Rumsfeld-Is this Guy Playing With A Full Deck?

[imported_midas]

Another theory for us to ponder.Bloody hell.
First we had the Weapons of Mass Destruction Theory-this one is the most likely on balance ,imo,-about 60 % with 40 % doubts
Then the Oil Control Theory-until last week I didn,t think there was a single argument in favour of it.Since then a couple have surfaced which have merit but still i think its about 25% likely.
Then we have the George Dubya Personal Revenge for Daddy Theory.You would hope like hell it,s not right. Only 10% likely (I hope)
And now we have the 4-by-2 Conspiracy Theory.Possible but only 5% likely without facts.
All these theories can only be substantiated or rebuffed by those in the inner sanctum.The rest of us have to glean whatever info we can-and it ain,t much.
These theories about the influence exercised by the fourbees have been around since I was a snotty-nosed kid (which wasn,t yesterday) and I really can,t give them much credence.
If they had as much power and influence as the rumours would have us believe then there wouldn,t be a Palestinian problem because there wouldn,t be a Palestine,imo.

 

[Willow]

"Then the Oil Control Theory-until last week I didn,t think there was a single argument in favour of it.Since then a couple have surfaced which have merit but still i think its about 25% likely."
Glad to hear it.
Most wars are fought over land and resources. This war is no different. Even conservative thinkers are saying that its about 'protecting American interests'.
I would think that makes for a convincing argument.

Some are still saying that this 'war against terror' is about removing a feral dictator from power. I'm willing to open my mind to the possibility that this is a 'just war' if the argument can be produced... thusfar there's been none forthcoming.

btw, I dont buy into the George Bush revenge thing either. I just think the Corporations can see that a profitis to be made - emotional issues like revenge don't really come into it.

 

[imported_midas]

Most wars are about power.(just like politics).If land and resources give you power then they become the target.There are vast reserves of oil in Alaska ,but apparently they are environmentally sensitive.There are also vast reserves of oil just north of Afghanistan (not Uzbekhistan but one of the more obscure" ,stans").Either of these could replace Iraq,s 10% if absolutely necessary.
The Russians apparently have another huge deposit which would be horrendously expensive to develop (particularly for the cash-strapped Russkis.)
This is why I,m not sold on the Oil Control Theory,as whatever power and influence you gain by taking control could be eroded within a short span of time by development of any or all of these reserves and others in other parts of the world.

 

[Marcus]

I'm definitely not sold on the oil conspiracy theory.

Here is an article from a guy named Bill O'Reilly who has got a show on FoxNews.

His article is along the lines that I am thinking.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,72102,00.html
The real story about President Bush and Saddam Hussein, that's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo . They will never say it, but the Bush administration wants a war with Iraq. The president and his key advisers believe removing Saddam Hussein from power is vital, weapons found or no weapons found. That's the reason you have all these human rights abuses being reported now, even though they've been going on in Iraq for decades. The Bush administration is demonizing Saddam Hussein, who, of course, deserves every bit of it. The reason Mr. Bush wants Saddam out is intriguing. Al Qaeda continues to present the most dangerous threat to the USA, but in order for al Qaeda to continue attacking, needs the help of the Muslim world. Right now, most Muslims resent America for providing Israel money and guns. As long as the USA is perceived as being pro-Israel, and the Palestinian conflict is raging, the Muslim world will be against the USA. The Bush people believe three nations are making the continuing terror in Israel possible, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Iraq and Iran train and fund the terrorists. Syria gives them shelter and access to Israel. The removal of Saddam Hussein will put a severe dent in the capabilities of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. American troops will be poised on the border of Iran and Syria, making it much more difficult for those nations to support those terrorists. If the bombers can be stopped in Israel, it's then possible for serious negotiations to begin between Israel and the Palestinians. If they can reach some kind of an agreement, the intensity of hatred toward the United States will drop in the Muslim world, and al Qaeda loses power. That's the road map, and it's very credible. As long as the Jews and the Palestinians are killing each other, America will not be able to win over the Muslim world. So Saddam Hussein is going no matter what the United Nations finds or says. Mr. Bush believes the security of the United States depends on removing Saddam. The action could start as early as January, and al Qaeda knows the strategy. That's why those thugs hit the Israeli hotel in Kenya. They want to keep Israel on the offensive. They want the Jews to continue to attack Arabs. The Bush administration is right about the danger to the USA that the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict poses. But Mr. Bush is wrong once again in articulating American policy. Why keep the big picture surrounding Saddam Hussein secret? The president and Donald Rumsfeld should be spelling things out to the world. I know many people don't care if Americans live or die, but everyone should know that we have a right to protect ourselves. And we are doing just that by removing Saddam Hussein.

