since you clicked..means you must want to see how deep this thing goes. i pasted the text, but i would suggest reading this directly from the site on the link below, because it contains valuable links and reference points that cant be captured with a standard cut and paste job.

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html

BUSH'S DEEP REASONS FOR WAR ON IRAQ: OIL, PETRODOLLARS, AND THE OPEC EURO QUESTION

As the United States made preparations for war with Iraq, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, on 2/6/03, again denied to US journalists that the projected war had "anything to do with oil." <1> He echoed Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld, who on 11/14/02 told CBS News that "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."

Speaking to British MPs, Prime Minister Tony Blair was just as explicit: "Let me deal with the conspiracy theory idea that this is somehow to do with oil. There is no way whatever if oil were the issue that it would not be infinitely simpler to cut a deal with Saddam...." (London Times 1/15/03)

Nor did Bush's State of the Union Message, or Colin Powell's address to the United Nations Security Council, once mention the word "oil." Instead the talk was (in the president's words) of "Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups."

However our leaders are not being candid with us. Oil has been a major US concern about Iraq in internal and unpublicized documents, since the start of this Administration, and indeed earlier. As Michael Renner has written in Foreign Policy in Focus, February 14, 2003, "Washington's War on Iraq is the Lynchpin to Controlling Persian Gulf Oil."

But the need to dominate oil from Iraq is also deeply intertwined with the defense of the dollar. Its current strength is supported by OPEC's requirement (secured by a secret agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia) that all OPEC oil sales be denominated in dollars. This requirement is currently threatened by the desire of some OPEC countries to allow OPEC oil sales to be paid in euros.

The Internally Stated US Goal of Securing the Flow of Oil from the Middle East

As early as April 1997, a report from the James A. Baker Institute of Public Policy at Rice University addressed the problem of "energy security" for the United States, and noted that the US was increasingly threatened by oil shortages in the face of the inability of oil supplies to keep up with world demand. In particular the report addressed "The Threat of Iraq and Iran" to the free flow of oil out of the Middle East. It concluded that Saddam Hussein was still a threat to Middle Eastern security and still had the military capability to exercise force beyond Iraq's borders.

The Bush Administration returned to this theme as soon as it took office in 2001, by adopting, some say commissioning, a second report from the same Institute. (This Task Force Report was co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, another group historically concerned about US access to overseas oil resources.)

As reported by the Scotland Sunday Herald (10/6/02),

"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that `Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US `military intervention' is necessary.

"Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report on `energy security' from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Snr.

"The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges For The 21st Century, concludes: `The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a de-stabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments. `The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.'

"Baker who delivered the recommendations to Cheney, the former chief executive of Texas oil firm Halliburton, was advised by Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron, the US energy giant which went bankrupt after carrying out massive accountancy fraud."



The Unstated US Goals of Increasing the Flow of Oil from the Middle East, and US Dominance of the Area

Behind the acknowledged concern about the "free flow" of Persian Gulf oil are other motives. Following the recommendations of the Task Force Report, the Bush administration wishes to increase international (which may well turn out to mean US) investment in the under-developed Iraq oilfields. On 1/16/03 the Wall Street Journal reported that officials from the White House, State Department, and Department of Defense have been meeting informally with executives from Halliburton, Schlumberger, ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips to plan the post-war expansion of oil production from Iraq (whose oilfields were largely held by US companies prior to their nationalization). The Journal story has since been denied by Administration officials; but, as the Guardian noted on 1/27/03, "It stretches credulity somewhat to imagine that the subject has never been broached." <2>

It is worth pointing out that Saddam Hussein already has offered exploratory concessions (which remained inactive because of the UN sanctions) to France, China, Russia, Brazil, Italy, and Malaysia. If Saddam is replaced by a new client regime, it seems likely that these concessions will be superseded, although there are reports that the US has offered France, Russia and China a share of post-war Iraqi oil, as an inducement to get their support in the Security Council. <3> Last September former CIA Chief Woolsey threatened in the Washington Post (9/15/02) that the price for participation by France and Russia in the post-war Iraq oil bonanza should be their support for "regime change." <4> It would not take much of such menacing talk from official sources to turn the Bush campaign against Iraq into a campaign against Europe (see Postscript).

Iraq's proven oil reserves are 113 billion barrels, the second largest in the world after Saudi Arabia, and eleven percent of the world's total. The total reserves could be 200 million barrels or more, all of it relatively easy and cheap to extract. Thus increasing Iraqi oil production will diminish the market pressure on oil-importing countries like the US. It will also weaken the power of OPEC to influence oil markets by decisions to restrict output. Indeed, were Iraqi oil production to expand to near its capacity, the quotas established by OPEC would cease to be honored in today's market. <5>

But the US is not just interested in oil from Iraq, it is concerned to maintain political dominance over all the oil-producing countries of the region. Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a glimpse of US intentions when he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 6 that success in the Iraq war "could fundamentally reshape that region in a powerful, positive way that will enhance U.S. interests." In conceding that it will be necessary to station US troops in occupied Iraq for the foreseeable future, the US is serving notice to Iran and to Saudi Arabia (both of which were once secure bases for US troops but are so no longer) that the US will reassert its presence as the dominant military power in the region.

The Unstated US Goal of Preserving Dollar Hegemony Over the Global Oil Market

Dominance of Middle Eastern oil will mean in effect maintaining dollar hegemony over the world oil economy. Given its present strategies, the US is constrained to demand no less. As I explain in this extract from my book, Drugs, Oil, and War, the present value of the US dollar, unjustified on purely economic grounds, is maintained by political arrangements, one of the chief of which is to ensure that all OPEC oil purchases will continue to be denominated in US dollars. (This commitment of OPEC to dollar oil sales was secured in the 1970s by a secret agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia, before the two countries began to drift apart over Israel and other issues.)

The chief reason why dollars are more than pieces of green paper is that countries all over the world need them for purchases, principally of oil. This requires them in addition to maintain dollar reserves to protect their own currency; and these reserves, when invested, help maintain the current high levels of the US securities markets.

As Henry Liu has written vividly in the online Asian Times (4/11/02),

"World trade is now a game in which the US produces dollars and the rest of the world produces things that dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies. To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies, the world's central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to their currencies in circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold. This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger. This phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because dollars can buy oil. The recycling of petro-dollars is the price the US has extracted from oil-producing countries for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973.

"By definition, dollar reserves must be invested in US assets, creating a capital-accounts surplus for the US economy. Even after a year of sharp correction, US stock valuation is still at a 25-year high and trading at a 56 percent premium compared with emerging markets."

But central bankers around the world do not expect either the US dollar or the US stock markets to sustain their current levels. As William Greider in The Nation (9/23/02) has pointed out:

"US economy's net foreign indebtedness--the accumulation of two decades of running larger and larger trade deficits--will reach nearly 25 percent of US GDP this year, or roughly $2.5 trillion. Fifteen years ago, it was zero. Before America's net balance of foreign assets turned negative, in 1988, the United States was a creditor nation itself, investing and lending vast capital to others, always more than it borrowed. Now the trend line looks most alarming. If the deficits persist around the current level of $400 billion a year or grow larger, the total US indebtedness should reach $3.5 trillion in three years or so. Within a decade, it would total 50 percent of GDP."

There is also a major potential threat to the overpriced dollar in Japan's unresolved deflationary crisis. As observers like Lawrence A. Joyce have commented, the dollar would take a major pummeling if the Japanese government (as seems quite possible) were suddenly required to fulfil its legal obligations to bail out failed Japanese banks (which could easily happen if a sustained scarcity of oil were to keep oil prices at $40 a barrel or higher):

"There is only one place where the Japanese government can get enough money to bail out its banking system: The Japanese government owns about 15% of our U.S. Treasury securities. And it would have to start selling them if it found itself facing a major banking crisis.

"That would send the already ailing dollar down even further. And the initiation of a sale of our Treasury securities by Japan, of course, would immediately trigger a worldwide stampede to do the same before the securities become worth only a fraction of what they were purchased for. At the same time, interest rates in the U.S. would immediately go through the roof."

Washington is of course aware of these problems, and believes that overwhelming military strength and the will to use it supply the answer, persuading or forcing other countries to support the dollar at its artificial level as the key to their own security. In an article entitled "Asia: the Military-Market Link," and published by the U.S. Naval Institute in January 2002, Professor Thomas Barnett of the US Naval War College, wrote: "We trade little pieces of paper (our currency, in the form of a trade deficit) for Asia's amazing array of products and services. We are smart enough to know this is a patently unfair deal unless we offer something of great value along with those little pieces of paper. That product is a strong US Pacific Fleet, which squares the transaction nicely."

There is some merit to this argument with respect to friendly countries like Japan, whose defense costs have been lowered by the US presence in Asia. But of course the Islamic countries of the world are less likely to appreciate the "great value" of a threatening US presence. Instead they are more likely to follow the example of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, and turn to the Islamic gold dinar as a way to diminish dollar hegemony in world markets and increase the power of Islamic nations to challenge US policies.

The United States has at present little reason to fear a challenge to the dollar from Malaysia. But Malaysia is an Islamic country; and the US has every reason to fear a similar challenge from the Islamic nations in OPEC, were they to force OPEC to cease OPEC oil sales in dollars, and denominate them instead in euros.

The Unstated US Goal of Preserving Dollar Hegemony Against Competition from the Euro

As noted in a recent article by W. Clark, "The Real But Unspoken Reasons for the Iraq War", the OPEC underpinning for the US dollar has shown signs of erosion in recent years. Iraq was one of the first OPEC countries, in 2000, to convert its reserves from dollars to euros. At the time a commentator for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty predicted that Saddam's political act "will cost Iraq millions in lost revenue." In fact Iraq has profited handsomely from the 17 percent gain in the value of the euro against the dollar in that time.

Other countries have gradually been climbing on to the euro bandwagon. An article in the Iran Financial News, 8/25/02, revealed that more than half of Iran's Forex Reserve Fund assets had been converted from dollars to euros. In 2002 China began diversifying its currency reserves away from dollars into euros. According to Business Week (2/17/03) Russia's Central Bank in the past year has doubled its euro holdings to 20 percent of its $48 billion foreign exchange reserves. And for a very good reason, according to its First Deputy Chairman Oleg Vyugin: "Returns on dollar instruments are very low now. Other currency instruments pay more."

Business Week continues:

`The story is the same across the globe. Money traders say that institutions as diverse as Bank of Canada, People's Bank of China, and Central Bank of Taiwan are giving more weight to the European currency. By the end of this year, they predict, the euro could account for 20% of global foreign currency reserves, which today amount to a cool $2.4 trillion. Little more than a year ago, the euro made up just 10%. "No one is saying that the euro's going to replace the dollar as the premier reserve currency," says Michael Klawitter, a currency strategist at WestLB Research in London. "But it will increase in importance for many central banks."...

`The shift to the euro has big implications for the foreign exchange markets and the U.S. and European economies. Currency specialists say the yawning U.S. current account deficit, now at 5%, is bound to drive the dollar down further, and the euro still higher, over the next two to four years. Although the greenback may stage a short-term recovery once the looming war with Iraq is over, predictions are that it will then continue its downward trend, and that central banks will play their part in the descent. "Even if central banks increase their euro holdings by just a few percent, it will have a major impact in the markets," says Klawitter. "We're talking many billions of dollars."'

If not deterred, OPEC could follow suit. Libya has been urging for some time that oil be priced in euros rather than dollars. Javad Yarjani, an Iranian senior OPEC official, told a European Union seminar in April 2002 that, despite the problems raised by such a conversion, "I believe that OPEC will not discount entirely the possibility of adopting euro pricing and payments in the future."

Meanwhile Hugo Chavez has been taking Venezuelan oil out of the petrodollar economy by bartering oil directly for commodities from thirteen other third world countries. Although this has not yet qualified Venezuela for official membership in Bush's "axis of evil," the heavy hand of the Bush Administration in the recent coup attempt against Chavez was only too obvious. (See Observer, 4/21/02, for details about the roles of US officials Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, and John Negroponte.) <5>

Conclusion: How Should the US Be Addressing These Real Problems?

To conclude, the Bush administration is not threatening Iraq out of pique or whim. The recent policies of both parties have indeed made the US vulnerable to foreign oil and petrodollar pressures. But hopefully decent Americans will protest the notion that it is appropriate to rain missiles and bombs upon civilians of another country, who have had little or nothing to do with this crisis of America's own making.

Some in addition will continue to explore avenues whereby America's oil and financial vulnerabilities can be diminished without continuing down the road to Armageddon. These problems are serious, but economists have put forward proposals for diminishing them peacefully and multilaterally. With respect to oil, Ralph Nader has just written, "The demand is simple: Stop this war before it starts and immediately establish a sane national energy security strategy." In fact one key ingredient of such a strategy, restriction of demand, can be found in saner parts of the Baker Institute reports that the Bush administration has so far chosen to ignore.

But an energy strategy for the United States must be addressed in the larger context of an economic and financial restructuring of global institutions and currency flows. With respect to the more esoteric financial problems of the dollar, the economist and futurist Hazel Henderson has written that "My recommendations for reforming current international institutions, revitalizing the UN and expanding civic society are summarized in Beyond Globalization (1999). A more balanced world order must center on reforming global finance, taxing currency exchange and reducing the dollar's unsustainable role as the world's de facto reserve currency (which is destructive for all countries -- even the US itself). I favor a global reserve currency regime based on the parity of the US dollar and the euro. The fundamentals in the USA and the EU suggest that the G-8 has an opportunity to peg the dollar and the euro into a trading band. This, together with the new issue of SDR's . proposed by all the IMF country members, promoted by George Soros and opposed only by the USA, would lend to more stable currency markets."

