I see the US aggression against Iraq as a desperation measure to

preserve its economic dominance by cutting off the vitally important resource, Oil, to the emrging economic powers of Asia and Latin America , China, India and Brazil, in addition to the establisehd economic superpowers, Japan and Germany.The U.S. has clearly lost its lead in Technology and Manufacturing.It knows that when it goes head to head against Germany and Japan in the world markets it is bound to lose.It also knows that when China, India and Brazil become established economic powers in the not too distant future,the competition for the world's natural resources is going to vastly increase.In that environment our corporations will have to think about survival, not dominance unless, as is our practice, we use military force to enforce our dominance.Iraq is the first of such wars for economic dominance.The pretexts offered for this war ring hollow because they are, and are designed to hide the ugly truth behind it.

:)

I think that many, if not most, DUers think "War for oil" means we want to steal the oil, and not that we want the oil to remain in the ground.

Who really thinks it was for:

1) WMD
2) 9/11
3) mideast democracy
4) saddams mistreatment of Iraqis

when basically, those are all lies or our own fault....

Anyway it's not about keeping the oil in the ground, it's about having our hand on the spigots in the entire region (14 permanent bases planned).

I've got no idea why you think that's relevant to the idea that we "obviously" want to keep the oil in the ground

1) WMD
2) 9/11
3) mideast democracy
4) saddams mistreatment of Iraqis

About 50 million American voters seem to think that's why

and it's pretty unwise to talk about politics in a democracy and ignore the majority

Do you think the majority perception of the justification(s) for the Iraq Invasion are the true motivations of the those who decided to undertake it?

"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."


"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

thx, Mencken

The discussion is about whether or not the point was to get the oil out or to keep it in the ground. Instead of talking about this, you insulted another poster by implying they were dumb, and now you're efforts are limited to hijacking the discussion towards what YOU want to talk about.

If you want to talk about something else, start your own thread.

resources.

I just resent the hijacking being done. I don't BES's remarks are relevant

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and I have no intentions of holding my tongue, so stop wasting your time trying to portray me as a moderator while you try to enforce YOUR idea of what's appropriate.

Good one.

I've always suspected that the point (or one of the points) of invading Iraq was to keep the oil *IN* the ground, so it won't go to China. It's meant to slow the development of China's economy by raising the price of oil.

countries like China, India and Brazil, are hot on our heels.Their arrival on the world economic scene will make this a multipolar world, just as the explosion of the H-Bomb by the Soviet Union in the late 40's changed the military balance that heavily favored the U.S.
Our economic dominance that was built on the availability of cheap oil and natural resources will now be a thing of the past.These emerging countries have large populations,highly educated and willing to adapt to new technical competencies.Military dominance over these countries may be possible for a while but that cannot be assured in the long term especially with China and India.

We've had a nice cushy currency command the world over because oil has always been traded in US dollars.
The USD has been the world's reserve currency for a very long time which meant economic stability for the US.

BUT THEN Saddam Hussein decided to convert to the Euro as his reserve.

We are losing our competitive edge in global trade in a big way to the Euro.

There is no question we will continue to desperately grab at oil producing countries in order to keep the dollar afloat.

Actually, it's an argument for getting the oil out.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr64.html

It explains market manipulation and may help make your point.

I'm familiar with the argument, and though I wouldn't go so far as to say it's complete BS (it's not, it is a debatable position) I can't say I have much confidence in that conclusion.

But it did help me understand where you're coming from. Thanks for the effort.

We're not talking about children. We are talking about a group intelligent enough to take over our country by manipulating millions of americans. That's not lashing out. Calling it that is just a way to relieve one's worries by mischaracterizing them as children

like Japan and Germany, to give up dreams of Imperial Military Glory, and put its people to work on constructive projects.That would eliminate one of the biggest burdens our corporations face in becoming economically competitive.Germany and Japan, relieved of the need to maintain a large military establishemnt, can devote their resources to productive work and that shows in the quality of their products, the competitiveness of their corporations.This is done in the face of providing unmateched health and retirement benefits for their entire population.That is simply a distant dream for us.

they are somewhat intelligent, yes, but that does not mean that they are calm, it does not mean that they aren't frustrated, it does not mean that they do not see the US falling from the top of the world and are not angered about it.

They are desperate, and they are acting desperately. The result, of course, is worse trouble for them and everyone else.

but that does not mean they are "lashing out". That phrase suggests that they are not targeting any specific, but instead, striking out blindly.

that is not to say that they have no reasons for who they attack, but they are certainly not doing what would be the best route to increase their long-term power. Blowing up third-world countries has consistently failed to be of much use.

Their behavior does resembles lashing out:

conducting policy and military actions without sufficient planning and forethought

the notion that violence and destruction are appropriate solutions to the perceived problem

total disregard for consequences

My objection was based on the connotations that come attached to the idea of "lashing out". I shouldn't have assumed that you intentionally wanted to bring in those connotations. I apoligize for jumping to a conclusion.

"Iraq is the first of such wars for economic dominance."

Arguably every war has been started for economic dominance, and Iraq is the first skirmish in the coming "resource wars". Wait 'til were fighting over fresh water!

rivals, I meant exertion of total control over them:price,availability and selection of preferred recipients and imposition of stooges in foreign countries to act as our surrogates. This certainly includes, when necessary, keeping the oil in the ground instead of making it available to our rivals.

Oil is a fungible commodity. The oil from SA, currently the world's largest producer, is interchangeable with Iraqi (or anyone else's) oil. We cannot keep the Saudi oil in the ground (not yet anyway - heh), so that's a bust. However, we can make another source (Iraq, say) exclusively available to us, preserving our access.

The idea that something is "fungible" requires that there be multiple sources of the commodity. If all the sources are controlled by one entity, there's nowhere else to turn.

including the emerging supplier nations in the Caspian Basin,West Africa and Latin America.The PNAC document clearly sets out this goal for the U.S. in the Twenty First Century.The real targets for this policy are China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela and quite possibly also Germany and Japan.

The top 10 oil producing countries include Russia, China, Norway, Mexico & Venezuela too.

We can work to make some of our allies more dependent on us, and use that to make them bend to our will.

and how does the current regime in the White House plan to control their oil fields.

IMO, right now there's a struggle to force Russia into our sphere of influence. I'd also like to say that I never said that either one was an ally. I merely meant to point out that there are two tactics at work here - one for our allies, and one for our competitors.

And increase their need for oil.

corporate America wants it both ways; we have all the oil, offshore every decent job because we can exploit them, sell the product back here in the US for inflated prices that ultimately very few can purchase because they can't afford to live, let alone enjoy.

Our economy was made a certain way. And the repukes see fit to destroy it.

Cheney energy task force papers.

My Q to you: When will they realize that their plan is doomed to failure?

forever. What will happen when these become common knowledge?

They don't care if it succeeds totally. Even if they get halfway through the plan before it collapses, they're going to be rich, rich RICH!! And it was Richard Mellon Scaife who pointed out that in depressions, wealth flows to it's rightful owners - the rich, rich RICH!!

makes them prone to macho imperial ventures the costs of which are always borne by the lower and poorer classes of our society.When the costs come due, as they must, our current rulers will find themselves assigned to cushy jobs at the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and the like.

"Socialize the cost, privatize the profit" in reference to Santorum's having his children's home-schooling paid for by the govt.

In this case, the costs of a crash will be borne by us, while they will take care of the profits.

Maybe we could sell apples to them on the street corner.