 

[bris-eel]

I'd just like to add my two cents worth to this little debate. I am also one of the people who can see no justification for going to war with Iraq. There have been no conclusive arguements that I have seen that have linked this country with international terrorism and as a consequence I feel the answer to America's nearly toatl insistance for going to war with these people must lie elsewhere.

A lot has been mentioned about, theories concerning oil, the American econmyand to some extent the Isrealies and I must say thatall of these options carry some weight with me.

We all know (or at least i hope we do) that the first gulf "war" had nothing to do with Kuwait and its people and everything to do with oil (if it was a humanitarian mission they would have finished the job then and there). America needs to have control of this region to maintain it's supply and so that it can get the resource at the price it is after.

If it wasabout the country having weapons of mass destruction and breaching the rulings of the United Nations, then the world should have invaded Isreal twenty years ago, as they have broken just about every rule and resolution made against them in the book. I think as another poster has put on here that the Jewish power brokers in America have a MAJOR influence the the decsion making of this country, just look at the amount of military aid the yanks send to Isreal every year.

The Americans, when their economy is in trouble always start some sort of military engagement somewher in the world, I think to mainly take the attention away from the poor domestic performance of the government (as is previoulsy stated in another post)

This is getting bit long, but I would seriously like to suggest that people look about the writings of Gore Vidal and what he has to say about this type of thing, he was a policy adviser to one of the yank presidents a while ago and is a well respected author from what I can see. There was a very good interview put up on ninemsn xseveral months ago when an interviewer from the LA Weekly spoke to him, and he has some very interesting things to say about this type of thing.

 

[Willow]

Alaskan Oil is less accessible and belongs to the USA. They don't like to shit in their own backyard if its at all avoidable and more than that, they are relunctant to mine their own oil... they prefer to accumulate stocks of oil reserves and this has been US domestic policy for some time.
Russian oil, as you say, is difficult to access and comes at a price.
Don't know about the oil in stan land.
You forgot Bass Strait.... another series of logistical problems there as well plus I was told once that Bass Strait oil requires more refining.

"Either of these could replace Iraq,s 10% if absolutely necessary."
Not really, Iraq has bigger oil fields... reportedly, the second biggest in the world.


Plus we shouldnt forget that oil produced is of different grades. My understanding is that the oil in the Middle East is some the best you can get plus its very accessible and cheap to mine.

Apart from the oil, Iraq also has enormous strategic value. Land, Resources, Wealth, Power.. all in one package.

If your still not sold on the oil / money / power theory, thats fine. But exactly which theory is it that appeals to you?

 

[Willow]

marcus.. if the article you pasted is to have any merit, it should mention human rights abuses in other parst of the world, including Palenstine. If the USA was serious about getting rid of tyrants who threaten the security of the west, then why just pick on the one with the oil???
The author fails to address this side of the debate.

 

[Willow]

bris-eel, thanks for the post. I'd be interested in what Gore Vidal said if you have a link or maybe you can just give us the gist of his view..

 

[bris-eel]

the link is www.pitt.edu/~kloman/vidalframe.html

It is a rather painfull experience trying to find the artical that I mentioned but the gist of it is that the American government has had over 250 confirmed unprovoked military strikes against other nations since WWII and he states that this number would not even come close to the real situation. (with attacks by organisations like the C.I.A. not being counted)

He also states that the Americans ARE NOT the worlds policeman and that they should pack up their military, send them homeand concentrate on protecting their own borders and not put themselves into the position of getting involved in other peoples problems

 

[Willow]

This is no cut and paste but I have checked the dates to make sure the facts are right...