Without endorsing these specific proposals, I wish to second two rather obvious principles:

1) The problems of global financial instability must be addressed. As George Soros, famed as the man who broke the British pound in 1992, wrote later in the Financial Times,” "To argue that financial markets in general, and international lending in particular, need to be regulated is likely to outrage the financial community. Yet the evidence for just that is overwhelming."

2) A multilateral approach to these core problems is the only way to proceed. The US is strong enough to dominate the world militarily. Economically it is in decline, less and less competitive, and increasingly in debt. The Bush peoples' intention appears to be to override economic realities with military ones, as if there were no risk of economic retribution. They should be mindful of Britain's humiliating retreat from Suez in 1956, a retreat forced on it by the United States as a condition for propping up the failing British pound.

America's influence in the world has up to now been based largely on good will generated by its willingness to resolve matters multilaterally. This legacy of good will is being squandered recklessly, as US officials insult European leaders and steer NATO towards irreconcilable disagreement.

The assumption seems to be that America does not need Europe and can afford to break up an entente that has endured since World War II. The risks of such arrogance are explored in a separate Postscript.

FOOTNOTES

<1> Ari Fleischer Press Briefing of February 6, 2003:

Q Since you speak for the President, we have no access to him, can you categorically deny that the United States will take over the oil fields when we win this war? Which is apparently obvious and you're on your way and I don't think you doubt your victory. Oil -- is it about oil?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, as I've told you many times, if this had anything to do with oil, the position of the United States would be to lift the sanctions so the oil could flow. This is not about that. This is about saving lives by protecting the American people....

Q There are reports that we've divided up the oil already, divvied it up with the Russians and French and so forth. Isn't that true?....

MR. FLEISCHER: No, there's no truth to that, that we would divide up the oil fields.

(Concerning Mr. Fleischer's second answer, see the next two footnotes -- PDS.)

For an exhaustive rebuttal of a similar statement by Ari Fleischer on 10/30/02, see Larry Chin, "The Deep Politics of Regime Removal in Iraq", onlinejournal.com.

<2> An extremely interesting news item last October in Alexander's oilandgas.com revealed that the US was planning not only for the post-war exploitation of Iraq's oil reserves, but for Iraq's relationship to OPEC as well:

"30-10-02 The US State Department has pushed back its planned meeting with Iraqi opposition leaders on exploiting Iraq's oil and gas reserves after a US military offensive removes Saddam Hussein from power to early December. According to a source at the State Department, all the desired participants are not yet available.

"The Bush administration wants to have a working group of 12 to 20 people focused on Iraqi oil and gas to be able to recommend to an interim government ways of restoring the petroleum sector following a military attack in order to increase oil exports to partially pay for a possible US military occupation government -- further fuelling the view that controlling Iraqi oil is at the heart of the Bush campaign to replace Hussein with a more compliant regime. (Emphasis added -- PDS)....

"According to the source, the working group will not only prepare recommendations for the rehabilitation of the Iraqi petroleum sector post-Hussein, but will address questions regarding the country's continued membership in OPEC and whether it should be allowed to produce as much as possible or be limited by an OPEC quota, and it will consider whether to honour contracts made between the Hussein government and foreign oil companies, including the $ 3.5 bn project to be carried out by Russian interests to redevelop Iraq's oilfields, which, along with numerous other development projects, has been thwarted by United Nations sanctions.

<3> "Oil firms wait as Iraq crisis unfolds" by Robert Collier, San Francisco Chronicle,9/29/02:

`Iraqi opposition leaders suggest that unless France, Russia and China support the U.S. line in the Security Council, their oil companies may find themselves blacklisted.

`"We will examine all the contracts that Saddam Hussein has made, and we will cancel all those that are not in the interest of the Iraqi people and will reopen bidding on them," said Faisal Qaragholi, operations officer of the Iraqi National Congress, the opposition coalition based in London that plays a central role in the American anti-Hussein strategy.

`Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, has gone even further, proposing the creation of consortium of American companies to develop Iraq's oil fields.'

<4> As the Asia Times reported on 10/21/02,

`The war of positioning for a possible post-Saddam Iraqi environment is getting more ruthless by the minute. American oil conglomerates are openly courting representatives of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the umbrella opposition. The darling of Exxon Mobil and Chevron Texaco is Ahmed Chalabi, US vice President Dick Cheney's pal and major contender for the title of Iraq's number one opposition figure. Chalabi, the INC leader, has already stressed on the record that he favors the creation of a "US-led consortium to develop Iraqi oil fields. American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil."

`To widespread doubts about how a pro-American post-Saddam government would respect contracts signed with non-American oil giants, the INC has reassured all players - mostly Russian and European - that the new post-Saddam administration will honor all its PSAs.

`The Future of Iraq Group, a State Department task force, officially is not talking about oil - which sounds like a joke. And there's also no official confirmation that oil has been a key issue in the current hardcore Security Council negotiations between the US and Britain, on one side, and France, Russia and China on the other. But it is obviously not by historical accident that oil companies from these five permanent Security Council members are all positioning themselves for the post-Saddam environment.

`People like former CIA supremo James Woolsey are not even disguising Washington's plan to turn Iraq into an American protectorate with an Arab Hamid Karzai al-la Afghanistan eager to open the oil taps for American oil giants. Woolsey had been openly saying that if France and Russia contributed to "regime change", their oil companies would be able to "work together" with the new regime and with American companies. Otherwise, they would be left contemplating passing cargoes in the Gulf.'

<5> Note that the true issue here is not just access to Iraq oil, but control over it. As Michael Parenti reminds us, in 1998, when the UN allowed Iraq to increase its exports into an already over-supplied oil market, this was perceived as a threat to US interests:

`The San Francisco Chronicle (22 February 1998) headlined its story "IRAQ'S OIL POSES THREAT TO THE WEST." In fact, Iraqi crude poses no threat to "the West" only to Western oil investors. If Iraq were able to reenter the international oil market, the Chronicle reported, "it would devalue British North Sea oil, undermine American oil production and---much more important---it would destroy the huge profits which the United States stands to gain from its massive investment in Caucasian oil production, especially in Azerbaijan."'

<5> In August 2000 Chavez met with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, the first dead of state to visit him since the 1991 Gulf War. Chavez told the press later that "We spoke at length on how to boost the role of OPEC." This was part of an extended Chavez tour to bolster OPEC unity against US-led pressure to lower oil prices, then at nearly $30 a barrel.

exactly why France and Germany are against a US invasion of Iraq. They benefit from OPEC taking the euro exclusively instead of the dollar. But then again so does OPEC when we consider that the euro is partially backed by gold and the dollar isn't anything but a magician's illusion.

Y'all really want a change in America, then work on changing our monetary and banking systems. If not, this recession that we're in will never end. In other words, if we can't compete now with all of our manufacturing industries already shipped overseas and our dollar losing worth by the second, how the fuck are we ever supposed to recover?

And please, please, please at the very least wake up to the fact that Saddam Hussein is an asset to the Bush family. Yes, he is supposed to look like an enemy, but realistically he is merely a nifty tool in the Bush tackle box who has always done the bidding of the Bush's. The only reason Bush wants to "remove" Hussein now, is so that he can replace him with his father's next preferred puppet.

to me is the malaysia's intent to move from the dollar back to the traditional money of islam..the dinar...if the other nations begin to follow suit......whoo hoo..party time.

seriously though, the economic implications of this thing are beyond huge. i cant believe people are still under the assumption that nuclear weapons play any part in world domination.

Good posting.
Scraping the dollar is an ongoing debate in all parts of southeast asia. Malaysia and their fearless leader Mahathir is among the first to preach this mantra. However, to say its an attempt to go back to the dinar put a religious connotation on the whole thing. Religion has nothing to do with it.

“It’s very important for us to have an alternative currency to the dollar when we trade,” Mahathir said last week.

Mahathir has valid reasons to be concerned about the dollar’s role. In the age of globalization, where goods are exported, imported and in many case re-imported, it makes sense to make payments in the currencies with which you transact. At a minimum, it would lower costs for Asian importers and exporters when they do business in Europe.

Reducing Asia’s reliance on exports to the US is another plus. Anyone wondering about the health of Asia’s economies need look no further than the West Coast of the US. It’s there you’ll see the biggest cracks in Asia’s recovery.

A recent shutdown at US docks nearly dragged the region’s economies into recession. The ports have reopened, but the episode was instructive. That a faraway labor dispute could have done what a US recession, Japanese deflation and European gloom didn’t raises questions about Southeast Asia’s economic health.

The euro also may be appealing because it lacks a domestic agenda. The US is quite adept at steering the dollar up and down depending on economic trends. In the early 1990s, for example, a lower dollar was favored to boost growth.

Later in the decade the White House favored a rising currency to attract foreign capital. Since 12 countries use Europe’s single currency, it may be less susceptible to unpredictable political agendas. Also, the European Central Bank, not politicians, manages it.

Problem with this whole arguement is that the euro still can't hold its own in terms of world currencies.
“Basically,” the Malaysian leader said, “the euro is not standing on its own legs yet.”

If and when it ever does they'll change. Believe it.


www.foreignaffairs.org
www.antislavery.org
www.lemonde.com

Blame them. shit...contagion fucked shit up overthere. For a time having a condo in sri lanka was essential, and asian markets were wide open. Now? Free Market zones in china ishe only hot shit.

damn.

Like I posted before, we were close to going into an economic tailspin that we WOULD NOT have recovered from if not for the mercenary money we got to fight Desert Storm during the first Bush administration.

We are fucked if we don't pull out of this one. Australia is doing WELL tho.

If you love psuedo Brit/ Dirty(no so real) Euro templates, move there.
----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

Im not following......

Thing with the baht and the contagion that CRUSHED the paper tiger countries is that the whole thing was smoke and mirrors. Unlimited credit lines to phony corporations, loans that were never going to be repaid, and so on. When it came down ( were talking 25 baht to the dollar to 54 baht to the dollar overnight) the ripple effect extended so far because all the neighboring countries (and the rest of asia for the most part)had economies based on the same falsehoods. Dont get me wrong, individuals like George Soros had alot to do with what happened but as the saying goes, "you can huff and puff but if the house is brick you aint blowin shit down."

a standard, and most of those loans were coming out of Korea, and Japan. Sure there were smoke and mirrors, but the US dollars situation contributed significantly to the fall of Real estate ventures in Thailand, and then there was a HUGE ripple effect across the Far east/asia.

China is still strong, and Austrilia is actually BENEFITING. My thing is that people don't understand what this "global community" means. It means that everyone has a greater stake now in economic,political, and military poilicies of sovereign states worldwide.

This is by NO means an excuse, just fact. An ugly fact. Shit...It will all fall apart. If this shit don't work out right for the US we will be another Italy. Poor, disenfranchised, and yet another fallen imperial power. THAT'S why Bosh can't pull away. There is too much at stake.

And as a politician, I would have a hard time supporting pulling out of this war. Shit is ugly.

All about Oil and Dollars.


----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

>Blame them. shit...contagion fucked shit up overthere.
Here's Malaysia take on contagion and how their economy got fucked...
DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD: Because we have no say in controlling currency speculation. They can speculate with any currency, and their speculation is so designed that they can either revalue a currency or devalue a currency to any level. They hold this power, and they can literally make or break you by just by doing that. It has nothing to do with bad government or corruption or not being transparent, because if you are a bad government then long ago our currency would have collapsed. Long ago we would not be able to build up the country. But is the same government, ... exactly the same government which has built up the economy of this country, and yet suddenly we are being told that is due to our bad government that the currency is collapsing. We don't believe that. We believe that it was due to people just selling off our currency, selling down our currencies. That's why it was devalued, not otherwise.

>a time having a condo in sri lanka was essential, and asian
>markets were wide open.
NOTE: Buy a condo NOW in Sri Lanka if you were ever going to buy a condo anywhere. If peace lasts you'll reap a quick windfall. But that my speculation...

Now? Free Market zones in china
>ishe only hot shit.

China is an unknown. Its a huge market that HAS YET to show its worth. Hot shit.... we'll see soon enough.
>
>damn.
>
>Like I posted before, we were close to going into an
>economic tailspin that we WOULD NOT have recovered from if
>not for the mercenary money we got to fight Desert Storm
>during the first Bush administration.

Sounds interesting. sources? references?
>
>We are fucked if we don't pull out of this one. Australia
>is doing WELL tho.

New Zealand is doing the best simply because they're economy is so out of the loop globally they lucked up.
>
>If you love psuedo Brit/ Dirty(no so real) Euro templates,
>move there.

Nuff said.
>---------------------
>Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se
>ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
>_______________________
>
>The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
>http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm
>
>Refreshing Lyrics:
>http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt
>
>"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley
>
>www.jru.org.jm
>Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!
>
>
>"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid
>attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform
>action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be
>impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called
>discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish
>the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth,
>they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna
>
>"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not
>realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking
>Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty,
>wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A.
>Bomani Baruti)

Alot of the shit I got was from House and Senate sessions that are online, "The war on Freedom" by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (Exec. Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in Brighton, England- and conincidently a source Cynthia Mckinney used to accuse Bosh Jr. of his prior knowledge of 9-11, an unmistakeable FACT), Random papers from Conservative Think Tanks I pulled up on search engines, and Commanding Height Website/TV program ( a wealth of info. you can spend a lifetime exploring this site and learn SO much- it's amazing. Link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/ )


This might be able to narrow down your searches tho. It's a great place to start:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/timemap/index.html


New Zealand and Australia- good point on them being outside the loop. On a previous post I noted how they are not anywhere NEAR producing at their greatest levels (western economically speaking) They have SO much untapped potential. They are really in a similar position that the US was in around the 19th century. In this global market, if someone is ailing- someone else is benefitting, and right now that someone is New Zealand, and the Aussies.

