Tuesday, October 16, 2007

"... the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success."

For a concise view of the Open Door Thesis applied to Iraq, do read Jim Holt's piece in the London Review of Books. It remains a bit too conspiratorial for my interests, but I'm happy as hell that at least somebody is talking about what the former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve of the United States recently stated: that "the Iraq war is largely about oil." This interpretation will and should gain more popularity as the calender pages and general elections continue to come and go with American troops still in Iraq.

3 Comments:

Blogger Scantron said...

John Abizaid also said this at Stanford over the weekend:

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/10/15/roundtableDebatesEnergyIssues

The "no blood for oil" thesis: from dictum non gratum to common sense discourse (four years later). God bless our mature, honest public sphere.

Noam Chomsky is still wrong, though.

8:58 PM  
Blogger John Liberty said...

"So I told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”
-President Bush, October 17, 2007

Bush and his cronies committed 9/11. This is not a preposterous view anymore. Does anyone believe that the men, the man, would not commit such an act of violence if he believed it would lead to greater power? This is what this is all about for him...greater power.

He invades Iraq in an act of national aggression and national self interest. Threatens WWIII if he doesn't get his way with Iran.

This is the sign of the decline of civiliation. It follows the pattern of Gibbons' Decline and Fall, and more recently, that professor from Harvard's article in Vanity Fair.

The law is off. Might makes right. I am worried about where this will lead...aren't you? More and more violence, worldwide.

Josh the hippie killer recently said violence is actually down. I believe this. But the threat of mass violence is like nothing ever before seen. That is, while violence is down, a single act of violence has the potential to wipe all of it out.

I personally am in a race against time. THe money is flowing in. This money will be spent on making sure the situation in which we see ourselves, will never happen again. Unchecked presidential power, looming threats of violence, and corporatism.

America was an idea once, before it became the most powerful country on earth.

8:39 PM  
Blogger John Liberty said...

Look. Why did we invade Iraq? Tell me the answer.

Could we have invaded Iraq without 9/11?

What is the one thing the neoconservatives, in their published documents, on their website, said had to happen for there to be a Pax Americana AND the Invasion of Iraq?

"an extremely catalyzing and catastrophic event, a new pearl harbor"

What will happen after such an event occurs?

"transformation of the military is likely to occur as well as the positioning of new basis in the Middle East, which will secure oil supplies, and ensure American geopolitical influence in a region where there was previous none."

What did Don Rumsfeld say on 9/10/2001?

"The biggest threat to the national security of the United States is the Pentagon burearacy"

What did Paul Wolfwotiz say one week after the invasion of Iraq in a meeting in South Korea?

"One of the reasons...I mean Iraq is swimming in a sea of oil."

When did the actual war plan begin for the invasion of Iraq?

One week by Don Rumsfeld, which was delayed, and then restarted in October by personal request of President Bush. - From State of Attack by Woodward


What did Alan Greenspan say about Iraq?
"It was largely about oil"

What group of people are in power?
Neoconservatives

What is that group's political aims?

"To create a New American Century"

What is the American Century?

"while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."[22]" - 2000

Don't believe the correlation? Read this from the director of the PNAC.
"When the project started, it was not intended to go forever. That is why we are shutting it down. We would have had to spend too much time raising money for it and it has already done its job. We felt at the time that there were flaws in American foreign policy, that it was neo-isolationist. We tried to resurrect a Reaganite policy. Our view has been adopted. Even during the Clinton administration we had an effect, with Madeleine Albright [then secretary of state] saying that the United States was 'the indispensable nation'. But our ideas have not necessarily dominated. We did not have anyone sitting on Bush's shoulder. So the work now is to see how they are implemented.[20]"

The project has been implemented.

Implemented erroneously. What will come of this disaster?

9:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home