I remember when the USA invaded Grenada in 1983,I recall it was called 'Operation Urgent Fury'. (?)

Sure, the USsaid it was to protect American students (who were quite safe),but in reality it was just an excuse to wipe out the left wing government of Grenada. It was clearly an attack on another nation without provocation and a glaring example ofthe Republican Party's foreign policy.

After finally being pinned into answering questions, President Reagan was quite unapologetic when stating it was to protect US business interests.... it was like, 'why shouldnt we send in the troops?'

Also, can't forget the US 'intervention' in Nicaragua in 1979 either. The Americans didnt like the Sandinistas because they successfully oustedabrutal (no other word for it)US-backed dictatorship. The American government proceeded on a path of illegal actions againstthe Sandinista government and people of Nicaragua, including the mining of the Nicaraguan harbour... a cowardly action to say the least.

When the International Court of Justice found theAmericans guilty, the US governmentarrogantly ignored the decision.. but not before boycotting the hearings. The US also exercised it power of veto over the UN when Nicaraguatook its complaint to the security council.

Since then, the US has repeatedly ignored demands from both the International Court of Justice and the UN General Assembly to pay compensation.
You can be sure that if any other nation mined a US harbour, it would be invaded without question. Moreover, if that small nation refused to pay compensation, it would provide another excuse to mount an attack.
One rule for us, another rule for them.

If anyone thinks this isnt relevant to the current conflict, I ask you to pause and think about about other similar incursions by the US military. They have been happening with frightening regularity over the last 40 years.
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Grenada, Nicaragua, Lebanon, The Philippines, Korea, Haiti, Cuba, Panama, Afghanistan to name a few.

Now if anyone thinks this is Yank bashing, sorry buts its just too bad. These guys have a history of conflict against poorer and smaller nations. They claim to be the world's policemen... when they are in fact the world's bullies.

They always have a reason for attacking other countries but history always reveals that there was an ulterior motive. Its up the individual to make their own decision but its clear that if you get on the wrong side of the USA, they will make life hell for you and anyone that supports you.

 

[Marcus]

"He also states that the Americans ARE NOT the worlds policeman and that they should pack up their military, send them homeand concentrate on protecting their own borders and not put themselves into the position of getting involved in other peoples problems" - bris-eel

Who exactly are the world's policeman then?

That kind of statement says to me... that people should do nothing despite knowing the atrocities that are happening in certain countries. Is this morally right? or morally wrong?

Its interesting to note that Syria, which houses terroristssuch ashamas and hezbollah, is in fact on the UN Security Council

. They were voted in on the 8th of September 2001... 3 days before the sept. 11 attacks.

Syria of course is a primary conduit of Iraqi oil pumped and sold in defiance of UN sanctions - thereby benefiting Saddam with an illegal source of income.

 

[Willow]

"Who exactly are the world's policeman then?"

The United Nations are supposed to be the world's 'policemen', not the USA. <hr>

"He also states that the Americans ARE NOT the worlds policeman and that they should pack up their military, send them homeand concentrate on protecting their own borders and not put themselves into the position of getting involved in other peoples problems" - bris-eel

"That kind of statement says to me... that people should do nothing despite knowing the atrocities that are happening in certain countries. Is this morally right? or morally wrong?" - marcus

I read the same statement and is suggests to me that the USA should look after its own affairs and leave world arbitration to the UN.

Its not often publicised but the USA has a habit of undermining the UN to suit its own age agendas.
It's unfortunate that the USA refuses to pay itsshare of the UN running costs but still has the power of veto over so many world decisions.