Big time.

----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

>>
>>damn.
>>
>>Like I posted before, we were close to going into an
>>economic tailspin that we WOULD NOT have recovered from if
>>not for the mercenary money we got to fight Desert Storm
>>during the first Bush administration.
>
>Sounds interesting. sources? references?
>>

damn. im trying to find you some more resources on this. ive read so much on this its hard to remember where i read certain things. but firebrand is right..pretty much our economy has been on a downward spiral since about the 50's or the 60's...although there are no nations ready to step up and assume power the way the US did when it stopped nurturing the british and keeping them as a dummy leader until 1956 (see: ) our economy will eventually become a victim of its own design and collapse.

but back to the gulf war...yeah..we were headed into a deep recession, but we were able to make money off of gulf war I because it was financed mostly by our allies (see: ) as appossed to this war, which will be payed for completely by the taxpayers.

i'll keep digging for resources.

>A recent shutdown at US docks nearly dragged the region’s
>economies into recession. The ports have reopened, but the
>episode was instructive. That a faraway labor dispute could
>have done what a US recession, Japanese deflation and
>European gloom didn’t raises questions about Southeast
>Asia’s economic health.

This is what is called a " Shock-test" ,basically you create
a crisis to evaluate what are the underlaying properties of
the targatted subject (i.e. If the price of gas goes up by 10%,
by how much does a household diminish its dependecy to sugar
and milk and so forth.... you get the picture ?)

It's all mathematics, if you're comfortable with these kind of
ideas I'll show you how the world works ! Ballsy statements !
Hey the CIA is busy right now ....

yall act like if the US loses the dollar-oil nexus the US is fuct. truth be told, having a strong competitor to value of a dollar is a good thing. if the euro does take over, that means more countries can afford to buy US goods. Right now the dollar is so much higher than the rest of the world, its difficult for the middle nations to buy US stuff. yes, the oil-dollar nexus puts oil on lock and makes it easy to control inflation and pay off debt, but losing it isnt the end of the world. The US could start exporting a lot more (since we import nearly everything) which would help stabilize the economy. and dont forget, we live in a global economy. the top 10 largest international banks have money all over the world. and the largest oil companies hold major stock in other large industries. i guess the question is, and economists stipulate on both sides, how big will the impact be? if the switch occurs, investors will worry and oil prices will increase, but once iraq is allowed to produce oil freely, the world will be flooded with cheap oil and then the US can concentrate on straightening out Venzuela.

a democratically elected government?

geez you people really scare me. you guys are dangerous.

i really don't have much to add except i wish that more people understood this conflict from this angle.

i'm sure the factory/manufacturing industry workers (and their descendants) who have gotten the shaft for the last couple of generations understand it instinctively, if nothing else. they are probably more sensitive to how drastically the economy has changed than others.


and i know there would be many who would support the war if only to keep our heads above water.

but i've been saying for awhile now that in order for change to come over humanity and the world community, america is going to have to fall. i never thought i'd see it, but i was sure my grandchildren would...

but who knows now.
_____________________________
...les francais frisent sont belge.

here's your alternatives....
1. reevaluate ALL existing wmd treaties and force compliance across the board. make us re-sign the treaty dubya backed out of. be held liable by the world court. etc. act like we share the planet w/ others
2. let the inspectors work.
3. insure that, in exchange for continued disarmament, the sanctions are lifted from the iraqi people. create infrastructure.
4. with a delegation of iraqi & other mideast factions, discuss alternatives to current governmental structures IN KEEPING WITH their cultural integrity and sovreignty
5. disarm israel. what's good for the goose...
6. finish what we started in afghanistan (not like i agree w/ that either, really, but...) and truly work to restabilize the country
7. give more attention to alternative energy sources.
(c) me

www.poetsagainstthewar.org



"i think you're a witch" ~utamaroho

in line. British imperialism reigns supreme. FOILED again! We won't be rid of this shit for generations.

----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

that's why i'm really considering leaving this country. i'm just sick of the guilt by association factor @ this point.

_____________________________
...les francais frisent sont belge.

here's your alternatives....
1. reevaluate ALL existing wmd treaties and force compliance across the board. make us re-sign the treaty dubya backed out of. be held liable by the world court. etc. act like we share the planet w/ others
2. let the inspectors work.
3. insure that, in exchange for continued disarmament, the sanctions are lifted from the iraqi people. create infrastructure.
4. with a delegation of iraqi & other mideast factions, discuss alternatives to current governmental structures IN KEEPING WITH their cultural integrity and sovreignty
5. disarm israel. what's good for the goose...
6. finish what we started in afghanistan (not like i agree w/ that either, really, but...) and truly work to restabilize the country
7. give more attention to alternative energy sources.
(c) me

www.poetsagainstthewar.org



"i think you're a witch" ~utamaroho

its like stopping a good movie right at the good part.

this is the time that all the stuff that all of us have called for will go down.

true, some of us may die, or may not live to see it, but isnt this right here what its all about?

if the us loses this war, or is forced into a ceasefire, iraq becomes a power player in that region again. the euro continues its upward trend. the dollar loses value. americans get pissed with the loss of US life in this war. the bush administration goes. we go into deep recession wiht the devalue of the dollar as the standard of purchase in the world. people get more upset..and so on..and so on..and so on...

im anxious.

im just hoping the iraqi's can withstand shock and awe. thats an attempt to destroy their morale. if they can survive that, everything else should fall into place. iraq's forces inside of bahgdad are capable of causing significant enough american casualties. as well as several other force multipliers, like the militia groups..the US is going into hostile territory. this wont be fighting in open areas like in kuwait. saddaam wasnt stupid enough to send his elite forces into that type of situation. air superiority means nothing in a war like this.

just survive shock and awe baby! thats my cry.

Are you actually hoping that Iraq wins the war against the US?
If so, that is taking things way too far. Plus you shouldn't be posting such traitorous things on the internet.

Changing our monetary, banking, and taxation systems doesn't necessarily require the loss of a single life. That would be a much more reasonable and effective way to revolutionize America than any of the potential bloodbaths that I've seen you allude to on these boards.

which its apparent it is..then as a spectator, i can analyze the sides cant i

maybe i should change something up. im not 'pro-war' in the sense that like you said, i would like to see this stuff changed without the shed of blood.

but the fact is that its d-day. things are going down pretty soon. i hate the fact that americans and iraqis will be putting their lives on the line for the exploits of a few men. its really sad, and my heart goes out to the families of everyone involved...from the most pro-war general to the cadet from brooklyn who's scared shitless cuz he doenst know what the hell lies ahead for him in iraq...also to the mothers of the soon to be dissappeared in iraq.

but if we win this thing, then we just become more powerful. i dont think thats necessarily a good thing.

u are right in that aspect.

but i don't think we'll make it...not in the sense that we'll escape unscathed and this will be nice & neat & pretty.

this will be another vietnam. history has already started repeating itself (maybe we are in the matrix? lol): the protests, the unconventional warfare, etc. we couldn't deal w/ an "enemy" that was prepared to die before, and i don't think we can now.

and what happens if opec decides the u.s. needs to be shut down, WITH the approval of the UN. on some, "they're crazy & need to be stopped, let's make this happen..."


there are just too many factors to consider. too many things could go too many ways for us to be so sure about this "war". that's what's always worried me & why war should ALWAYS be a last resort. you WEIGH the consequences first, for god's sake.


_____________________________
...les francais frisent sont belge.

here's your alternatives....
1. reevaluate ALL existing wmd treaties and force compliance across the board. make us re-sign the treaty dubya backed out of. be held liable by the world court. etc. act like we share the planet w/ others
2. let the inspectors work.
3. insure that, in exchange for continued disarmament, the sanctions are lifted from the iraqi people. create infrastructure.
4. with a delegation of iraqi & other mideast factions, discuss alternatives to current governmental structures IN KEEPING WITH their cultural integrity and sovreignty
5. disarm israel. what's good for the goose...
6. finish what we started in afghanistan (not like i agree w/ that either, really, but...) and truly work to restabilize the country
7. give more attention to alternative energy sources.
(c) me

www.poetsagainstthewar.org



"i think you're a witch" ~utamaroho

interesting reading, cheers.

No disrespect intended.

>As the United States made preparations for war with Iraq, White >House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, on 2/6/03, again denied to >US journalists that the projected war had "anything to do with >oil." <1> He echoed Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld, who on >11/14/02 told CBS News that "It has nothing to do with oil, >literally nothing to do with oil."

They are both correct.

>Speaking to British MPs, Prime Minister Tony Blair was just as >explicit: "Let me deal with the conspiracy theory idea that >this is somehow to do with oil. There is no way whatever if oil >were the issue that it would not be infinitely simpler to cut a >deal with Saddam...." (London Times 1/15/03)

He's right.

....Oil is just another smokescreen for the left-wing. It's just a nice little sourdough bread slice, that no one wants, before the main course. Once you begin to smell the main course, you'll find the entrance to the rabbit hole. All you have to do is poke your head in the opening to know this "war" ain't got shit to do with oil or Saddamn.

Truth 2 U

Thanx for the sources.good reading

Thanx for the reply.good questions.

without going into details,

do you really think that oil is not a consideration in a war in this region? a vast amount of the worlds oil reserves are in the region, and the west is heavily dependent on oil.

the importance of the region doesn't come from all the sand it has.

and do you really think that it has nothing to do with saddam? if saddam was toeing the line with the west, do you really think that the nature of his regime, or his having chemical / biological weapons would really be a consideration.

to be honest, i don't think that the war is solely to do with oil, i think theres a whole load of factors influencing the us and the uk, however, i also don't think its quite as simple as the official lines coming from the us and uk governments.

>without going into details,
>
>do you really think that oil is not a consideration in a war
>in this region?



a vast amount of the worlds oil reserves are
>in the region, and the west is heavily dependent on oil.

True, But Saudi Arabia has more of it than Iraq. Blair is correct when he said, it would be much easier to just strike a deal. The military/defense spending on this "war" is approaching the trillion mark, while the economy is shit(purposely so). There are much easier ways to get oil.

>
>the importance of the region doesn't come from all the sand
>it has.
>
>and do you really think that it has nothing to do with
>saddam?

It's MUCH bigger than Saddam. After the US occupys that region(It will do this), do you think our gas prices will drop and everything will go back to "normal". I don't one bit.

if saddam was toeing the line with the west, do you
>really think that the nature of his regime, or his having
>chemical / biological weapons would really be a
>consideration.

Both smokescreen excuses are used to justify going into the region. If he had them already and intended to use them against the US, he'd have done so already. In the worm-hole, this seems like two separate opposing leaders, but in reality, both these of dudes are puppets. Bill Clinton didn't take Saddam out because he wasn't allowed to...He was also a puppet.

>
>to be honest, i don't think that the war is solely to do
>with oil, i think theres a whole load of factors influencing
>the us and the uk, however, i also don't think its quite as
>simple as the official lines coming from the us and uk
>governments.

They always mix a little truth with a gang of lies. This line about it not being about oil, is a truthful line, because it's MUCH bigger than oil. EVERTHING you see has been carefully orchestrated and are the manifestations of plans that began decades ago(likely further), by the individuals who both Saddam and Bush answer to higher up the pyramid.

Truth 2 U

>>without going into details,
>>
>>do you really think that oil is not a consideration in a war
>>in this region?
>
>
>
>a vast amount of the worlds oil reserves are
>>in the region, and the west is heavily dependent on oil.
>
>True, But Saudi Arabia has more of it than Iraq. Blair is
>correct when he said, it would be much easier to just strike
>a deal. The military/defense spending on this "war" is
>approaching the trillion mark, while the economy is
>shit(purposely so). There are much easier ways to get oil.
>
>>

this is a myth. at the end of the day, speculation puts the iraqi oil fields at 450billion (or trillion) barrels compared to saudi arabias 250.

saudi has the most currently being operated and used, but the speculation is that iraq has a much greater supply of untapped barrels.


>>the importance of the region doesn't come from all the sand
>>it has.
>>
>>and do you really think that it has nothing to do with
>>saddam?
>
>It's MUCH bigger than Saddam. After the US occupys that
>region(It will do this), do you think our gas prices will
>drop and everything will go back to "normal". I don't one
>bit.
>
>if saddam was toeing the line with the west, do you
>>really think that the nature of his regime, or his having
>>chemical / biological weapons would really be a
>>consideration.
>
>Both smokescreen excuses are used to justify going into the
>region. If he had them already and intended to use them
>against the US, he'd have done so already. In the worm-hole,
>this seems like two separate opposing leaders, but in
>reality, both these of dudes are puppets. Bill Clinton
>didn't take Saddam out because he wasn't allowed to...He was
>also a puppet.
>
>>
>>to be honest, i don't think that the war is solely to do
>>with oil, i think theres a whole load of factors influencing
>>the us and the uk, however, i also don't think its quite as
>>simple as the official lines coming from the us and uk
>>governments.
>
>They always mix a little truth with a gang of lies. This
>line about it not being about oil, is a truthful line,
>because it's MUCH bigger than oil. EVERTHING you see has
>been carefully orchestrated and are the manifestations of
>plans that began decades ago(likely further).
>
>

i agree with everything else you stated.

----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

about the lack of the libertarian party on this thread.

im interested to see their take on this.

