[Rhodes22-list] Stan, CAUTION, politics ahead

Thu May 29 19:09:58 EDT 2003

Wally,

First let me make a couple of minor points and then
I'll give you the answer you seek.

"The President had consistently resisted the pressure
to stop the flow, lest total cutoff trigger a Japanese
invasion of the Netherlands East Indies, thus
extending the European war to Asia and makeing the
defeat of Hitler that more difficult.  Now, on August
1 (1941), after long, serious discussions, Roosevelt
slammed an embargo on high-octane gasoline as well as
crude oil".... At Dawn We Slept, Gordon W. Prange

"The Maikip oil feilds, producing annually two and a
half million tons of oil, had been captured on August
8 (1942), ............On the thirty-first Hitler was
urging Field Marshal List......to scrape up all
available forces for the final push to Grozny so that
he "could get his hands on the oil fields".....The
Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, William L. Shirer

Of course WW2 was more complicated than a quest for
oil but it was certainly a factor.

Do we engage ourselves in Middle East politics because
of oil?  Well, it sure as hell isn't about the sand. 
Did we have any business going into Somolia, Bosnia,
and all the other places we went during Clinton's
administration?  I have mixed emotions but I think its
a bit shallow and partisan to accept one invasion
because it was "the right thing to do" and a given
President decided to do it and then criticize another
President because he "did the right thing" but oil was
involved.  If someone wants to deplore or protest war,
fine.  Keep party politics out of it and be
consistant.  I don't remember the massing in the
streets of all the anti-war folks when "their" man was
in office.

Brad
--- Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Brad,
> 
> Hitler's run over Europe was not about oil. We
> didn't like Japan's advances 
> into China so we slapped strict trade sanctions. I
> think it more about steal 
> than oil but I could be worng. Japan bombed Pearl
> Harbor because we were 
> hurting them through these embargos. They got
> pissed, attacked Pearl Harbor, 
> we were then in a war. We then kicked ass and it was
> the right thing to do. 
> We probably should have gotten involved even
> ealrier. We were to stupid to 
> realize our National Security was at stake and still
> gettin gover WW I. I 
> have no problem with going to war to defend National
> Security.
> 
> Brad you will admit that oil was the primary cause
> of these wars. Many will 
> not and I think they are iin denial. I agree most
> wars have been over 
> economic issues, border disputes and religous
> reasons.
> 
> Wally
> 
> >From: brad haslett <flybrad at yahoo.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 16:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >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,
> 
=== message truncated ===

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