On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:15:23 +0000, Dave Heil <k8mn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:08:52 +0000, Dave Heil <k8mn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 05:04:00 +0000, Dave Heil <k8mn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What Steve is attempting is to be disingenuous in placing blame on
the
>>>>> U.S. President. South Africa has enough problems now and a history
of
>>>>> simply terrible things in its past, to keep Steve busy for the
balance
>>>>> of his life.
>>>> So in your view John McCain has an immaculate nomination -- all stain
of
>>>> original sin and actual sin is immaculately removed by virtue of
nomination by
>>>> the Republican Party, and Mat Staver's endorsement?
>>> Please point to where I've written anything about John McCain?
>>
>> Why should I point that out?
>>
>> Can you give me one good reason?
>
>Look at what you asked in the earlier post. Do you see the part which
>reads, "So in your view John McCain has an immaculate nomination -- all
>stain of original sin and actual sin is immaculately removed by virtue
>of nomination by the Republican Party, and Mat Staver's endorsement?"
>
>That'd provide a good reason.
>
>> If you want me to point it out, then perhaps you could point out how I
was
>> being "disingenuous" as you claimed.
>
>I'd be happy to do so. Your claim about George Bush coveting the oil of
>another country is disingenuous. U.S. companies develop other countries
>oil. U.S. companies purchase other countries oil. President Bush is
>not actively involved in the oil business. He will make certain that the
>United States has free access to purchase Mid-East oil because it is in
>the best interest of the United States to do so.
AlterNet
Chomsky: Bush & Cheney Always Saw Iraq as a Sweetheart Oil Deal
By Noam Chomsky, Khaleej Times Online
Posted on July 12, 2008, Printed on July 12, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/91123/
The deal just taking shape between Iraq's Oil Ministry and four Western
oil companies raises critical questions about the nature of the U.S.
invasion and occupation of Iraq -- questions that should certainly be
addressed by presidential candidates and seriously discussed in the United
States, and of course in occupied Iraq, where it appears that the
population has little if any role in determining the future of its
country.
Negotiations are under way for Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP -- the
original partners decades ago in the Iraq Petroleum Company, now joined by
Chevron and other smaller oil companies -- to renew the oil concession
they lost to nationalization during the years when the oil producers took
over their own resources. The no-bid contracts, apparently written by the
oil cor****ations with the help of U.S. officials, prevailed over offers
from more than 40 other companies, including companies in China, India and
Russia.
"There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the
American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely
to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract," Andrew E.
Kramer wrote in the New York Times.
Kramer's reference to "suspicion" is an understatement. Furthermore, it is
highly likely that the military occupation has taken the initiative in
restoring the hated Iraq Petroleum Company, which, as Seamus Milne writes
in the U.K. Guardian, was imposed under British rule to "dine off Iraq's
wealth in a famously exploitative deal."
Later re****ts speak of delays in the bidding. Much is happening in
secrecy, and it would be no surprise if new scandals emerge.
The demand could hardly be more intense. Iraq contains perhaps the
second-largest oil reserves in the world, which are, furthermore, very
cheap to extract: no permafrost or tar sands or deep-sea drilling. For
U.S. planners, it is imperative that Iraq remain under U.S. control, to
the extent possible, as an obedient client state that will also house
major U.S. military bases, right at the heart of the world's major energy
reserves.
That these were the primary goals of the invasion was always clear enough
through the haze of successive pretexts: weapons of mass destruction,
Saddam Hussein's links with al Qaeda, democracy promotion and the war
against terrorism, which, as predicted, sharply increased as a result of
the invasion.
Last November, the guiding concerns were made explicit when President Bush
and Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, signed a "Declaration of
Principles," ignoring the U.S. Congress, the Iraqi parliament and the
populations of the two countries.
The declaration left open the possibility of an indefinite long-term U.S.
military presence in Iraq that would presumably include the huge air bases
now being built around the country, and the "embassy" in Baghdad, a city
within a city, unlike any embassy in the world. These are not being
constructed to be abandoned.