An article like this gets posted, and the thread comes to life. Everybody starts cheerleading and taking it as the whole truth and nothing but the truth, eventhough it was almost entirely based upon speculation, and was written by, or hosted by some Berkeley liberal who obviously shares your agenda...

But I post an article written by somebody who's against the war, meaning, somebody who doesn't have the same agenda that I do, and he killed the oil conspiracy with cold hard logic because he knows how ridiculous it is. Like 3 people respond, then the thread gets locked.

I'm not suprized though, the truth means little here.

In case you missed it, the post that got locked for no reason at all, here it is...

==============

Blood for Oil?

by Jerry Taylor

Jerry Taylor is director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute (outspoken critics of the war).

Is the coming war with Iraq about oil when all is said and done? The anti-war movement seems to think so. I am not so sure.

Unless the peace movement has discovered telepathy, I doubt that it's in any better position to divine the hidden thoughts or secret motivations of George Bush and Tony Blair than I am. Arguing about unstated motives, therefore, is a waste of time -- claims cannot be proven or disproven.

Is it so difficult, however, to imagine that both Bush and Blair sincerely believe -- rightly or wrongly -- that a well-armed Iraq poses an intolerable danger to the civilized world? If access to oil were of concern to them, one might have expected members of their administrations to hint as much. The Thatcher and Bush administrations, after all, were quite open about the role that oil played in justifying the first go-around in Kuwait. Polls in the United States revealed at the time, moreover, that the public responded favorably to the argument. Why the supposed reticence now?

Regardless, it's difficult to know exactly what is being alleged when one is confronted by the slogan "No Blood for Oil!"

If the argument is that war is primarily being executed to ensure global access to Iraqi oil reserves, then it flounders upon misunderstanding. The only thing preventing Iraqi oil from entering the world market in force is the partial U.N. embargo on Iraqi exports. Surely if access to Iraqi oil were the issue, it would have occurred to Bush and Blair that removing the embargo is about $100 billion cheaper (and less risky politically) than going to war.

If the argument is that war is being undertaken to rape Iraqi reserves, flood the market with oil, bust the OPEC cartel, and provide cheap energy to western consumers, then war would be a dagger pointed at the heart of the "Big Oil." That's because low prices = low profits. Moreover, it would wipe out "Little Oil" -- the small-time producers in Texas, Oklahoma, and the American Southwest that President Bush has long considered his best political friends. Accordingly, it's impossible to square this story with the allegation that President Bush is a puppet of the oil industry.

In fact, if oil company "fat cats" were calling the shots -- as is often alleged by the protesters -- President Bush would almost certainly not go to war. He would instead embrace the Franco-German-Russian plan of muscular but indefinite inspections because keeping the world on the precipice of uncertainty regarding conflict is the best guarantee that oil prices (and thus, oil profits) will remain at current levels.

If the argument is that "Big Oil" is less interested in high prices than it is with outright ownership of the Iraqi reserves, then how to account for Secretary of State Colin Powell's repeated promise that the oil reserves will be transferred to the Iraqi government after a new leadership is established? Do the protestors think that this high-profile public commitment is a bald-faced lie? Moreover, if that's the real goal of this war, then I'm forced to wonder why the U.S. didn't seize the Kuwaiti fields more than 10 years ago.

If the argument is that this war is aimed at installing a pro-American regime more inclined to grant oil contracts to American and British rather than French and Russian oil firms, then it invites a similar charge that France and Russia are against war primarily to protect their cozy economic relationships with the existing Iraqi regime. Regardless, only one or two American or British firms in this scenario would "win" economically while the rest would lose because increased production would lower global oil prices and thus profits. Because no one knows who would win the post-war contract "lottery," it makes little sense for the oil industry (or the politicians who supposedly cater to them) to support war.

Moreover, the profit opportunities afforded by Iraqi development contracts are overstated. The post-war Iraqi regime would certainly ensure that most of the profits from development were captured by the new government, whose reconstruction needs will prove monumental. In fact, Secretary Powell has repeatedly hinted that Iraqi oil revenues would be used for exactly that purpose. Big money in the oil industry goes to those who own their reserves or who secure favorable development contracts, not to those who are forced to surrender most of the rents through negotiation.

If the argument is that the United States is going to war to tame OPEC (accomplished, presumably, by ensuring that a puppet regime holds the second largest reserves within the cartel), then it runs up against the fact that the United States has never had much complaint with OPEC. Occasional posturing notwithstanding, both have the same goal: stable prices between $20-$28 a barrel. The cartel wants to keep prices in that range because it maximizes their profits. The United States wants to keep prices in that range because it ensures the continued existence of the oil industry in the United States (which would completely disappear absent OPEC production constraints) without doing too much damage to the American economy. The United States doesn't need a client state within the cartel, particularly when the cost of procuring such a state will reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Oil, however, is relevant to this extent: Whoever controls those reserves sits atop a large source of potential revenue which, in the hands of a rogue state, could bankroll a sizeable and dangerous military arsenal. That's why the United States and Great Britain care more about containing the ambitions of Saddam Hussein than, say, the ambitions of Robert Mugabe. Still, if seizing oil fields from anti-western regimes is the name of the game, why aren't U.S. troops massing on the Venezuelan border and menacing Castro "Mini-Me" Hugo Chavez?

In sum, the argument that the impending war with Iraq is fundamentally about oil doesn't add up. While everyone loves a nice, tidy political morality play, I doubt there is one to be found here."

This war is not about oil.

Find something else to mislead people with.

One article is from a professor from a historically "liberal" college who MIGHT have liberal leanings; the other article was funded by, written by a member of, and published by a KNOWN/professed "conservative" think tank.

Not to mention the fact that the Berkeley article includes citing from a combination of direct quotes, and non-liberal media...you are really reaching.

Apples and Oranges.

Try again.

I do however, consider both "liberal" and "conservative" opinions, because I know that neither have my best interests at heart, and that somewhere in the middle the FACTS might be hiding.

I do feel what you are saying about the responses, but you should KNOW why it was locked. It was a new "war" post. Those are getting locked. There is an anchor at the top of the page explaining this. Read it.

----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

and like you said, the article posted above contains links to all of its references and sources...which is why i suggested reading it from the original link.

one man's opinion from a right wing think tank doesnt really match up with this article.

The San Fransico Chronical is a non-liberal news source?

Neat.

to find that source in the article..

because it seems you skipped over the washington post, the wall street journal, the scotland sunday herald, the asian times, the iran financial news, businessweek, the financial times, and the london times, to name just a few of the many you missed.

the thing i dont get about you guys (libs and conservs in general) is you pass yourselves off as being intellectualls, but then you read an article like this and spend your time trying find the smallest tidbit that will support your theory, instead trying to see where this is coming from. have you researched this angle at all, or do you automatically dismiss it because a 'liberal' posted it and automatically post your rebuttal?

thats not intellect, thats arrogance. its also ignorant. its also why there can never be a common ground, but instead were always trying to outsmart,outclass,outinsult,outwit each other..instead of building.

lost that point negative AC (since you have taken the rebuttal stance)...you failed to address Business Week, and other sources.

*shakes head*

don't try that simpleton shit with me.

----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

I come here to debate because I'm bored. I know I'm right, and I know those on my side are right. When this is all said and done, it will be apparent to the world that we were in the right, and those on your side were severly mistaken.

You express the same view as France for Christ sake. The same France who turned their head when Hitler was building his evil regime in Germany. Like France, you are all about the United Nations, who since it's inception in 1945 has only backed up their resolutions by force twice, once in Korea, the other time in Iraq in 91. You support this body who has Lybia as head of the Commission on Human Rights, and Iraq as head of the disarmament comittee. You support this body who has failed time and time again. Allowing genocide to take place in Yugolsavia, allowing 800,000 to be slaughtered in Rwanda. Then you say baseless bullshit like "Why rush to war", when the UN has thrown 15 resolutions at Iraq over the last 11 years, and Saddam has defied each and every one of them. Then you come with this "Unilateral" argument, when nothing about this campaign is unilateral. Your whole anti-war "movement" is predicated on nonsense and anybody with a moderate intelligence level can see that.

Now, unless you stand to profit from your ignorant anti-america babble like Amira Baraka, Michael Moore, or any of these other pieces of shit, you will probably not share their views when you get older.

That would be my bet.

im assuming you mean firebrand, although you seem to be answering my post.

i dont give a fuck about the UN. they're hands are just as bloody as george bush's. bloodier even.

you really shouldnt make assumptions about people you dont know.

this whole fucking thing needs to be tore down and rebuilt from the ground up.

>im assuming you mean firebrand, although you seem to be
>answering my post.

I'm refering to anybody who's against disarming Saddam Hussein because the UN didn't approve of it.

>i dont give a fuck about the UN. they're hands are just as
>bloody as george bush's. bloodier even.

Who's hands aren't bloody in your eyes?

>you really shouldnt make assumptions about people you dont
>know.

I think it was a fair assumption.

>this whole fucking thing needs to be tore down and rebuilt
>from the ground up.

That's what we are doing in Iraq at this very moment.

>>im assuming you mean firebrand, although you seem to be
>>answering my post.
>
>I'm refering to anybody who's against disarming Saddam
>Hussein because the UN didn't approve of it.

oh. then you're not talking to me because im against disarming saddam until we disarm israel, ourselves, the british, the french, pakistan, india, etc...not cuz of the un charter...i'll repeat in case u missed it the first time..fuck the un...and if we're not going to do that, fuck it, give em all nukes. whats good for the goose right?

so i'll ignore the rest of your rant since it wasnt aimed at me.
>
>>i dont give a fuck about the UN. they're hands are just as
>>bloody as george bush's. bloodier even.
>
>Who's hands aren't bloody in your eyes?
>
>>you really shouldnt make assumptions about people you dont
>>know.
>
>I think it was a fair assumption.
>
>>this whole fucking thing needs to be tore down and rebuilt
>>from the ground up.
>
>That's what we are doing in Iraq at this very moment.

u still havent addressed the article. but thats ok. i understand your tactic.

'liberals' - 1

libertarians - 0

>u still havent addressed the article. but thats ok. i
>understand your tactic.
>
>'liberals' - 1
>
>libertarians - 0

Who has addressed what I posted?

Furthermore, do you actually expect me to go research, and refute every last charge on that 10 paragraph page?

No thank you.

And I'm not a libertarian.

>>u still havent addressed the article. but thats ok. i
>>understand your tactic.
>>
>>'liberals' - 1
>>
>>libertarians - 0
>
>Who has addressed what I posted?

u didnt post anything more than a mindless rant based on assumptions which applied probably to the smallest percentage of people here. definately didnt apply to me. u also went on to rant about a post of yours taht was locked, when thats not an issue you need to take up with me. perhaps if you werent so arrogant you would realize that your post wasnt the only one locked. Maybe if you read guerilla's post, you will see that she is trying to keep the war postts to a minimum.

oh and your post was based entirely on one man's opinion..and as expected, all your cronies hopped on it the minute you posted it as fact..without questioning any sources..but now you question the legitimate sources from the above post. right.

>Furthermore, do you actually expect me to go research, and
>refute every last charge on that 10 paragraph page?
>

or you can go research, and come back and confirm what was written. and how can you formulate an opinion on the war if you havent done the research. i think you've just proved that you support out of blind allegiance, not out of any knowledge of the facts. i also find it interesting how none of your other buddies have tried to engage in this discussion. Maybe they know a little more than you, and have no way to try and refute this. either way, you're no smarter than Saddam who took the bait in kuwait in 91.

>No thank you.
>
>And I'm not a libertarian.

>u didnt post anything more than a mindless rant based on
>assumptions which applied probably to the smallest
>percentage of people here. definately didnt apply to me.

Same could be said for what was posted in this thread.

>u
>also went on to rant about a post of yours taht was locked,
>when thats not an issue you need to take up with me. perhaps
>if you werent so arrogant you would realize that your post
>wasnt the only one locked. Maybe if you read guerilla's
>post, you will see that she is trying to keep the war postts
>to a minimum.

It wasn't a post about the war starting, it was a post about oil. This to is a post about oil.

>oh and your post was based entirely on one man's
>opinion..

So what was the article posted here based on? It's one common opinion for one particular side. No different than what I posted at all.

and as expected, all your cronies hopped on it the
>minute you posted it as fact..without questioning any
>sources..but now you question the legitimate sources from
>the above post. right.

Oh I must have missed the part where all the fair-minded okayplayers questioned the sources of this article. When do any of you question the sources of articles you agree with? Never. If you did, then so many of you might not be so misguided all the time.

>or you can go research, and come back and confirm what was
>written. and how can you formulate an opinion on the war if
>you havent done the research.

I have done research.

>i think you've just proved
>that you support out of blind allegiance,

If posting an article that I agree with, instead of writting up my own personal analysis equates to blind allegiance, then literally everybody here is guilty of it.

>not out of any
>knowledge of the facts. i also find it interesting how none
>of your other buddies have tried to engage in this
>discussion. Maybe they know a little more than you, and have
>no way to try and refute this. either way, you're no smarter
>than Saddam who took the bait in kuwait in 91.

Saddam took the bait? God, now you are making excuses for Saddam Hussein?

The bottom line on the oil is this. After this war, all Iraqi oil assests will go into a UN trust fund, and be used TOTALLY, to help the Iraqi people. None of these bullshit charges you make about Bush or Cheney will hold true. They will gain nothing from this war, other than safety.

And that is the truth.

Look at how wrong your side has been just over the last day. Saddam said he had no missles with the range of Scud's used in Desert Storm, he has launched atleast 4 already that greatly exceed the limits restricted by the UN. Ricin was found in France today, and most people believe it to come from the home of "Chemical Ali". In all liklihood, it does. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, the have banned conventional weapons, the have and will give them to terrorists, Saddam Hussein is a threat to world peace.

because neither this post nor any of the replies refer to oil.

you lost again.

