[Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics ahead

[brad haslett]

MJM,

All excellent points!  About the Congo, get a copy of
"The New Yorker", June 2, 2003 (mine just came in the
mail today so its available at the newstand).  Read
the article on page 33, "The Congo Test".  It may
answer some questions about the failures of the UN.

Brad


--- Michael Meltzer <mjm at michaelmeltzer.com> wrote:
> I think you guys are missing the oblivious. It was
> exactly what it was.
> 
> 1)they simple did not like him, deep hated and
> mistrust... It really that simple, they had his
> history, 2 wars, gas his own people,
> rape/kill for control, starve his people for PR,
> etc.. it might not have been on the US media radar
> but it was on leaders radar(and
> every worker who job it was to watch the area),
> trying to kill dad did not help. deeply felt
> repulsion at a moral level by the
> leaders/works to him, No one to stand up for him.
> Thought in "everything he says is a lie"
> 2)He and is sons where considered crazy, as in every
> report crossing desks "We have no idea what he will
> do, but here is  his
> history"
> 3)He like to stick it to the US every chance he got,
> No Fly zone shootings, The UN, oil for food, playing
> with WMD. keep him self on
> the radars(unlike Libya).
> 4)Remember the people who are doing the government
> analyst are human, see item 1-3, They really thought
> he would use a nuke, germs
> or any thing else he could get his hands on. Any
> worst case idea US analyst's came up with seemed to
> be answered "He could do it and
> would do it when he can". You could see it in
> everyone actions. Most of the action the leaders
> took looks like it was "For the good
> of the nation and it is the right thing to do.
> motive".
> 5)Their is nothing magical about the intelligent
> here, the NY time and a Tom Clancy will tell you how
> they are doing it. The problem
> is allot of it like a "ink blot test", they had 
> hard intelligent from years ago and a lot of softer
> stuff now(invoices, wiretaps,
> radio, overhead pictures), but those pesky human's
> from item 1-4 do color it.
> 6)it was for oil but at the same time not, I do
> believe they ment the oil for the people.
> 7)they where/are all kind of side benefits, Iran,
> Syria, Big Dog on the block, The Economy(as in was
> is good for it). and Sodom will
> kill people in a month then the war.
> 8)The contracts are a red herring, They by natural
> were a DOD contract spec, saw the posting when it
> happened, it was all theory,
> Oboy, only a few companies could  fill out the
> contract, the companies do have/hire exgoverment
> people, it happened, not planed.
> 
> My option. I think the oblivious explains allot more
> then looking for the "secret" reason. As in they
> played it straight up as they
> saw it and tried to do the right thing(including
> killing people to do it).
> 
> BTW Any one watching the Congo lately.
> 
> MJM
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "brad haslett" <flybrad at yahoo.com>
> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list"
> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 4:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics
> ahead
> 
> 
> > Wally,
> >
> > One correction to your observation; Qatar was the
> base
> > for our command center in the region and is a
> Muslim
> > country.
> >
> > In a nutshell, I agree that oil is at the bottom
> line
> > of much of the Gulf regions problems and our
> interest
> > in military intervention.  Those countries would
> still
> > dispute Israel's right to exist, but, without oil
> they
> > wouldn't have the means to build the armies that
> > really pose a threat to Israel and each other.
> > Without oil our response to the area would be much
> > like our response to most of Africa; tragic but
> not in
> > our interests to do anything about it.
> >
> > Here is where I disagree with most of the "blood
> for
> > oil" proponents; all but the last third of Iraq's
> oil
> > production is already on the world market. 
> Assuming
> > that we don't just outright annex the Iraqi oil
> fields
> > (and we're not) they still get the money from the
> oil.
> >  Sure, American oil companies will get contracts
> for
> > field improvements (as opposed to some French and
> > Russian companies who are presently there) and the
> big
> > oil companies (they are almost all multi-national
> > companies now so its hard to call them American)
> will
> > get some shipping and distribution contracts, BUT,
> > very little NEW oil will enter the marketplace.
> > Contrary to what many folks think, or know about
> the
> > domestic oil industry, cheap oil hurts domestic
> > producers in the long run.  Hypothetical:  If GW
> was
> > still in the oil business and whoever was
> President
> > bombed the Iraqi oil fields out of existance, it
> would
> > save his company from seeking a buyout instead of
> > filing bankruptcy.  See my point?
> >
> >
> > --- Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Heck Brad, can't you tell I love politcal
> debates.
> > > It takes a lot to piss me
> > > off and even more to offend. I always try to
> keep a
> > > some what open mind and
> > > some times my opinion can be swayed.
> > > >
> > > >BH......... Ending worldwide terrorism is in
> the
> > > best
> > > >interest of the worldwide economy, not just
> ours.
> > > >Whether you like it or not our economy is very
> > > >inter-dependent with other nations.  Look at
> what
> > > >happened to the stock market after the Towers
> fell.
> > > >While financial health may sound like a bad
> thing
> > > to
> > > >some folks, a failing economy hurts everyone
> > > >regardless of financial position.  Frankly, our
> > > only
> > > >stable and reliable ally in the region is
> Israel.
> > > The
> > > >House of Saud is crumbling and has been the
> source
> > > of
> > > >many of the discontents.  Iraq WAS funding
> > > political
> > > >instability in the region.  The radical Muslums
> > > have
> > > >proven that they can and will attack us on our
> own
> > > >soil.  How can you ignore instability in the
> region
> > > as
> > > >a threat?.................BH
> > >
> > > Of course ending terrorism is a good thing and
> > > obvioulsy our econmoy is
> > > effected by the world economy. I do think going
> in
> > > after Bin laden was the
> > > right thing to do. And of course financial
> health is
> > > a good thing. Some
> > > times I have to chuckle about our ally Isreal.
> How
> > > did we wind up being
> > > friends with one of the few countries in the
> middle
> > > east with no oil. :)
> > > Just kidding here. Instability in the region may
> be
> > > a financial threat but I
> > > don't think it was a threat to our National
> > > Security, just our wallet. Most
> > > of what you say is true and this just supports
> the
> > > claim that oil was one of
> > > the main drivers of the war.
> > >
> > > >BH.........It is a dis-appointment that more
> Muslum
> > > >countries didn't sign on this time.  Saudi
> Arabia's
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com