration and their vocal war supporters claim that they were enforcing the UN sanctions, but they use this argument only as a pitiful attempt at justification. It's the equivalent of a mob saying that thier hangings represent the will of the justice system. Simply put, the UN never called for this war.

    The reason that most Americans support the war has nothing to do with the UN. They support the war because they trust the current administration, believe them and do not trust the administration's opponents. This administration has fearmongered and manipulated its way to war, and the loyal follow them. This is not unique. Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot were also able to develop a loyal following who supported and carried out their policies, even when these policies result in tens of thousands of deaths. (What? Are Bush-caused deaths good? Of course! Our fear and anger justify them!)

    That explains the followers' motivations, but what of the leaders'? If you ask me, the goal is to have Iraq available as a long-term strategic base. You don't pump the oil out of the region the Tuesday after next - you pump it every day for a lifetime. And it's not only the oil in Iraq. It's the region. Dominate it with military bases and Shah-like dictatorships, and you have security for the long-term flow of oil. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the real motivation for the war.

    So, why hasn't Bush EVER brought this up in any of his speeches? Why haven't we had the debate over strategic oil security in the region? One can easily make the argument that this is critical for the economic viability of the developed countries of the world. But instead we got yellowcake stories, WMD lies, terrorism ties and Saddam-the-boogeyman stories. As if America was under dire threat, or that we give a sheet about democracy in Iraq.

    Security for the long term aquisition of oil in the Middle East. That's what this has all been about. And you and I and all of the oil providers & consumers of the west will benefit - if it all works to plan.

    That's the debate that the country and the world never had. Somehow, global oil security has never popped up as a daily talking point.

    Sure, GW's cowboy foreign policy may pizz off enough people to shift power to the UN. It may also pizz off enough Arabs to cause more acts of terrorism. Those are secondary. The unintended consequences. The blowback. The prime objective is, has been and will be strategic oil security in the region and throughout the world. All else, including our lives and liberties, fails to be the prime objective of this administration.

  3. #3

    Re: For robgb

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/20...-2004/f911.htm

    Edited to add:
    I don't 100% agree with them about Bush's hesitation in the class room, and I think they go a little easy on Moore, but over all, I agree with this article.
    I don't agree with their characterization of Moore, but some of what they say here makes sense.

  4. #4

    Re: For robgb

    Quote Originally Posted by JonFairhurst
    Simply put, the UN never called for this war.
    Be that as it may, the plain reality is that the UN is the chief beneficiary of the war. Bush will quite possibly lose the election and retire in shame having an entire planet hating his guts; the Iraqi people, well, they benefited too in many ways, but arguments could be made that in the long run they didn’t; none of the other COW players really benefited, including the US which will probably see an ever greater security risk in the wake of Iraq, etc. It’s hard to find anyone who really won in this whole affair, except for the UN. The UN won thrice over:

    1 - The UN will eventually take control of much of the Iraq situation.

    2 – The UN, having been supposedly publicly snubbed by the US (which in fact isn’t quite true) now enjoys even more passionate support from nations abroad in response.

    3 – The UN now even enjoys a degree of prestige and legitimacy in the minds of most of those who used to be its strongest opponents. After all, the UN is constantly cited as being a legitimate authority whose resolutions must apparently be respected (hence the Iraq war).

    W, echoing his father in 1990, clearly and plainly stated over and over again that he WANTS an effective UN, a UN whose decisions are binding. Sure, you can say that was a “pitiful” attempt at an excuse for the war, but it was actually PRECISELY the same line his father gave in his administration. And if you’ll recall, his father didn’t face the same resistance that he has. Bush Sr. clearly and repeatedly expressed his desire for the UN to realize its full potential and the Gulf War was just a way for that UN to flex its muscle sending a message to the world that it is not to be ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by JonFairhurst
    The reason that most Americans support the war has nothing to do with the UN.
    But what is the standard refrain of the Right? They point back to the UN resolutions for their legitimacy. And indeed, the US Congress itself failed to declare war as required but rather gave the President a blank check to enforce UN resolutions! On the whole, the net effect has been an increase in support for the UN, no matter which side of the war you stand.