 

[Willow]

Correct me if I'm wrong butimo, there arethree basic viewpoints:
1.) <u>The US invasion of Iraq is not a just war.</u>
It isbeing dictated byprofit and corporate stragedy with the rewardthe potential economic gains. There are other ways to stop terrorism, beginning with a change in US foreign policy.
2.) <u>The US invasion of Iraq is a just war.</u>
The aim is to stop terrorism and root out a tyrant who threatens world peace and brutaliseshis ownpeople. The UN is powerless to do anything so the USA must invade.
3.) <u>The US invasion of Iraq ishorrible but neccessary.</u>
Saddam has to be stopped and even though the USA are acting likeimperialists, the means will justify the ends.

 

[Willow]

Just a little more on the so-called 'oil conspiracy theory'... <hr>
USA Defence Secretary William Cohen in remarks to reporters prior to his speech at Microsoft Corporation in Seattle as reported by Associated Press: "[T]he prosperity that companies like Microsoft now enjoy could not occur without having the strong military that we have. ... conflicts in faraway lands such as Bosnia, Korea and Iraq have a direct effect on the U.S. economy. The billions it costs to keep 100,000 American troops in South Korea and Japan, for example, makes Asia more stable--and thus better markets for U.S. goods. The military's success in holding Iraq in check ensures a continued flow of oil from the Persian Gulf." <hr>

 

This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

 

[bris-eel]

Willow,

The one I really like is when Vidal talks about what happened in Guatemala in 1954.
He states: "I was in Guatemala when the CIA was preparing its attack on the Arbenz government. Arbenz was a democratically elected president, mildly socialist. His state had no revenues; its biggest income maker was the United Fruit Company. So Arbenz put the tiniest of taxes on bananas, and Henry Cabot Lodge got up in the Senate and sais that the Communists have taken over Guatemala and we must act. He got Eisenhower, who sent in the CIA, and they overthrew the government. We installed a military dictator, and there's been nothing but bloodshed ever since.
Now, if I were a Guatemalam and I had the means to drop something on somebody in Washington, or anywhere Americans were, I would be tempted to do it. Especially if I had losty my entire family and seen my country blown to bits because United Fruit didn't want to pay taxes. Now that's the way we operate. And that's why we are so hated."

 

[imported_Beast]

I am afraid that I have had to surprise myself and acknowledge that war against Iraq is now inevitable and since Aussie troops are going to be on the ground I do hope it is quick and as painless to the Iraquis civilians as possible, which I know will be difficult.

I would be surprised if the Yanks try and occupy Iraq for longer than 12 months and will probably pass responsisbility onto the UN asap.

It is a safe bet the Iraq will damage their oil fields before allowing the US to take them over. This will set back production a fair time , enough to make oil quite expensive.

The yanks are using a lot of Saddams nasty behaviour against the Kurds as an excuse to zap him, and zap him they should because there is no doubt Saddam is a ratbag and so are his offspring.

But the yanks betrayed the Kurds last Gulf War by promising to keep ground troops there to protect them and enforce the no fly zone. Unfortunately US and British aircraft permit Turkish fighters and bombers to enter the no fly zone to attack the Kurds and allow them to bomb and machine gun villages and towns which are killing hundreds of Kurdish civilians.

The yanks are hypocrites but in this instant I hope they are quite clinical in what they are going to do and then ensure the Iraqui people are supported for many years to come!

 

[bris-eel]

If you look at any conflict that America has had since and including Vietnam, where they have focused the supposed reasoning for the conflicts onto a single person, ie: Saddam Hussein (Iraq), Osama Bin Ladan (Afghanistan &amp; Terrorism), Manual Norieaga (Panama I think it was), Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam) the American government has toa very large extent created/supported these people with financial and military aid. When these people are either not needed anymore or they do something that the yanks do not like, they then go after then on some pretext. (usually that they are a threat to the American way of life etc)

 

[El Duque]

Have they found Osama?

Maybe he's right under their nose

 

[CanadianSteve]

"Either of these could replace Iraq,s 10% if absolutely necessary."
Not really, Iraq has bigger oil fields... reportedly, the second biggest in the world.

That being the case, why did Iraq invade Kuwait? I thought they wanted Kuwait's oil?