[Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics ahead

[brad haslett]

Wally,

Lets go back a ways in history.  Japan invades China,
we do nothing (read "Rape of Nanching", Iris Chang). 
Japan continues expansion throughout Pacific Rim, we
cut off their OIL.   Hitler invades Poland and France,
well, France sends him invitations. Japan bombs Pearl
Harbor and we go to war. Charles Lindbergh advocated
your position as regards going to war in Europe and
was isolated to the politcal fringes for the rest of
his life (read "Autobiography of Values, C. Lindbergh)
 I don't think its a stretch to say that ulitmately
WW2 was about oil, among other economic issues.
Throughout all history, when you peel away the stated
reasons for fighting, theres always an economic one
hidden somewhere.  Nothing would make me happier than
if we never had to fight another war, BUT, the world
operates on the wrong Golden Rule;  "He Who Has The
Gold Makes The Rules".  I think the US has been pretty
judicious with its power since WW2.  Like it or not,
we are the only remaining Superpower.  That won't last
forever but we can't turn back the clock and isolate
ourselves.  Had we listened to Lindy 60+ years ago
that's what we would have done but I'm not sure we'd
still be here as a soveriegn nation.

Brad

--- Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think you are missing the obvious, that is if
> there was no oil in the 
> region we would never have been there in the first
> place. I don't question 
> your points but if there was no oil no Desert Storm,
> no fly zones would not 
> exist, oil for food  would not exist, weapn
> inspections would not exist and 
> so on. If Kuwait did not have oil we would not have
> come to the rescue.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I am glad the guy is no longer in
> power I just think it 
> is obvious that the reason we care is because of the
> oil.
> 
> Wally
> 
> 
> >From: "Michael Meltzer" <mjm at michaelmeltzer.com>
> >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list"
> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION,
> politics ahead
> >Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 18:43:58 -0400
> >
> >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
> 
=== message truncated ===


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