More Blood For Less Oil?

[reprehensor]

More blood for less oil?

"We shall have to take the responsibility for world collaboration, or we shall have to bear the responsibility for another world conflict . . . (The Yalta Conference) ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries-and have always failed. We propose to substitute for all these a universal organization in which all peace-loving nations will finally have a chance to join. I am confident that the Congress and the American people will accept the results of this conference as the beginnings of a permanent structure of peace."

-Franklin D. Roosevelt, March 1, 1945

snip

By continuing to resist, the Iraqis are calling the United States' bluff, forcing the U.S. military to put its cards on the table and reveal its strengths and weaknesses to other potential adversaries, thus surrendering a critical edge in an age of asymmetric warfare. More importantly, the resistance is exposing both the futility and the brutality of U.S. policy. In spite of sophisticated "information management," this naked view of U.S. aggression is generating popular opposition to U.S. interests all over the world, alienating both allies and trading partners, and the United States is losing the war on the very terms by which our leaders have sought to define it: non-proliferation; human rights; democracy . . . not to mention oil. As for counter-terrorism, the State Department abruptly discontinued its annual report on global terrorism after the National Counterterrorism Center reported a 250 percent increase in worldwide terrorism, from the previous record high of 175 incidents in 2003 to 625 incidents in 2004.

While the United States persists in its aggression in Iraq, and has locked itself into hostile stand-offs with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela (the list keeps growing), other countries are making deals, signing treaties and hammering out the tough choices that will be vital to a peaceful, sustainable future for the human race. As the U.S. puts its best resources into developing the next generation of killing machines, other countries will be developing the technologies and social structures to take human civilization beyond the age of petroleum.

Before the invasion of Iraq, the prospect of war was greeted by worldwide protests involving millions of people who knew only too well what this would be like, even as policymakers in Washington buried their heads in mystifications and wishful thinking. That our leaders were so wrong should lead all Americans to question their longer-term strategy and the dangerous and naive assumptions about military power and international relations that underlie it. Michael Klare suggests that the formation of the International Energy Agency in 1974, to allocate scarce oil supplies in response to the Arab oil embargo, provides a useful alternative model for dealing with the inevitable resource shortages of the 21st century. We can only hope that the counterproductive and horrific results of our country's aggression in Iraq will lead the American people to reject militarism, to renew our commitment to international law, and to put this country's enormous wealth and human potential back to work with the rest of the world to solve our common problems within a "permanent structure of peace."

more@link

[CrispyQ]

1. I learned lots from your

White Rose link. I've bookmarked it for future reference. Thank you.

(Also love your Max Headroom!)

[reprehensor]

2. {{blush}}

I exist to serve, carbon-based unit.

Your appreciation is noted for future reference.

Buzz - whirrrrrrrrr- *click*



;)

[The Doctor.]

3. Well, it helps to understand the PNAC agenda too...

It can be summed up as; "Last country standing."

If Asia doesn't pull the rug out from under us, we can expect this administration to continue the push into the ME by whatever nefarious means possible. By the time they have control of the oil, the world's economy will crash. The US will be the one to dictate terms to all other nations.

There will be a great deal of suffering, but we get a couple of decades of economic reign.

If Asia does pull the rug out (stops loaning us money), then we have to dramatically accelerate the program...

Which means nukes.

I'm just guessing, but I'd say we'll lob about 50-100 nukes at choice targets in N. Korea, China, Iran, Syria, etc. etc.

The US will suffer relatively light retaliation, then we pick up the pieces and proceed.

The world will never be the same, the suffering will be tremendous, we will be hated very deeply for at least a couple of centuries.

But the world will fall under one rule... America's.

That's what the PNAC Neo-cons believe in.
If only they weren't so damned incompetent.

[reprehensor]

4. Neoconning the Media.

A Very Short History of Neoconservatism

snip

How did this happen? How did a few renegade New York intellectuals associated with a few tiny publications who converted from liberalism to conservatism back in the late sixties and early seventies give birth to a movement that conquered the focal points of US political debate and convinced the Congress and the president to launch an ill-considered and deeply counterproductive war?

Influential intellectuals of both the Right and Left in Western Europe hold the rather oversimplified and unsophisticated view that the entire rightward drift of American liberalism during the sixties and seventies can be viewed as a result of the change in Israel's geopolitical status from the spirited socialist David of its early years to the pro-American empire, post-1967 military Goliath.

(The Six-Day war important to the birth of Neoconservatism, but so were other factors such as a lengthy New York city teachers' strike, and the blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric of some of Black America's most vocal leadership.)

Neoconservative thinking originally grew out of Norman Podhoretz's editorships of Commentary (website), published by the American Jewish Committee, and, to a lesser degree, The Public Interest published by National Affairs.

more@link

[Karenina]

5. Superb!

:kick:

[reprehensor]

6. Why, thank you!

Wish I wrote it.

Gore Vidal has had some choice things to say about 'Poddy' and the 'proto-Neocons'...

“…Over the years, Poddy has, like his employers, the AJC, moved from those liberal positions traditionally occupied by American Jews (and me) to the far right of American politics. The reason for that is simple. In order to get Treasury money for Israel (last year $5 billion), pro-Israel lobbyists must see to it that America’s “the Russians are coming” squads are in place so that they can continue to frighten the American people into spending enormous sums for “defense,” which also means the support of Israel in its never-ending wars against just about everyone. To make sure that nearly two-thirds of the federal budget goes to the Pentagon and Israel, it is necessary for the pro-Israel lobbyists to make common cause with our lunatic right. Hence, the virulent propaganda.”

“Since spades may not be called spades in freedom’s land, let me spell it all out. In order to get military and economic support for Israel, a small number of American Jews who should know better, have made common cause with every sort of reactionary and anti-Semitic group in the United States, from the corridors of the Pentagon to the TV studios of the evangelical Jesus Christers. To show that their hearts are in the far-right place, they call themselves “neo-conservatives” and attack the likes of Mailer and me, all in the interest of supporting the likes of Sharon and Greater Israel as opposed to the Peace Now Israelis, whom they disdain. There is real madness here; mischief too.”