***With this post, the South African Steve "Methodius" Hayes seems to be
suggesting that the U.S. should not approve any deal with Iraq for Iraqi
oil. How absolutely absurd. LOL! Listen, Steve-O, when South Africa
figures
out a way to end the trafficking in humans for bondage and ***, then maybe
we'll listen to your crap!
Al
"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:7pnl74hdmfmhj6l5umobj2itshos9kdvf9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
|
