Ritter Discussion

Okay, let's try again. Mods, may I make a suggestion? Why not just delete the comments instead of locking the thread?

Anyway, anyone who was interested in discussing, let's try again. Sorry I did not get to the thread earlier, prior to the lockdown. I have, however, made my statement and it is floating around somewhere in the forum, locked as well.

Anway, I think it is worth discussing.

To the threads because it seems "linking" is for lock downs now. Search on the word Ritter and or me. That will give you context. Some of the people in the original discussion wanted to discuss the actual points he made, so I started this thread in hopes of providing some answers with regard to my piece. I am hoping this one does not spiral into a lockdown as well.

thread locked, but I'm not sure :shrug:

The first one was not mine even. But be that as it may, I changed the name of the person to something generic. I still find it odd that defemation is okay, but addressing someone who is smearing you, is not. I am confused on this point.

I am still confused from the five threads of insanity and about the serious sleaz used to describe my work, me and my source. It was unreal... no wait, it was real, just ugly.:(

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3352120
Still not locked


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3361235#3361322
locked
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3356485&mesg_id=3356485
locked

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=152855
tombstoned

thanks for the links.

Nice interview. I have his book "Frontier Justice, Weapons Of Mass Destruction and the Bushwacking of America". Keep up the good work.

Discussion going on some points he made with regard to the State Department and the placement of people in various positions in order to gut the organization. I am really interested in your thoughts on that.

It seems every appointment (not just Bolton to the UN, Rice to State, Goss to CIA, etc. but even his appointments to other positions not envolving the neocon movement) have been appointments with an agenda against the spirit of that agency.

the idea that neo-conservatism was an ivory tower untested
idea that has not survived it's first run in with reality
seems very true.

Ritter's idea that it has shed most of it's ideas except
the drive for power is fascinating. That anti-communism
followed by anti-Saddam and now the crusade for "democracy"
are all just means to an end. The consolidation of power
into the hands of professional governmental elites seems
to be their main goal.

I also agree that it exists in both parties and that it
will take a long time to recover from this.

Maybe he is too optimistic and maybe we will not recover.

Think the American experiment is over? Or do you think it might take longer than he estimates to balance back the power structure?

if they are able to continue to aggregate power like they have
or if another 911 type attack takes place then we may pass a point
of no return.

It may also take a very long time to recover because
if an economic downturn does happen reactionary forces
other that the internationalist neo-cons may gain power.

I could see a less idealistic nationalism than the
Wolfowitz flavor coming to the fore.

Maybe the theocratic wing will continue to gain instead.

I just don't know.

I hope for the "pendulum" to swing back but don't see
much evidence that it will, yet.

Attack occurs, then I see one of two scenarios playing out:

1). Revolution
2). Martial Law (and Revolution)

Although, I do not think such a thing is likely, not that type of attack again. I do, however, think that the NeoCon infestation will do anything to hold on to power, UNTIL the host begins to "die" as it were, then it must look for a new host; at which point, you will see a GOP breakdown that will never recover. That is just my own theory, but it seems the most probable.

If you think of the parasites as not holding allegiance to any one country, rather holding to power instead, then as the money drains away, and resources move away, it seems the shift of power interest will move back to Europe and away from the new World. In a way, we see that happening now as the EU is becoming stronger and the Euro is becoming the currency to be used.

What I think will and is happening, is the NeoCons are jumping ship and in doing so, they are leaving floundering hosts, who are unable to function on their own because they were never functional to begin with. You can see that with the demotion of Wolfie to the World Bank as one example. It is the Republicans trying to rid themselves of NeoCons, but they will have to do better and faster if the GOP should survive even as a footnote in history.

I do think democracy will survive, although I just hope it does so in the US. I agree with you in that I am not sure on this point entirely.