The declaration also had a remarkably brazen statement about exploiting
the resources of Iraq. It said that the economy of Iraq -- which means its
oil resources -- must be open to foreign investment, "especially American
investments." That comes close to a pronouncement that we invaded you so
that we can control your country and have privileged access to your
resources.
The seriousness of this commitment was underscored in January, when Bush
issued a "signing statement" declaring that he would reject any
congressional legislation that restricted funding "to establish any
military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the
permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to
exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."
Extensive resort to "signing statements" to expand executive power is yet
another Bush innovation, condemned by the American Bar Association as
"contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers."
To no avail.
Not surprisingly, the declaration aroused immediate objections in Iraq,
among others from Iraqi unions, which survive even under the harsh
anti-labor laws that Hussein instituted and the occupation preserves.
In Wa****ngton propaganda, the spoiler to U.S. domination in Iraq is Iran.
U.S. problems in Iraq are blamed on Iran. U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice sees a simple solution: "Foreign forces" and "foreign
arms" should be withdrawn from Iraq -- Iran's, not ours.
The confrontation over Iran's nuclear program heightens the tensions. The
Bush administration's "regime change" policy toward Iran comes with
ominous threats of force (there Bush is joined by both U.S. presidential
candidates). The policy also is re****ted to include terrorism within Iran
-- again legitimate, for the world rulers. A majority of the American
people favor diplomacy and oppose the use of force. But public opinion is
largely irrelevant to policy formation, not just in this case.
An irony is that Iraq is turning into a U.S.-Iranian condominium. The
Maliki government is the sector of Iraqi society most sup****ted by Iran.
The so-called Iraqi army -- just another militia -- is largely based on
the Badr brigade, which was trained in Iran and fought on the Iranian side
during the Iran-Iraq War.
Nir Rosen, one of the most astute and knowledgeable correspondents in the
region, observes that the main target of the U.S.-Maliki military
operations, Moktada al-Sadr, is disliked by Iran as well: He's independent
and has popular sup****t, and is therefore dangerous.
Iran "clearly sup****ted Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqi government
against what they described as 'illegal armed groups' (of Moktada's Mahdi
army) in the recent conflict in Basra," Rosen writes, "which is not
surprising given that their main proxy in Iraq, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic
Council, dominates the Iraqi state and is Maliki's main backer."
"There is no proxy war in Iraq," Rosen concludes, "because the U.S. and
Iran share the same proxy."
Tehran is presumably pleased to see the United States institute and
sustain a government in Iraq that's receptive to its influence. For the
Iraqi people, however, that government continues to be a disaster, very
likely with worse to come.
In Foreign Affairs, Steven Simon points out that current U.S.
counterinsurgency strategy is "stoking the three forces that have
traditionally threatened the stability of Middle Eastern states:
tribalism, warlordism and sectarianism." The outcome might be "a strong,
centralized state ruled by a military junta that would resemble" Saddam
Hussein's regime.
If Wa****ngton achieves its goals, then its actions are justified.
Reactions are quite different when Vladimir Putin succeeds in pacifying
Chechnya, to an extent well beyond what Gen. David Petraeus has achieved
in Iraq. But that is them, and this is the United States. Criteria are
therefore entirely different.
In the United States, the Democrats are silenced now because of the
supposed success of the U.S. military surge in Iraq. Their silence
reflects the fact that there are no principled criticisms of the war. In
this way of regarding the world, if you're achieving your goals, the war
and occupation are justified. The sweetheart oil deals come with the
territory.
In fact, the whole invasion is a war crime -- indeed the supreme
international crime, differing from other war crimes in that it
encomp***** all the evil that follows, in the terms of the Nuremberg
judgment. This is among the topics that can't be discussed, in the
presidential campaign or elsewhere. Why are we in Iraq? What do we owe
Iraqis for destroying their country? The majority of the American people
favor U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Do their voices matter?
Noam Chomsky's writings on linguistics and politics have just been
collected in The Essential Chomsky, edited by Anthony Arnove, from the New
Press. Chomsky is an emeritus professor of linguistics and philosophy at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.
) 2008 Khaleej Times Online All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/91123/
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop
uk
|