>because neither this post nor any of the replies refer to
>oil.
>
>you lost again.

Tell me you are not this stupid, please. This is your post, and these are the headers..

"BUSH'S DEEP REASONS FOR WAR ON IRAQ: OIL, PETRODOLLARS, AND THE OPEC EURO QUESTION"

"The Internally Stated US Goal of Securing the Flow of Oil from the Middle East"

"The Unstated US Goal of Preserving Dollar Hegemony Over the Global Oil Market"

This post isn't about oil huh?

Then what the fuck is it about?

seriously.

send in reinforcements.

you didnt even read the article.

the largest chunk of this article concerns economics..and not oil...at least not in the sense that its a plundering just for the sake of being in control of the worlds oil. (although thats a nice little bonus for the US)

your article tries to dismiss the fact that oil plays any part in this invasion...which is a lie.

go back, and re-read. you've really come across as uncredulous in this post. i was hoping to engage some of you guys in a serious discussion about this, instead youve resorted to skim and smear tactics.

im disengaging at this point.

>>u still havent addressed the article. but thats ok. i
>>understand your tactic.
>>
>>'liberals' - 1
>>
>>libertarians - 0
>
>Who has addressed what I posted?

That's not the point. You were the one to refute said article, the burden of proof is on you,furthermore, you dodged the question YET AGAIN by asking one of your own. *tsk tsk*
>
>Furthermore, do you actually expect me to go research, and
>refute every last charge on that 10 paragraph page?

Yes. That's what you are supposed to do if you are trying to have a sound debate/discussion about this article as a whole. If you want to have a more specific conversation try sticking to ONE topic, and give points to support your argument.

>
>No thank you.

Weak.

>
>And I'm not a libertarian.

Who cares what you are? One thing trascends any label that can be applied to you: You are weak.

----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

Seenic bases all of his opinions on his almighty "common sense" though Firebrand, how can you question that kind of documentation?

"There's a lot you can do with a giant four foot dried, curling, boomerang seed pod from the Botang Tree that grows only in Indonesia."
-Tom Waits

"It's not about a salary it's all about reality."
-KRS-One

"Me being wack is like naps on Kojack."
-RZA

It's better to base opinions on common sense than common hatred.

Buy a mirror.

Study yourself in it.

>>Who has addressed what I posted?
>
>That's not the point.

That's exactly the point. You expect me other conservatives here to always prove these articles you all post wrong, but yet none of you ever respond to articles we post, specifically the one I posted yesterday. If you want me to spend hours upon hours refuting statements in articles that you post, then you and your friends here need to start doing the same thing.

>>Furthermore, do you actually expect me to go research, and
>>refute every last charge on that 10 paragraph page?

>Yes. That's what you are supposed to do if you are trying
>to have a sound debate/discussion about this article as a
>whole.

I agree, start practicing what you preach.

>If you want to have a more specific conversation try
>sticking to ONE topic, and give points to support your
>argument.

I do all the time.

>>No thank you.
>
>Weak.
>
>>
>>And I'm not a libertarian.
>
>Who cares what you are? One thing trascends any label that
>can be applied to you: You are weak.

I'm weak?

I'm not the one who jumps on the anti-America bandwagon and gives up every fiber of my individuality to join this little bullshit movement/club. I'm not the one who lets myself get programmed by communists on a daily basis. I'm not the one that has invented this grudge that keeps me from seeing the truth about my country. I don't need to march with a thousand idiots in the streets to feel validated as human being.

>I'm not the one who jumps on the anti-America bandwagon and
>gives up every fiber of my individuality to join this little
>bullshit movement/club. I'm not the one who lets myself get
>programmed by communists on a daily basis. I'm not the one
>that has invented this grudge that keeps me from seeing the
>truth about my country. I don't need to march with a
>thousand idiots in the streets to feel validated as human
>being.


fucking mccarthyism 50 years later.

what next a red fuckin scare on the activist boards?

dude, get a grip.

>>>Who has addressed what I posted?
>>
>>That's not the point.
>
>That's exactly the point. You expect me other conservatives
>here to always prove these articles you all post wrong, but
>yet none of you ever respond to articles we post,
>specifically the one I posted yesterday. If you want me to
>spend hours upon hours refuting statements in articles that
>you post, then you and your friends here need to start doing
>the same thing.

Ah, I see. You want to answer a question with a question. That must be it, because this particular post is about the Berkely article, an article that you have yet to address in a meaningul way. Instead, you post another article that you want others to read. I understand this behavior. I've seen it plenty of times. I just haven't seen it often with persons over the age of 5.

>>>Furthermore, do you actually expect me to go research, and
>>>refute every last charge on that 10 paragraph page?
>
>>Yes. That's what you are supposed to do if you are trying
>>to have a sound debate/discussion about this article as a
>>whole.
>
>I agree, start practicing what you preach.

I try to. This post isn't about your article. Stop trying to post jack.

>>If you want to have a more specific conversation try
>>sticking to ONE topic, and give points to support your
>>argument.
>
>I do all the time.

You have yet to display these traits in this post. Or perhaps you don't understand the meaning of topicality or argumentation. Do you?

>
And I'm not a libertarian.
>>
>>Who cares what you are? One thing trascends any label that
>>can be applied to you: You are weak.
>
>I'm weak?
>
>I'm not the one who jumps on the anti-America bandwagon and
>gives up every fiber of my individuality to join this little
>bullshit movement/club.

Neither am I. If you actually read any of my posts you would realise that I am not anti-war or anti America. I am anti foolishness.

I'm not the one who lets myself get
>programmed by communists on a daily basis.

Right. Communism is a disease, much like capitalism- only death is quicker, and less personalized.

I'm not the one
>that has invented this grudge that keeps me from seeing the
>truth about my country.

Hmmm...what is "truth"? Truth is defined by perspective. I deal with facts.

I don't need to march with a
>thousand idiots in the streets to feel validated as human
>being.

I don't either, but I don't frown on those who do- that is what they need to do for themselves. You won't see me in a anti-war march. I'm not anti war. Then again, you wouldn't know that- cus you don't read and comprehend.

And that's all I have to say about that. I'm done. *wipes hands of seenic's vile stench*
----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

>I'm refering to anybody who's against disarming Saddam
>Hussein because the UN didn't approve of it.

I don't think anyone is
against disarming a mad
man. Rather, the majority
of the world realizes that
there are ways of doing it
without resorting to war.

Overwhelming evidence
suggests the inspections
were working just fine.

What give the U.S. the right
or moral authority to invade
another country by force when
it poses absolutely no threat
whatsoever, to our safety?

>I don't think anyone is
>against disarming a mad
>man. Rather, the majority
>of the world realizes that
>there are ways of doing it
>without resorting to war.

And those ways have worked haven't they?

No.

>Overwhelming evidence
>suggests the inspections
>were working just fine.

And what evidence is this? Saddam decided to destroy a few missles once we put 200,000 troops in his backyard?

Inspections have never worked.

>What give the U.S. the right
>or moral authority to invade
>another country by force when
>it poses absolutely no threat
>whatsoever, to our safety?

No threat whatsoever? you have got to be kidding me.

Saddam Hussein gives millions of dollars to the families of suicide bombers, but you seem to be under the impression that this isn't supporting terrorism. You seem to be under the impression the he'd never give any chemical or biological weapons to terrorist groups because "they hate each other, Saddam isn't a religious leader". If they hated each other, and Saddam wasn't an Islamic extremist, or atleast a supportive of those who are, he wouldn't be giving millions of dollars to the families of Islamic extremists who blow up little children in Israel.

Get your head in the game.

Saddam is not only a threat to America, he is also a threat to the peace in the middle east. The same peace that Bush is trying to accomplish with the creation of a Palestinian state.

It's also important to keep in mind, that the Bush administration gave Saddam several choices, several ways out..Saddam chose this war, not Bush.

Look at the war right now on TV. What's going on? The US isn't mass bombing innocent civilians, in fact, they are going out of their way, risking their own safety in order to end this war without the use of this "shock and awe" campaign. More Americans have died thus far, doesn't that tell you anything?

>And those ways have worked haven't they?
>
>No.

Yes, they were working. Inspectors
were even griping about the fact
that they had to leave Iraq because
the U.S. was going to invade.

>>Overwhelming evidence
>>suggests the inspections
>>were working just fine.
>
>And what evidence is this? Saddam decided to destroy a few
>missles once we put 200,000 troops in his backyard?

Bullshit. Hans Blix and the numerous
inspectors who were there argued that
the inspections were working just fine.

Were you there? I didn't think so.

>>What give the U.S. the right
>>or moral authority to invade
>>another country by force when
>>it poses absolutely no threat
>>whatsoever, to our safety?
>
>No threat whatsoever? you have got to be kidding me.
>
>Saddam Hussein gives millions of dollars to the families of
>suicide bombers, but you seem to be under the impression
>that this isn't supporting terrorism. You seem to be under
>the impression the he'd never give any chemical or
>biological weapons to terrorist groups because "they hate
>each other, Saddam isn't a religious leader". If they hated
>each other, and Saddam wasn't an Islamic extremist, or
>atleast a supportive of those who are, he wouldn't be giving
>millions of dollars to the families of Islamic extremists
>who blow up little children in Israel.

Umm, hello, I asked you what
threat Iraq poses to the U.S.,
I didn't say anything about
Israel. If Saddam is a threat
to Israel, let Israel fight
it's own damn battles.

We might recall the warning of
General Lee Butler, head of
Clinton's Strategic Command in
the early 90s, that "it is dan-
gerous in the extreme that in
the cauldron of animosities that
we call the Middle East, one na-
tion has armed itself, ostensibly,
with stockpiles of nuclear weapons,
perhaps numbering in the hundreds,
and that inspires other nations to
do so." He was referring to Israel.

The new inspectors have searched
hundreds of places all over Iraq,
and tested more than 300 chemical
and biological samples and found
absolutely no evidence that Iraq
possesses banned chemical, nuclear
or biological weapons. All the sites
that US intelligence said had weapons
turned out to be empty, and some of
the inspectors recently told CBS news
that the information they were getting
from the US is 'garbage.' The UN insp-
ectors said that the satellite images
that the US presented were worthless.

>Saddam is not only a threat to America, he is also a threat
>to the peace in the middle east. The same peace that Bush is
>trying to accomplish with the creation of a Palestinian
>state.

Quit being a numb skull and grow
up. Neither Bush nor anyone else
can CREATE a Palestinian state
except for the Palestinians them-
selves. Furthermore, Bush cannot
establish peace in the Middle East.
That is a goal that is to be acc-
omplished by those residing in that
region.

>It's also important to keep in mind, that the Bush
>administration gave Saddam several choices, several ways
>out..Saddam chose this war, not Bush.
>
>Look at the war right now on TV. What's going on? The US
>isn't mass bombing innocent civilians,

Heeeeeelloooooo, the war just
started.

When all was said and done after the
1990-91 Gulf War, nearly 200,000 cas-
ualties had occurred.

>Yes, they were working. Inspectors
>were even griping about the fact
>that they had to leave Iraq because
>the U.S. was going to invade.

The UN has always had an anti-force policy, that's to be expected. They think everything can be worked out diplomatically. History has shown us time and time again that they have little credibility in reagrds to making decisions like these.

>Bullshit. Hans Blix and the numerous
>inspectors who were there argued that
>the inspections were working just fine.

No, Hanz Blix stated that there was "progress", but that Iraqi's were still not fully in compliance. The "progress" came when the troops started building up outside Iraq. Everybody knows that. Didn't you read about the report Blix wrote up? Where he put the instances of Iraqi non-compliance in the very end, and went out of his way to stress "progress"? This is how the UN works. Like I said the UN is ultra-diplomacy, and most of the UN has an anti-American slant to begin with.

They had 11 years. Inspections didn't work for 11 years. When does the time for talking end?

>>No threat whatsoever? you have got to be kidding me.
>>
>>Saddam Hussein gives millions of dollars to the families of
>>suicide bombers, but you seem to be under the impression
>>that this isn't supporting terrorism. You seem to be under
>>the impression the he'd never give any chemical or
>>biological weapons to terrorist groups because "they hate
>>each other, Saddam isn't a religious leader". If they hated
>>each other, and Saddam wasn't an Islamic extremist, or
>>atleast a supportive of those who are, he wouldn't be giving
>>millions of dollars to the families of Islamic extremists
>>who blow up little children in Israel.
>
>Umm, hello, I asked you what
>threat Iraq poses to the U.S.,
>I didn't say anything about
>Israel. If Saddam is a threat
>to Israel, let Israel fight
>it's own damn battles.

You missed the point completely.

>We might recall the warning of
>General Lee Butler, head of
>Clinton's Strategic Command in
>the early 90s, that "it is dan-
>gerous in the extreme that in
>the cauldron of animosities that
>we call the Middle East, one na-
>tion has armed itself, ostensibly,
>with stockpiles of nuclear weapons,
>perhaps numbering in the hundreds,
>and that inspires other nations to
>do so." He was referring to Israel.

Now this, is way off the topic.

>The new inspectors have searched
>hundreds of places all over Iraq,
>and tested more than 300 chemical
>and biological samples and found
>absolutely no evidence that Iraq
>possesses banned chemical, nuclear
>or biological weapons. All the sites
>that US intelligence said had weapons
>turned out to be empty, and some of
>the inspectors recently told CBS news
>that the information they were getting
>from the US is 'garbage.' The UN insp-
>ectors said that the satellite images
>that the US presented were worthless.

We'll see wont we? When this war is over, we'll see if they have the weapons or not. When we don't have inspectors staying in bugged hotels, followed around by Iraqi officials who's job it is to decieve.

>Quit being a numb skull and grow
>up. Neither Bush nor anyone else
>can CREATE a Palestinian state
>except for the Palestinians them-
>selves. Furthermore, Bush cannot
>establish peace in the Middle East.
>That is a goal that is to be acc-
>omplished by those residing in that
>region.

And history has clearly shown that these people are capable of that to, right?

>>Look at the war right now on TV. What's going on? The US
>>isn't mass bombing innocent civilians,
>
>Heeeeeelloooooo, the war just
>started.

Heeeeeeelloooooo, it's not going to happen.

>When all was said and done after the
>1990-91 Gulf War, nearly 200,000 cas-
>ualties had occurred.

Try 100,000 Iraqi soldiers.

200,000 innocent civilians did not die in Desert Storm.

>The UN has always had an anti-force policy, that's to be
>expected.

As well as encouraged

>No, Hanz Blix stated that there was "progress", but that
>Iraqi's were still not fully in compliance. The "progress"
>came when the troops started building up outside Iraq.

Bullshit. The inspectors were
making considerable progress;
there was no need for troop
build-up.

>>Umm, hello, I asked you what
>>threat Iraq poses to the U.S.,
>>I didn't say anything about
>>Israel. If Saddam is a threat
>>to Israel, let Israel fight
>>it's own damn battles.
>
>You missed the point completely.

Beautiful retort.

>>We might recall the warning of
>>General Lee Butler, head of
>>Clinton's Strategic Command in
>>the early 90s, that "it is dan-
>>gerous in the extreme that in
>>the cauldron of animosities that
>>we call the Middle East, one na-
>>tion has armed itself, ostensibly,
>>with stockpiles of nuclear weapons,
>>perhaps numbering in the hundreds,
>>and that inspires other nations to
>>do so." He was referring to Israel.
>
>Now this, is way off the topic.

Again, nice rebuttle. If anything, it's
way ON topic, because Bush is condemning
country for possessing weapons of mass
destruction.

>>The new inspectors have searched
>>hundreds of places all over Iraq,
>>and tested more than 300 chemical
>>and biological samples and found
>>absolutely no evidence that Iraq
>>possesses banned chemical, nuclear
>>or biological weapons. All the sites
>>that US intelligence said had weapons
>>turned out to be empty, and some of
>>the inspectors recently told CBS news
>>that the information they were getting
>>from the US is 'garbage.' The UN insp-
>>ectors said that the satellite images
>>that the US presented were worthless.
>
>We'll see wont we? When this war is over, we'll see if they
>have the weapons or not. When we don't have inspectors
>staying in bugged hotels, followed around by Iraqi officials
>who's job it is to decieve.

Hahahahahahaaaaaa! Yet again, what
a nice retort.

>And history has clearly shown that these people are capable
>of that to, right?

When the U.S. doesn't meddle in
their affairs, yes. Besides, "gain
some perspective -- as you said --
history is in the past.


>>>Look at the war right now on TV. What's going on? The US
>>>isn't mass bombing innocent civilians,
>>
>>Heeeeeelloooooo, the war just
>>started.
>
>Heeeeeeelloooooo, it's not going to happen.
>
>>When all was said and done after the
>>1990-91 Gulf War, nearly 200,000 cas-
>>ualties had occurred.
>
>Try 100,000 Iraqi soldiers.
>
>200,000 innocent civilians did not die in Desert Storm.

No, more died because we destroyed
their water supply and infrastructure.

i dont know if you're aware of this or not, but you still havent addressed anything in the article.

in a way you've jacked this post, but you cant even do that right without presenting bs arguments.

you really just sound like a pre-recorded cnn broadcast..

stick to the facts man, not what you would like to be true.

I'm done with this topic.

Go ahead and make up whatever story you want to as to why. But I just want you to keep something in mind...

Saddam doesn't love you.

Bin Laden Doesn't love you.

Arafat doesn't love you.

Castro doesn't love you.

Papa Smurf doesn't love you.

Marky Mark doesn't love you.

....neither does the Funky Bunch

Jaleel White doesn't love you.

Sean Hannity doesn't love you.

Spud Webb doesn't love you.

Christina Aguilera doesn't love you.

You are a slut, and nobody loves you.

Get it together grouch.

>I'm done with this topic.
>
>Go ahead and make up whatever story you want to as to why.
>But I just want you to keep something in mind...
>
>Saddam doesn't love you.
>
>Bin Laden Doesn't love you.
>
>Arafat doesn't love you.
>
>Castro doesn't love you.
>
>Papa Smurf doesn't love you.
>
>Marky Mark doesn't love you.
>
>....neither does the Funky Bunch
>
>Jaleel White doesn't love you.
>
>Sean Hannity doesn't love you.
>
>Spud Webb doesn't love you.
>
>Christina Aguilera doesn't love you.
>
>You are a slut, and nobody loves you.

Well, why do you think I masturbate?
It's making love to someone I deeply
care about.

*Squeezes KY Jelly in hand*

>Well, why do you think I masturbate?
>It's making love to someone I deeply
>care about.
>
>*Squeezes KY Jelly in hand*

I can't argue with that.

But we didn't need to hear about it. player

Keep it in the closet.

I have yet to see anybody back you up fully in any argument on these boards because no matter what general leaning they have they all know you're full of shit. Get the fuck out of here with your sexist, 50s loving self.

Just because you believe absolutely everything you're told on CNN doesn't make everybody else wrong.

"There's a lot you can do with a giant four foot dried, curling, boomerang seed pod from the Botang Tree that grows only in Indonesia."
-Tom Waits

"It's not about a salary it's all about reality."
-KRS-One

"Me being wack is like naps on Kojack."
-RZA

>I have yet to see anybody back you up fully in any argument
>on these boards because no matter what general leaning they
>have they all know you're full of shit.

Or maybe it's because I'm a conservative on a board that's 99.9% liberal.

>Get the fuck out of
>here with your sexist, 50s loving self.

You are a joke that isn't funny.

>Or maybe it's because I'm a conservative on a board that's
>99.9% liberal.

Other conservatives on this board didn't agree with your stance dumbass.

>>Get the fuck out of
>>here with your sexist, 50s loving self.
>
>You are a joke that isn't funny.

OUCH!

"There's a lot you can do with a giant four foot dried, curling, boomerang seed pod from the Botang Tree that grows only in Indonesia."
-Tom Waits

"It's not about a salary it's all about reality."
-KRS-One

"Me being wack is like naps on Kojack."
-RZA

>>Or maybe it's because I'm a conservative on a board that's
>>99.9% liberal.
>
>Other conservatives on this board didn't agree with your
>stance dumbass.

Really?

Name me one.

>I come here to debate because I'm bored. I know I'm right,
>and I know those on my side are right.

So confident, arent we? Ahh, Rome was too. I hear they turned out fine.

When this is all said
>and done, it will be apparent to the world that we were in
>the right, and those on your side were severly mistaken.

Who is "we"? You and your imaginary friend?

>You express the same view as France for Christ sake. The
>same France who turned their head when Hitler was building
>his evil regime in Germany. Like France, you are all about
>the United Nations, who since it's inception in 1945 has
>only backed up their resolutions by force twice, once in
>Korea, the other time in Iraq in 91.


You support this body
>who has Lybia as head of the Commission on Human Rights, and
>Iraq as head of the disarmament comittee. You support this
>body who has failed time and time again. Allowing genocide
>to take place in Yugolsavia, allowing 800,000 to be
>slaughtered in Rwanda. Then you say baseless bullshit like
>"Why rush to war", when the UN has thrown 15 resolutions at
>Iraq over the last 11 years, and Saddam has defied each and
>every one of them.


More assumptions... only I doubt they don't apply to the two people you were addressing because I don't think either of them give a damn about france, the UN or whether saddam is disarmed or not. You dont know anyones specific opinions on specific topics and instead make offbase assumptions built off your perception of the narrowminded, "us vs. them" mentality. How sad.

Then you come with this "Unilateral"
>argument, when nothing about this campaign is unilateral.

Only 4 nations specifically involved in military combat (all of whom are western and very specific allies) and this ISNT unilateral?

>Your whole anti-war "movement" is predicated on nonsense and
>anybody with a moderate intelligence level can see that.

I guess most of the world, and not to mention 30-50% americans have no intelligence. But then again, 50% of americans (the other half) think most of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi so maybe I shouldnt even go there.

>Now, unless you stand to profit from your ignorant
>anti-america babble like Amira Baraka, Michael Moore, or any
>of these other pieces of shit, you will probably not share
>their views when you get older.

::claps:: half decent rebuttal. I'd give you a B+.

>That would be my bet.




Peace and Love
-Ren

>>I come here to debate because I'm bored. I know I'm right,
>>and I know those on my side are right.
>
>So confident, arent we? Ahh, Rome was too. I hear they
>turned out fine.

Different world, different power.

> When this is all said
>>and done, it will be apparent to the world that we were in
>>the right, and those on your side were severly mistaken.
>
>Who is "we"? You and your imaginary friend?

That's the best you could come up with?

>>You express the same view as France for Christ sake. The
>>same France who turned their head when Hitler was building
>>his evil regime in Germany. Like France, you are all about
>>the United Nations, who since it's inception in 1945 has
>>only backed up their resolutions by force twice, once in
>>Korea, the other time in Iraq in 91.
>
>
>You support this body
>>who has Lybia as head of the Commission on Human Rights, and
>>Iraq as head of the disarmament comittee. You support this
>>body who has failed time and time again. Allowing genocide
>>to take place in Yugolsavia, allowing 800,000 to be
>>slaughtered in Rwanda. Then you say baseless bullshit like
>>"Why rush to war", when the UN has thrown 15 resolutions at
>>Iraq over the last 11 years, and Saddam has defied each and
>>every one of them.
>
>
>More assumptions... only I doubt they don't apply to the two
>people you were addressing because I don't think either of
>them give a damn about france, the UN or whether saddam is
>disarmed or not. You dont know anyones specific opinions on
>specific topics and instead make offbase assumptions built
>off your perception of the narrowminded, "us vs. them"
>mentality. How sad.

That's what it is. If you don't support disarming Saddam, for whatever reason, you are "them"

>Then you come with this "Unilateral"
>>argument, when nothing about this campaign is unilateral.
>
>Only 4 nations specifically involved in military combat (all
>of whom are western and very specific allies) and this ISNT
>unilateral?

Look up the word in the dictionary.

>>Your whole anti-war "movement" is predicated on nonsense and
>>anybody with a moderate intelligence level can see that.
>
>I guess most of the world, and not to mention 30-50%
>americans have no intelligence.

That's about right.

Comments like the following are just straight up administration style black and white statements:

>That's what it is. If you don't support disarming Saddam,
>for whatever reason, you are "them"

Continue to give us those facts Seenic, you're so much smarter than the rest of us.

"There's a lot you can do with a giant four foot dried, curling, boomerang seed pod from the Botang Tree that grows only in Indonesia."
-Tom Waits

"It's not about a salary it's all about reality."
-KRS-One

"Me being wack is like naps on Kojack."
-RZA

personal shortcoming/issue/anger or problem that they have chosen Okayplayer's activist forum as a place to vent.

That's fine. Seenic just won't get anymore convo from me. I'm about solutions, and/or real conversation about REAL subjects.

I can't deal in abstractions, and fake worlds that peole want to create.

It's like getting into a convo with my Dad about the US's current economic situation- it's impossible. He's a Clinton lover, and in his mind Clinton can do no wrong.

There are irrational people on the liberal side, and conservative side of American politics. Fuck 'em, God bless 'em...forget 'em. I aint got time to babysit 'em.


----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

Umm, excuse you, friend, but
the U.S. warmly supported
Hitler until 1935 and impl-
emented quotas to reduce
Jewish immigration during
the war.

Clean out your own backyard
before you go peekin' in some-
one elses.

*Breaks crispy loaf of French
bread & sips French wine*

>Umm, excuse you, friend, but
>the U.S. warmly supported
>Hitler until 1935 and impl-
>emented quotas to reduce
>Jewish immigration during
>the war.

I think it's important to note that Hitler took power in 1933, and it wasn't until 1935, the year that you refer to, that Hitler began his evil run. So any ideas that you have about America supporting Hitler during the holocaust, or even during his violations of human rights are wrong.

The Nuremberg Laws were enacted in 1935. That was the start of everything.

As far as the jews and the quotas, I know you aren't trying to put America's stance on immigration back then on equals with Hitlers views on the Jewish during his reign. The Quota Act wasn't a restiction on Jewish immigration alone, it was a resrtiction on immigration as a whole. Jews were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. In retrospect, we should have revoked the act right when got word of the death camps. However, we were going through the depression, and while I don't agree with the decision, I understand it.

I think we made up for it with Israel anyhow.

>I think it's important to note that Hitler took power in
>1933, and it wasn't until 1935, the year that you refer to,
>that Hitler began his evil run. So any ideas that you have
>about America supporting Hitler during the holocaust, or
>even during his violations of human rights are wrong.

I really feel bad for you, as you cont-
inuaslly grasp at straws.

My man, the U.S. State Department
described Hitler as "a moderate who
stands, in 1937, between extremes
of right and left" and they said that
"Hitler must win or else the masses now
supported by the disillusioned middle
classes might turn to the left and that
would be a tragedy" (Chomsky, 2000).

Moreover, U.S. companies such as
Ford, GM, Standard Oil, Chase Nat-
ional Bank, and ITT all loved had
connections to his regime (Trading
With The Enemy: An Exposé of the
Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949,
by Charles Higham (Delacorte Press,
1983).

In the case of Mussolini, the State
Department hailed his "magnificent
achievements" in Ethiopia, and his
"astonishing contributions" to the
welfare of the masses in Italy itself.
FDR in 1939 wrote internally that the
efforts of the man he had called 'that
admirable Italian gentleman.'

>As far as the jews and the quotas, I know you aren't trying
>to put America's stance on immigration back then on equals
>with Hitlers views on the Jewish during his reign. The Quota
>Act wasn't a restiction on Jewish immigration alone, it was
>a resrtiction on immigration as a whole. Jews were just in
>the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Immigration Restriction Act
of 1924, was designed consciously
to halt the immigration of supposedly
"dysgenic" Italians and Jews, whose
numbers had mushroomed during the
period from 1900 to 1920.

Breckenridge Long, as head of the
State Department, greatly reduced
Jewish immigration to the US to
control possible spies and sabot-
eurs from coming to America. Long
was willing to use illegal means to
control the flow of Jewish refugees.
He ordered American consulates to
put every obstacle in the path of
immigrants trying to come to America.
Long centralized the final approval of
all visas to the State Department
office in America, making the process
much slower and increasing the paperwork
and time needed for approval.

That's because the only time he cracked a history book was to try and cram for the graduation exam he in all likelihood failed.

"There's a lot you can do with a giant four foot dried, curling, boomerang seed pod from the Botang Tree that grows only in Indonesia."
-Tom Waits

"It's not about a salary it's all about reality."
-KRS-One

"Me being wack is like naps on Kojack."
-RZA

You are too pussy whipped to be gay, so my guess is that you are just a sore loser. I came into a discussion one day, killed your points, then the next day, killed your points, then the next day, then the next day...

You are just a sore loser, and the way you deal with those L's is to follow me around and talk shit.

It's quite sad, to be honest with you.

You think asking a woman to put her children above her career is oppressive for Christ sakes. How can you even take yourself seriously?

>This war is not about oil.

This war is not COMPLETELY about oil.

What the rest of it is, I sure as hell know it's not
"terrorism", else we would be cutting off North Korea
and quick now.

berkeley representing once again. i'll have to check out one of his classes. campus should be very interesting today.

PLEASE ARCHIVE THIS !!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS THE KIND OF INFO THAT THIS BOARD WAS BUILT FOR.
NO CHILDISH SHIT JUST FACTS....

The danger part is :" You have people looking at the facts
without a committed emmotionnal position "

But that can be fixed with a good propaganda.
What good is propaganda if you can't conveince the world
that our Freedom is in danger.

suprisingly enough considering the source. I detected no bias- just a GREAT source of info. Watch/read it all if you can- it WILL give you tremendous perspective as we begin to peice together the puzzle of foreign and domestic policy in ALL US administrations, and search for FACTS on which to base our opinions, peep:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/

----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

n/m

http://www.hri.org/MFA/thesis/winter98/geopolitics.html

Notice that this date is 1998: (text)

The Geopolitics of Oil in Central Asia
By Constantine Arvanitopoulos, Assistant Professor of International Politics at the Panteion University and Head of Planning at Institute of International Relations (I.I.R.)

One important geopolitical consequence of the demise of the Soviet Union was the rise of intense political and commercial competition for control of the vast energy resources of the newly independent and vulnerable states of the Caucasus and Central Asia.

These energy resources and, in particular, the oil and natural gas deposits have now become the apple of discord in Central Asia introducing, according to analysts, a new chapter in the ÃGreat GameÅ (1) of control over Eurasia.

Although the stakes involved remain the same, i.e., power, influence, security, wealth, the new playing field is further complicated by an array of problems. These include intra-regional conflict, political instability, fierce competition among multinational conglomerates, and a shortfall in commercial expertise and legal infrastructures (2).

Moreover, the fact that the three countries which share the majority of the regionÅs energy and resources, namely Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, are landlocked makes them depend on their immediate neighbours for access to the Western markets.

The essence of this new geopolitical game in Central Asia is twofold: first, control of production of the oil and gas, and second, control of the pipelines which will transfer the oil to the Western markets (3).

From a geopolitical point of view, Central Asia has always been important (4). From the middle to the end of the 19th century, while the region was part of the Russian Empire, the oil-bearing areas of Baku were producing half of the worldÅs oil supplies (5). In World War II, during his campaign against Russia, Hitler tried to capture Baku and the Caucasian oil fields as part of his strategy for world domination. After the war, the Soviets retained these areas as reserves, choosing to exploit oil deposits on Russian soil, in Tatarstan and Siberia (6).

Following the collapse of communism, the ex-Soviet republics of Central Asia, especially Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, have been trying to exploit their natural resources, since they consider oil to be the prime means of securing their economic and political independence. According to the estimates of geologists, the oil deposits of the Caspian Sea may not be quantitatively comparable to the deposits of the Persian Gulf, but they are still considered of excellent quality and able to provide a significant alternative source of energy in the 21st century (7). In particular, it is estimated that the entire Caspian Sea is a basin full of oil and natural gas, starting from Azerbaijan and continuing to the opposite shore in the territory of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. These deposits take on enormous importance because of the expected exhaustion of the deposits of Alaska and the North Sea by the year 2015.


The Issue of Production

Azerbaijan


Azerbaijan belongs to one of the areas of the world richest in oil and has a long history in the production of oil and natural gas. Despite its age-old production, Azerbaijan still possesses considerable oil deposits, which have remained unexploited. During the 20th century, the oil industry in Azerbaijan drew oil from the deposits in the countryÅs land subsoil, while offshore development began only in the middle of our century, and at a small depth. The first major offshore oilfield from which oil was drawn was the ÃOil RocksÅ, in 1949. When this source was exhausted, it was replaced by another offshore oilfield, the ÃGuneshliÅ, which was discovered in 1980 and by 1991 covered 57% of AzerbaijanÅs output. In addition, offshore exploration for oil deposits in the Caspian Sea had already borne fruit in the 1980s with the discovery of three major oilfields - ÃChiragÅ, ÃAzeriÅ, ÃKapazÅ - at great depth (8).

The problem was that, even though the Soviet oil industry had successfully developed its offshore oilfields and was even among the pioneers in this field, it had done so through virtually primitive means. The Soviet oil industry was never technologically able to develop offshore oilfields at great depth. Thus, AzerbaijanÅs offshore oilfields have remained, to a large extent, undeveloped. AzerbaijanÅs government has invited major foreign oil companies possessing the necessary technology, capital and project organisation to develop its offshore fields (9). The three biggest Azeri oilfields are being developed by the Azerbaijan International Operating Company, a twelve-company consortium which includes BP and Amoco (10).

The negotiations on the development of these oilfields involve complex legal, technical and commercial issues. The most important problem is the lack of a legal framework for the development and exploitation of AzerbaijanÅs oil. Furthermore, the restructuring of the domestic oil industry and negotiations with foreign companies have been hampered by the frequent changes of government. In order to improve the prospects for foreign investment, Azerbaijan is considering the adoption of a more flexible legal framework on oil contracts. Within this context, the government of Azerbaijan founded in August 1992 a public oil company adopting the norms of modern international oil companies. Every negotiation with foreign companies is conducted through this government company, while the development of joint stock status is being considered.

In order to conform to international practice and complete the negotiations as soon as possible, the government of Azerbaijan has also sought the advice of experienced international consultants (11).

Apart from the development of the oilfields, which has already begun, Azerbaijan continues its explorations for other deposits in the Caspian Sea. In the part of the Caspian belonging to Azerbaijan, around 24 sites have been singled out as suitable for drilling.

It is obvious that the development of the energy sector will have beneficial effects on AzerbaijanÅs economic development, in general. The prospects of AzerbaijanÅs energy sector will depend on whether new projects for the exploitation of the new deposits under the seabed prove to be satisfactory. The oil balance sheet is expected to show improvements compared with the current year, particularly if the exploitation of the ÃGuneshliÅ oil field continues unobstructed. In the long run, total oil production is expected to reach 25.6 million tons per year in the year 2000 and 45.2 million tons in 2005, by which time the exploitation of other offshore deposits will have begun. Since domestic consumption is not expected to rise significantly, the total quantity of oil for export is expected to reach 20.8 million tons in 2000 and 39.7 tons in 2005 (12).


Kazakhstan


Kazakhstan, ranking second -after Azerbaijan- among the oil-producing countries of the former Soviet Union, also commands abundant energy resources. Because of the countryÅs position, the transit routes and oil pipelines, Kazakhstan exports oil mainly to the Russian Federation (13). Oil represents 15% of KazakhstanÅs total exports. If the programme of reforms and the pace of foreign investments proceed according to schedule, it is estimated that in 1998 oil will account for 60% of KazakhstanÅs exports (14).

Kazakhstan has tried to attract foreign investors with advanced technology and expertise for the extraction of these deposits. A large number of foreign investments are already in progress in Kazakhstan. The most important ones include the agreement with Chevron to develop the oilfield of Tengiz, in western Kazakhstan, and the agreement with a consortium which includes British Gas, Agip and Texaco, to develop the Karachaganak field in northern Kazakhstan (15). ChevronÅs investment in Tengiz began in 1993 and, when completed, it is expected to come up to the level of 20 billion dollars. The investment of the British Gas/Agip consortium is of approximately the same size. The completion of these investments will have important consequences for the oil exports and the economic development of Kazakhstan.

The government of Kazakhstan is also examining various alternative proposals for the construction of an oil pipeline which will channel the oil to the West. The most feasible proposal seems to be the one that entails the upgrading of the existing network which traverses the area around the northern part of the Caspian Sea, ending at the port of Novorossisk, in conjunction with the modernisation of the facilities of this Russian port. This solution entails close Cupertino with Russia and Azerbaijan. Other proposals under examination include an oil pipeline, which will cross the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan and Georgia to end at a Turkish port. Another proposal, which was turned down after American pressure, involved an oil pipeline which would cross Iran, ending in the Persian Gulf.

With regard to the financing of the oil pipelines, meetings are being held and promises made by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The construction of the new pipeline or the upgrading of the existing network for the channelling of oil to the West will undoubtedly be the key to the countryÅs economic development.


The issue of pipelines


With deals to develop the oilfields in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan already signed, the biggest problem facing foreign investors is how to transport the oil to foreign markets. Unlike other big oil producers, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are landlocked. The issue of pipeline selection has therefore acquired enormous geopolitical significance for the future of the region. The existing pipeline routes for oil from Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan ran through Russia to the port of Novorossisk on the Black Sea, giving Moscow a considerable advantage in the process of pipeline selection (16). Following the agreement between Chevron and Kazakhstan, Moscow initially refused to allow crude oil through its pipeline system. It later placed restrictions on the amount of oil which could be transported through its pipelines and imposed a series of high tariffs. All these manoeuvres resulted in a deal which allowed Russia to become member of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, which will build a $2 billion pipeline from Kazakhstan to Novorossisk.

The Azerbaijan International Operating CompanyÅs Ãearly oilÅ is being transported along two routes which for the most part use existing pipelines: a northern route through Dagestan and Chechnya to Novorossisk, and a second western route to the Georgian port of Supsa. Oil is already flowing along the northern route, and so far, the Chechens have been bought off with substantial transit fees (17).

These pipeline arrangements are temporary solutions dealing only with the transport of the early oil. The final decision regarding the selection of the pipelines which will carry the main oil is expected sometime in 1998. In theory, new pipelines could go in almost any direction. Northern routes could enhance the existing network and serve RussiaÅs needs. Western routes could serve Europe, while southern or eastern routes could serve the Asian markets (18).

The main options are the following: (19)

1. The northern route favoured by Russia. According to this option, Kazakhstan would expand its existing pipelines to link them to the Russian network and Azerbaijan would build a pipeline from Baku to Novorossisk. The shortcomings of this option have to do with fears of establishing excessive Russian control over the pipeline and also the issue of security, since the pipeline would go through Chechnya.

2. The western route favoured by Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia and the United States. This pipeline route would bring the oil to the Georgian port of Supsa and then ship it through the Black Sea and the Bosporus to Europe. Turkey insists that the straits cannot cope with increased tanker traffic and has proposed, instead, to construct a pipeline from Baku to the port of Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean coast. However, excessive costs (around $2.9 billion) and serious security concerns (this route would pass through unstable Kurdish territory) make this option difficult to implement. Instead, the Bosporus could be by-passed by a pipeline linking the Bulgarian port of Burgas with the Greek port of Alexandroupolis.

3. The southern route. Economically, this is the most viable option, since Iran already has an extensive pipeline system, and the Gulf is a good exit to the Asian markets. The United States, however, has practically vetoed this option.

4. Eastern route. This pipeline would transport oil from Kazakhstan to China. It will be the costliest pipeline (covering 2,000 km in Kazakhstan alone) but the Chinese consider it as a strategic decision and are willing to implement it.

5. South-eastern route. The American oil company Unocal has proposed the construction of oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and later to India. This route makes sense geographically but not politically, since it will have to go through unstable Afghanistan.

The final decision about the pipeline or the pipelines which will transport the Caspian oil will be taken sometime in 1998 and is hard to predict in view of the multiplicity of options and competing interests. Given the strength of the Russian and American support for the northern and the western routes respectively, these pipelines seem to have an advantage over the others.


The Policies of the Great Powers in Central Asia

US Foreign Policy


The structure of the oil industry in the West changed radically and perhaps permanently in 1973. Control of the worldÅs oil resources shifted from the big multinational oil companies to a small number of oil-producing countries, most of them members of OPEC. The oil crisis of 1973-4 and the two increases in oil prices which followed, one in 1973 and another at the end of the 1970s, forced the countries of the West to reshape their policy on energy by emphasising alternative sources of energy. Despite that fact, the fall in oil prices in the 1980s, as these could not have remained at the high levels of the 1970s, increased demand and oil imports. Thus, while in 1973 world oil consumption was 57 million barrels a day, in 994 it approximated to 68 million barrels (20).

The USA leads the world in oil consumption, with 17 million barrels a day in 1991. Of this quantity, 50% is imported, so that dependence on oil imports is expected to rise steadily in the next decade. Even though US government committees, examining the issue, have found that dependence on oil imports threatens US national security, American oil policy has not changed radically with regard to imports. These findings have not led to the formation of a new oil policy which would aim at the progressive reduction of oil imports. They have, however, led the American Government to seek diversification of supply, to avoid dependence on a single supplier or team of suppliers. The addition of new exporters, such as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, to the already existing oil-producing and exporting countries provides more freedom of choice for importing countries such as the US, while it also helps to keep oil prices down (21).

Within this framework, one can explain the American interest in the restructuring of the Russian oil industry as well as in participation in the development of oilfields in the Caspian Sea and the surrounding countries. These oil deposits constitute new sources of supply from countries outside the OPEC and are, for this reason, extremely important on the political as well as on the economic level. The Caspian Sea basin has attracted US interest for the following reasons:

1. The oil of this region is considered to be of good quality.

2. The biggest part of this oil is intended for export, since the needs of the producing countries are relatively low and are expected to remain low.

3. The fact that the countries of the region lack the capital and the technology to proceed independently to the development of these oilfields offers American companies, such as Chevron, considerable investment opportunities.

In this context, we can better understand the geopolitical and economic aims of the US in Central Asia. At the geopolitical level, the United States wants to help the countries of Central Asia to develop their oil and natural gas industries. According to the estimates of the American Government, this development will bring about economic growth and will help these countries move away from the Russian sphere of influence.

At the economic level, the development of the oil industry of these countries means investment opportunities for the American construction and oil companies. Politically, the United States will be in a position to control these new important energy resources and diversify its own sources supply. American private companies have been supported by the US Government in at least two countries of Central Asia, namely, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. Other American political objectives include the containment of Iran and the reinforcement of TurkeyÅs role in the region. The US has not only blocked any pipeline route passing through Iran, but has also cancelled IranÅs participation in the international consortium which has undertaken oil production in Azerbaijan (22).

To sum up, US foreign policy in Central Asia is founded on the following rationale:

The US intends to help the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan develop their oil and natural gas industries.
Through the development of their oil and gas industry, which will bring economic growth, the US hopes to extricate them from the Russian sphere of influence.
The US Government is actively supporting American companies in Central Asia involved in oil development as well as in the construction of pipelines which will channel the oil to the West.
The US will try to channel the oil coming from those countries into the international markets in order to diversify its own sources of supply and keep oil prices at low levels.
The US Government believes that economic growth will promote regional stability and the resolution of local disputes.
Finally, the US aims at reinforcing the role of Turkey in the region, while at the same time maintaining the policy of containment and isolation of Iran. For that reason it has actively lobbied for a pipeline which will transport oil from Baku to the Turkish port of Ceyhan.
Russia


At this point it should be mentioned that control over these energy resources has set off a smouldering rivalry between Russia and the US which has two dimensions: the first concerns control of oil production and the second specific questions relative to the legal status of the Caspian Sea. Russia claims that the Caspian is an inland lake and not a closed sea, which means that it is not subject to the Law of the Sea. Consequently, exploitation of the Caspian resources must be subject to an agreement among all five coastal states.

Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan maintain that the Caspian Sea is just that, a sea, and as such should be divided into national sectors. The US holds the same position and it recently took a firm stand on the issue. Glen Rase, the director of international energy policy at the US State Department, declared in March 1995 that each of the countries in the region has the right to develop its own economic resources according to its own best interests... and there should be no misunderstanding. The US recognises legitimate security concerns, but does not recognise spheres of influence. The US will defend its companiesÅ interests in the Caspian (23). In this context the American Government has supported the private companies which have undertaken production on behalf of the former Soviet republics of the Caspian Sea. The United States wants to avert Russian control over the Caspian energy resources and will resist it as much as possible.

Russia, on the other hand, is concerned with the attempts to oust it from its traditional sphere of influence but is also worried that investment in the Caspian Sea oilfields will divert Western financial backing and interest from its oilfields in Siberia and the Far East and capture some of its market. In the competition over Caspian oil, therefore, Russia sees both the erosion of its geopolitical position and the loss of key economic resources and their potential revenues (24).

MoscowÅs initial response was an effort to strengthen the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States, but this was not successful. Russia is now trying to find ways to deal with its competitors. In this context it has recently co-operated with Iran to offset AzerbaijanÅs and KazakhstanÅs claims in the Caspian and has participated in the construction of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline in an effort to by-pass Turkey.

In the past, the Soviet Union rarely used oil and gas exports to support her national interests. These exports were viewed as the countryÅs best earners of hard currency and nothing more. That approach seems to be changing. Russia has become much more aware of the geopolitical role that energy can play. She intends to use her oil and gas strength as a means of supporting foreign policy aims (25).

It is quite evident that there can be no game unless Russia is invited to the table. Giving Russia a seat at the table means equity participation both in pipeline construction and operation and in oil development projects (26).


Concluding Remarks


Energy resources are reshaping the geopolitical map in Eurasia. Eventual control of the development of oil deposits as well as the eventual pipeline routing will determine the political and economic future of Russia, Turkey and the Central Asian states; it will determine IranÅs position in the region and its relations with the West; it will determine the realignment of the strategic triangle among the US, Russia and China; and it will have strategic consequences by lessening dependence on Persian Gulf oil.

The importance of the eventual pipeline routings was pointed out by the Russian newspaper ÃIzvestiyaÅ: The struggle for future routings of oil from CIS countries to the world market is entering a decisive stage. The victor in this struggle will receive not only billions of dollars annually in the form of transit fees: the real gain will be control over pipelines, which will be the most important factor of geopolitical influence in the TransCaucasus and in Central Asia in the next century (27). n


1. The phrase Great Game has been borrowed from Rudyard KiplingÅs description of the rivalry between Tsarist Russia, Victorian England and the Ottoman Empire in Central Asia for control of trade routes to India in the 19th century. See Fiona Hill, Pipeline Politics, Russo-Turkish Competition and Geopolitics in the Eastern Mediterranean in Security and Cooperation in the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by Andreas Theophanous and Van Coufoudakis. (Cyprus: Intercollege Press, 1997), p. 200.
2. Rosemarie Forsythe, The Politics of Oil in the Caucasus and Central Asia, Adelphi Paper, No 300, (May 1996), p. 6.
3. While the Central Asian states have physical possession of their oil and gas reserves, they do not possess the capital and the technology that would allow them to go into production alone, a fact which brings in the foreign companies with a share in production and revenues.
4. Colin S. Gray, The Geopolitics of the Nuclear Era: Heartland, Rimlands, and the Technological Revolution (New York: Crane, Russak and Co., 1977).
5. The Rothschilds, and the Nobel Brothers, first provided Russia with the know-how to develop the Caspian oil resources. See Robert W. Tolf, The Russian Rockefellers, (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1976), pp.50-60.
6. Daniel Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991).
7. Proved and inferred reserves are estimated to be as high as 200 billion barrels, putting the region on a par with Iraq. In addition, the area is rich in natural gas with estimated and proved reserves of up to 7.89 trillion cubic metres - as much as those of the US and Mexico combined. Rosemarie Forsyth, The Politics of Oil in the Caucasus and Central Asia, p. 6. The Caspian Sea oil cannot compete with Persian Gulf oil in terms of easy access to the major world markets, nor will this oil be able to compete in terms of levels of production or costs of production. Once the production of the Caspian region reaches its peak - and that will be of the order of several million barrels per day - its contribution to the world oil supply may not be decisive but it will certainly be important. These reserves are significantly bigger, for example, than EuropeÅs proved reserves of about 50 billion barrels of oil equivalent. See Robert E. Ebel, The Dynamics of Caspian Sea Resources, paper presented to a Conference on Conflict Resolution, organised by the Institute of International Relations, Panteion University, on Corfu on 30-31 August 1996. Also see Central Asia: A Survey, The Economist, (7-13 Feb. 1998), p.6.
8. Azerbaijan: Energy Sector Review, Document of the World Bank, Report No. 12061-AZ (World Bank,Washington DC, 1993).
9. For these oil companies, the Caspian holds a further attraction. Unlike the majority of the worldÅs proved oil reserves, these resources are available for exploitation by Western firms. Iran and Iraq, the underdeveloped giants of the Persian Gulf, are closed to outsiders, so for the moment the oil firms are concentrating on the Caspian. Central Asia: A Survey p. 6.
10. Ibid.
11. Azerbaijan: From Crisis to Sustained Growth, A World Bank Country Study (The World Bank, Washington DC, 1992).
12. Azerbaijan: Petroleum Technical Assistance Project, Document of the World Bank (The World Bank, Washington DC, 28 March 1995).
13 Kazakhstan: The Transition to a Market Economy, A World Bank Country Study (The World Bank, Washington DC, 1993).
14. Ibid.
15. Central Asia: A Survey, The Economist, p.6.
16. Ebel, p. 6; Hill, p. 209, The Economist, p. 6.
17. Central Asia: A Survey, p. 8.
18. Ibid, p. 8.
19. For a detailed analysis see Rosemarie Forsythe, The Politics of Oil in the Caucasus and Central Asia, pp. 44-55; Central Asia: A Survey, pp. 8-9.
20. Robert E. Ebel, Petroleum: A New Factor in the Black Sea Security Context, unpublished paper presented to a conference on Security and the Black Sea, held in Varna, Bulgaria, 9-10 May 1995; Robert E. Ebel, Michael P. Croissant, Joseph R. Masih, Kent E. Calder, Raju G.C. Thomas, Policy Forum: Energy Futures, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn 1996): 71-99.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid, p. 6; Rosemarie Forsythe, The Politics of Oil in the Caucasus and Central Asia, p. 55-58; Hill, Pipeline Politics, pp. 212-217.
23. Ebel, Petroleum: A New Factor in the Black Sea Security Concept p. 7; John Lloyd, Battle Lines Drawn Over Caspian Oil and Gas, Financial Times, 3 March 1995.
24. Hill, Pipeline Politics, p. 216.
25. Ebel, p. 9.
26. Ebel, The Dynamics of Caspian Sea Resources, p. 8.
27. Ebel, p. 9.





----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

1.) Facts on central asian oil, and afghanistan:

http://www.foil.org/resources/9-11/FOIL-0109xx-OilFactsheet.htm

2.) A 1990 University of Colorado paper talking of Policy in Central asia:

http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/PeacePapers/90-8.htm

3.) This is an official whitehouse document on National security. Read carefully. You will find chilling passages:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html

4.) See commentary from a distinctive "conservative" point of view:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/651028/posts

5.)More info on the central asia oil.

http://www.idis.gr/people/arvan2.html

6.) One of the reasons Russia is against us in this Iraqi war, the other significant one being that Saddam owes them billions:

http://www.wsws.org/public_html/iwb12-8/spot.htm



----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

This is long as fuck. Take time to read this over the period of a month or so, or if you are bout it- read it all in one sitting! I'm posting this AGAIN, last time it fell into the okayplayer blackhole. HAVE FUN!!!:

Part I:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/timelineentiree.htm


Part II:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/timelineentiree2.htm



----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

Central Asian oil, Enron, and the Afghanistan pipelines.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/AAoil.html

Pre-9-11 warnings RE: type of attack
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/AAadvanceinfo.html

Preparing for war
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/AAafghanwar.html

Incompetence, bad luck, and/or obstruction of justice
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/AAincompetence.html

Warnings suggesting attack on or about day of 9/11
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/AAexactday.html

Cover-up, lies, contradictions, obscure facts
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/AAcoverup.html

Israeli foreknowledge/espionage ring
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/AAisrael.html

Anthrax attacks and microbiologists' deaths
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/AAanthrax.html

Bin Laden family, Saudi Arabia, and Bush
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/AAsaudi.html

Pakistan ISI and/or drug connections
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/AAisidrugs.html

----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

i just went on the website and fiddled around. now im playing with power.

good stuff here.

i'll be busy for the next 2 or 3 years lol.

on the power of it....and the time it takes to read!

----------------------
Avatar? Nea onnim sua a, ohu; nea odwen se onim dodo no, se ogyae sua a, ketewa no koraa a onim no firi ne nsa.
_______________________

The Love of my life: (Future Mrs. FireBrand)
http://members.tripod.com/~samblondie/sampage2.htm

Refreshing Lyrics:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/nas/gods_son/i_can.nas.txt

"Everywhere is war- m'say war" -- Bob Marley

www.jru.org.jm
Gone clear...Jamaican Rugby nah ras. Mo' Fiya!


"Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction! Perform action, firm in discipline, relinquishing attachment; be impartial to failure and sucess - this equanimity is called discipling. Wise men disciplined by understanding relinquish the fruit born of action; freed from these bonds of rebirth, they reach a place beyond decay." --Teachings of Krishna

"...If it were not for them in my life I might have not realized just how dangerous Western culture is for thinking Afrikans and would have gone on to become another empty, wasted intellectualizer." --Larry D. Crawford (Mwalimu A. Bomani Baruti)

i actually look forward to reading the e-arguements every afternoon! this thread is especially good!!

nuffin but info in this thread.


******************************

_____________________________

www.northernarc.net