Just my two cents on this

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist. :(

and about the placement of Neocons in various positions I find the following suggestion quite convincing:

Jim Valette at "Foreign Policy in Focus"

>> The World Bank sets the terms of global development. When developing countries started demanding a decrease in U.S. political power in the institution, when the Bank balked at supporting Wolfowitz’s reconstruction and debt cancellation plans for Iraq, and when a Bank-commissioned study recommended getting out of the oil business, the World Bank became a natural target for a hostile takeover. <<

http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2005/0503wolfowitz.html

So - of course are major oil companies interested in long-term stability, like Ritter says, and they won't be willing to refurbish the Iraq oil fields and invest in oil field exploration and development, right now - but what if the World Bank under Wolfowitz jumps in for a while?

As it stands, the proposal in the draft "Extractive Industries Review (EIR)" to get out of the oil business has already been watered down in the final report (Jan 2004) to:

"the Extractive Industries Review believes that there is still a role for the World Bank Group in the oil, gas, and mining sectors—but only if its interventions allow extractive industries to contribute to poverty alleviation through sustainable development. And that can only happen when the right conditions are in place. The three main enabling conditions are: • pro-poor public and corporate governance, including proactive planning and management to maximize poverty alleviation through sustainable development; • much more effective social and environmental policies; and • respect for human rights." (p VII)

http://www.worldbank.org/ogmc/files/eirreport/volume1english.pdf

And:

>> ... big new projects for big oil companies wait in the wings. In one of the largest public finance projects in history, the IFC is due to vote on October 30 for a $420 million investment in Caspian Sea oil fields, and a pipeline to carry the oil from Azerbaijan to Turkey. It is also due to vote on gas pipeline projects in Mozambique and Chile over the next month.

And in Iraq, the World Bank is working hand-in-glove with the occupying powers to develop an economic framework for private investment in the oil sector. Through the new Trade Bank of Iraq and Development Fund for Iraq, the World Bank is working with the United States to control profits from Iraqi oil sales. Inevitably, the Iraqi people will see the proceeds from their own resources flow not into their own basic needs, but into the coffers of big transnational oil corporations. <<

http://www.seen.org/pages/reports/WB_brief_0903.shtml

actually the 3rd of 3 installments, that had 7 "greatest" votes and well over 100 replies was locked, rather than the offendeding comments deleted. :shrug:

starting backwards with allowing Ritter to clarify some of the points reportedly said by him at a speech a month or so ago... then on to some very interesting discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you for posting the three parts. Ritter is a person worthy of great respect, imo. He has fought to get the truth out despite the continious and disgusting attempts to smear him. Thank you for helping him to get the truth out!

From Greg Palast:

BAGHDAD COUP D'ETAT FOR BIG OIL
Monday, March 28, 2005

Harper's Magazine investigation reveals how Big Oil vanquished the neo-cons ... and OPEC is the winner.

"For months, the State Department officially denied the existence of this 323-page plan for Iraq's oil ...."

Some conspiracy nuts believe the Bush Administration had a secret plan to control Iraq's oil. In fact, there were TWO plans. In a joint investigation with BBC Television Newsnight, Harper's Magazine has uncovered a hidden battle over Iraq's oil. It began right after Mr. Bush took office - with a previously unreported plot to invade Iraq.

>From the exclusive Harper's report by Greg Palast:

Within weeks of the first inaugural, prominent Iraqi expatriates -- many with ties to U.S. industry -- were invited to secret discussions directed by Pamela Quanrud, National Security Council, now at the State Department. "It quickly became an oil group," said one participant, Falah Aljibury. Aljibury is an advisor to Amerada Hess' oil trading arm and Goldman Sachs.

"The petroleum industry, the chemical industry, the banking industry -- they'd hoped that Iraq would go for a revolution like in the past and government was shut down for two or three days," Aljibury told me. On this plan, Hussein would simply have been replaced by some former Baathist general.

However, by February 2003, a hundred-page blue-print for the occupied nation, favored by neo-cons, had been enshrined as official policy. "Moving the Iraqi Economy from Recovery to Sustainable Growth" generally embodied the principles for postwar Iraq favored by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and the Iran-Contra figure, now Deputy National Security Advisor, Elliott Abrams. The blue-print mapped out a radical makeover of Iraq as a free-maket Xanadu including, on page 73, the sell-off of the nation's crown jewels: "privatization
the oil and supporting industries."
http://www.gregpalast.com/