    Quote Originally Posted by JonFairhurst
    Security for the long term aquisition of oil in the Middle East. That's what this has all been about. And you and I and all of the oil providers & consumers of the west will benefit - if it all works to plan.
    First of all, that analysis is somewhat weak compared to the preponderance of evidence and historical staging of the UN analysis. Second, when do you suppose we’ll see that benefit? Last I checked, I’m paying a LOT more for gas than I did before the war. And besides, Saddam was hemmed in for 10 years and our oil supply was never jeopardized. Why would we need a war to secure it? Heck, with the Oil for Food program, we were getting a bargain. If anything, that supply is less secure now than it was before.

  5. #5

    Re: For robgb

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    But what is the standard refrain of the Right? They point back to the UN resolutions for their legitimacy. And indeed, the US Congress itself failed to declare war as required but rather gave the President a blank check to enforce UN resolutions! On the whole, the net effect has been an increase in support for the UN, no matter which side of the war you stand.
    No doubt they use the UN deal to justify their actions. They would also use arguments that Saddam was a big polluter and mistreated the poor, if they thought it would justify the war and win popular support.

    I agree that UN support may grow in the aftermath, but I don't see it as the primary intent. In some ways this is like saying that attempts to pass restrictive gun laws are intended to strengthen the NRA. Such backlash may occur, but that doesn't mean that's the intent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    ...when do you suppose we’ll see that benefit? Last I checked, I’m paying a LOT more for gas than I did before the war. And besides, Saddam was hemmed in for 10 years and our oil supply was never jeopardized. Why would we need a war to secure it? Heck, with the Oil for Food program, we were getting a bargain. If anything, that supply is less secure now than it was before.
    The above paragraph is the debate we never had at the national level.

    That oil is presently less secure does not negate the intent of the war leaders. The neo-cons have laid out a long-term strategy of global security and economic dominance through military might. That they have failed in the short-term - or may fail in the long-term - does not deny their intent.

    I believe that the neo-con individuals have much more power today in the US government than they would in the UN. They command the world's largest military today - and they've used it. They control multi-billion dollar contracts today - and they've issued them.

    Finally, just because you and I are paying higher prices at the pumps doesn't mean that Exxon is suffering. The risk drives up the prices, security is an external expense, and consumption is steady. Looks like a banner year. In the mind of a strategic globalist, these relatively small price increases are nothing compared to what we would pay if the Middle East shut off the tap in ten, twenty or fifty years.

    But I think that we have a common thread to our analysis: the war is being fought for money and power, whether the growth of the UN is part of the plan or not.

  6. #6

    Re: For robgb

    Quote Originally Posted by JonFairhurst
    I agree that UN support may grow in the aftermath, but I don't see it as the primary intent.
    But you should. You’re just not listening closely enough. Even before Iraq, the neo-cons like Bush and his father have been calling for an “effective” UN. They’ve made speeches numerous times to the effect of strengthening the UN and increasing its legitimacy and relevance. When taken in this context, Bush’s invocation of UN resolutions appears to be much more than merely a shallow attempt at justification.

    Quote Originally Posted by JonFairhurst
    But I think that we have a common thread to our analysis: the war is being fought for money and power, whether the growth of the UN is part of the plan or not.
    Well, perhaps… I think the money (oil) aspect of it is secondary or tertiary. I think the primary goal has been the advancement of the UN and globalization (not in the anti-corporate sense, but in the “global governance” sense). They knew from the beginning that this would wind up with a US prostrate before the UN.

  7. #7

    Re: For robgb

    The UN can't even get a committment of troops without conditions from member states to protect "THEM" in Iraq.

    http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3237700

  8. #8

    Re: For robgb

    Which is why the push is now on for a perminant, dedicated UN military force. And many of the neo-cons are right in step with that push.

  9. #9

    Re: For robgb

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    Which is why the push is now on for a perminant, dedicated UN military force. And many of the neo-cons are right in step with that push.
    Really? I thought the conservative movement was still staunchly opposed to the "one-worlder" ideals.
    Michael Peter

    If music be the food of love...
    play on

    William Shakespeare

    homepage

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •