The best material for learning what's happening in the world is published by and for businessmen and policy makers. One of my favourites is newnations bulletin, but this from Global Policy Forum (just came across it in my files) is most relevant to the Ollmen's article. The strategic context of the Iraq war has little to do with wmd, with S Hussein or with freedom. The burning concern of the American and British govts. for the fate and freedom of the Iraqis or anyone else for that matter is in essence a sales pitch. The war itself is between Euro-Russian consortiums (a bit more investigation would show that the Germans were funding the Russian initiative) and the Anglo-Saxon states. Considering the imminent possibilities of a world energy crisis, the Iraq situation was probably unavoidable. Ironic though. In 1999 the US and her allies invaded Iraq to defend the independence of the sovereign state of Kuwait, now the US and Britain are showing the Iraqis and, of course all the rest of us how to take what you want the right way.
Too bad for the Iraqis caught as they are in the middle, they'd best look for somewhere else to live. Considering the stakes involved there, it's unlikely the opposition to the American occupation within and without Iraq will have much success. Iraq: the Struggle for Oil By James A. Paul Executive Director, Global Policy Forum August, 2002 (revised December, 2002) Oil Companies in Iraq: A Century of Rivalry and War (November 2003) Oil in Iraq: the Heart of the Crisis (December, 2002) The Iraq Oil Bonanza: Estimating Future Profits (January 28, 2004) Iraq possesses the world's second largest proven oil reserves, currently estimated at 112.5 billion barrels, about 11% of the world total and its gas fields are immense as well. Many experts believe that Iraq has additional undiscovered oil reserves, which might raise the total well beyond 250 billion barrels when serious prospecting resumes, putting Iraq closer to Saudi Arabia and far above all other oil producing countries. Iraq's oil is of high quality and it is very inexpensive to produce, making it one of the world's most profitable oil sources. Oil companies hope to gain production rights over these rich fields of Iraqi oil, worth hundreds of billions of dollars. In the view of an industry source it is "a boom waiting to happen." (1) As rising world demand depletes reserves in most world regions over the next 10-15 years, Iraq's oil will gain increasing importance in global energy supplies. According to the industry expert: "There is not an oil company in the world that doesn't have its eye on Iraq."(2) Geopolitical rivalry among major nations throughout the past century has often turned on control of such key oil resources.(3) Five companies dominate the world oil industry, two US-based, two primarily UK-based, and one primarily based in France.(4) US-based Exxon Mobil looms largest among the world's oil companies and by some yardsticks measures as the world's biggest company.(5) The United States consequently ranks first in the corporate oil sector, with the UK second and France trailing as a distant third. Considering that the US and the UK act almost alone as sanctions enforcers (and as advocates of war against Iraq), and that they are the headquarters of the world's four largest oil companies, we cannot ignore the possible relationship of their policy with this powerful corporate interest. US and UK companies long held a three-quarter share in Iraq's oil production, but they lost their position with the 1972 nationalization of the Iraq Petroleum Company.(6) The nationalization, following ten years of increasingly rancorous relations between the companies and the government, rocked the international oil industry, as Iraq sought to gain greater control of its oil resources. After the nationalization, Iraq turned to French companies and the Russian (Soviet) government for funds and partnerships.(7) Today, the US and UK companies are very keen to regain their former position, which they see as critical to their future leading role in the world oil industry. The US and the UK governments also see control over Iraqi and Gulf oil as essential to their broader military, geo-strategic and economic interests. At the same time, though, other states and oil companies hope to gain a large or even dominant position in Iraq. As de-nationalization sweeps through the oil sector, international companies see Iraq as an extremely attractive potential field of expansion. France and Russia, the longstanding insiders, pose the biggest challenge to future Anglo-American domination, but serious competitors from China, Germany and Japan also play in the Iraq sweepstakes.(8) During the 1990s, Russia's Lukoil, China National Petroleum Corporation and France's TotalFinaElf held contract talks with the government of Iraq over plans to develop Iraqi fields as soon as sanctions are lifted. Lukoil reached an agreement in 1997 to develop Iraq's West Qurna field, while China National signed an agreement for the North Rumailah field in the same year (China's oil import needs from the Persian Gulf will grow from 0.5 million barrels per day in 1997 to 5.5 million barrels per day in 2020, making China one of the region's most important customers).(9) France's Total at the same time held talks for future development of the fabulous Majnun field. US and UK companies have been very concerned that their rivals might gain a major long-term advantage in the global oil business. "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas - reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to," enthused Chevron CEO Kenneth T. Derr in a 1998 speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, in which he pronounced his strong support for sanctions.(10) Sanctions have kept the rivals at bay, a clear advantage. US-UK companies hope that the regime will eventually collapse, giving them a strong edge over their competitors with a post-Saddam government. As the embargo weakened and Saddam held onto power, however, stakes in the rivalry rose, for US-UK companies worried that they might eventually be shouldered aside. Direct military intervention by the US-UK, then, offers a tempting but dangerous gamble that might put Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron in immediate control of the Iraqi oil boom, but at the risk of backlash from a regional political explosion. In testimony to Congress in 1999, General Anthony C.Zinni, commander in chief of the US Central Command, testified that the Gulf Region, with its huge oil reserves, is a "vital interest" of "long standing" for the United States and that the US "must have free access to the region's resources." (11) "Free access," it seems, means both military and economic control of these resources. This has been a major goal of US strategic doctrine ever since the end of World War II. Prior to 1971, Britain (the former colonial power) policed the region and its oil riches. Since then, the United States has deployed ever-larger military forces to assure "free access" through overwhelming armed might.(12) A looming US war against Iraq is only comprehensible in this light. For all the talk about terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and human rights violations by Saddam Hussein, these are not the core issues driving US policy. Rather, it is "free access" to Iraqi oil and the ultimate control over that oil by US and UK companies that raises the stakes high enough to set US forces on the move and risk the stakes of global empire. Oil Companies in Iraq: A Century of Rivalry and War (November 2003) Oil in Iraq: the Heart of the Crisis (December, 2002) The Iraq Oil Bonanza: Estimating Future Profits (January 28, 2004) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- (1) Conversation with the author, June 5, 2002. (2) Ibid. (3) See, for example, Daniel Yergin, The Prize: the epic quest for oil, money and power (New York, 1991). (4) In order of size these firms are: Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch-Shell, British Petroleum-Amoco, Chevron-Texaco, and TotalFinaElf. Royal Dutch Shell is often described as a British-Dutch company, while TotalElfFina is sometimes described as a French-Italian company. (5) ExxonMobil was ranked as the number one company worldwide in 2001 as measured by profits, which stood at over $15 billion. In that year, the company was ranked number two worldwide in terms of revenues, which totalled $192 billion, behind the far-less-profitable retail company Walmart, that had revenues of $220 billion. (6) Major shareholders in IPC were: Shell, BP, Esso (later Exxon), Mobil, and CFP, the French national company. (7) For an account of this period, see Joe Stork, Middle East Oil and the Energy Crisis (New York, 1975), 188-194. Since 1918, France had considered Iraq to be its main source of international oil reserves and its main means to gain parity with the Anglo-American companies (see Yergin, op. cit., 188-191). (8) See Michael Tanzer, "Oil and Military Power in the Middle East and the Crimean Sea Region, The Black World Today (web site), two parts, February 28 and Mar 6, 2002. (9)From US Department of Energy, International Energy Outlook, Table 13. (10) Text as posted at www.chevrontexaco.com/news/archive/chevron_speech/1998/98-11-05.asp At the time, Condoleeza Rice, currently US National Security Advisor, was a board member of Chevron and one of the company's supertankers was named after her. Though it is tempting to insist on the many oil and energy industry connections of the Bush administration, including the President and Vice President Cheney, oil issues have consistently had a heavy influence on US foreign policy, regardless of party or personalities. (11) Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, April 13, 1999. (12) See Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars: the new landscape of global conflict (New York, 2001), esp. ch. 3, "Oil Conflict in the Persian Gulf." http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm Incidentally, this recent notice in newnations bulletin NEWNATIONS BULLETIN: MAY 05 is indicative of where it's all at. "Energy security has now passed the static 'War on Terror' as the leading US foreign policy priority. Since dodging car bombs and staying alive is the reasonable priority of Coalition troops, leaving aside enhanced security and police work worldwide, the actual 'war' has bogged down somewhere in the Afghan / Pakistan highlands where the Al Qaeda and Taleban leaders have now evaded capture for all of these years". The issue is energy, not terrorism, not WMD and surely not freedom; the Iraqi's, your's or mine. Regards, victor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx andthe thinkers he inspired'" <marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 3:24 PM Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Fascist Administration > > http://www.g0lem.net/PhpWiki/index.php/FascistAdministration > > Fascist Administration > > > George W. Bush is not the best nor the brightest, but he does represent his > class well, and the strategy and the implementation of right wing policy is > exactly right for the fascists who are now firmly in control of the > government and the media. > > "...General Zinni, a leading U.S.military figure and diplomat, has said that > he doesn't know on which planet the hawks in Washington are living. And many > others, including ex-President Carter, General Schwartzkopf and even > officials in the intelligence (sic) community, have expressed similar > sentiments." (Bertell Olman, "Why War With Iraq? Why Now?" - February 23, > 2003, ZNet) > > "The conservative media will never recover from its role as Chief Sycophant > for the Bush administration. Journalists who demanded that Clinton be held > accountable for a minor sex scandal (Monica Lewinsky) and a minor financial > scandal (Whitewater) now serve as apologists and propagandists for the Bush > administration's major war scandals." > > * Bush's Willing Sycophants > <http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02172005.html> > > "...A phony journalist, planted by a Republican organisation, used by the > White House press secretary to interrupt questions from the press corps, > protected from FBI vetting by the press office, disseminating smears about > its critics and opponents, some of them gay-baiting, was unmasked not only > as a hireling and fraud but as a gay prostitute, with enormous potential for > blackmail." > > * Taking the Spin to Another Level > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1416370,00.html> > > Bertell Olman writes: > > "leaders of our Government are not that stupid or crazy, and war is too > important a matter to go forward without good reasons. They have their > reasons." > > Indeed they do and it is their holy crusade for oil and to absolutely > control a region of the world where resources are just too important to > leave to local rulers who don't always do what they're told to do. > > Olman also writes, > > "The Bush oiligarchy wants direct control over a country whose proven oil > reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia. American oil giants own > none of this oil now. How much do you think they will own one year after the > war? Direct U.S. control over Iraqi oil will not only put the profits of > selling the oil and servicing the oil fields into American hands, but will > also put the U.S. Government in a position to effect the price of oil by > determining how much of it is put onto the market at any one time and to > secure the dollar's position as the currency of choice in the purchase of > oil by other countries (since 2000, Iraq has tried to undermine the hegemony > of the dollar in world trade - with all its implications for U.S. financial > domination - by selling its oil for Euros). And, as the availability of this > non-renewable source of energy begins to decline (it has been estimated that > the world has about fifty years worth of oil left), the U.S. will be in a > position to decide, almost unilaterally, which countries will grow and > develop and which will not." > > Olman says controlling Iraq would also, > > "secure the water supplies - not often mentioned - with which Iraq is > blessed and all surrounding countries are to some degree dependent." > > He states that conquering Iraq would: > > "establish American military and political power - if not direct colonial > control - of a major Arab country in the heart of the middle-east for an > indefinite period to help ensure the existence of friendly governments and > market economies throughout the region." > > A CNN poll before the war showed 64% of Americans supported attacking Iraq > with or without UN approval. Such is the power of propaganda. And after the > lies were exposed and it was proved false that Saddam had any connection to > al-Qaeda, 70% of the American public still believed Saddam Hussein supported > Osama bin Laden. The truth no longer matters. The conservative media spins > it any way the administration wants it to. > > AND, of course as pointed out by Bertell Olman, it is very important that > the war also provides: > > "a rationale to expand the military budget and with it the profits of the > arms industry, which includes the oil industry." > > "Spending vast sums of money on the military may not make the U.S. safer, > but it will create more demand for military invasions and occupations and a > spiraling need for more military funding. As Bush and the GOP shift > priorities to the military, America is in danger of relying on the military > to address its political problems and being seen around the world as a > militaristic state." > > * Don't Call it Defense > <http://baltimorechronicle.com/021705Monkerud.shtml> > > And since the objective of capturing Osama bin Laden by fighting the war in > Afghanistan was never achieved the victory in Iraq would "make Americans > forget that we lost the war in Afghanistan, whose main objective was not to > remove the Taliban but to destroy Al Queda and capture Osama Bin Laden." OR, > was it? The Taliban could not be trusted to provide security for a fragile > pipeline therefore the real objective of that was was NOT to kill Osama bin > Laden. It was to kill the Taliban in install a government which would > protect UNICAL'S PIPELINE. The new president of Afghanistan was a former > employee-consultant for Unical. How convenient and not a coincidence. And > the diversion effect - to "upstage the media attention given to the failure > of the Government's economic policies." > > Bush and Cheney have not yet been implicated in the many financial scandals > which occurred after he took office and that situation has been all but > forgotten given the almost daily speeches by George Bush about the "evil" > Saddam Hussein and the need to make war against Iraq. In fact the scandals > have been practically forgotten about. Wars are like that. It takes our > minds off the other things, the really bad things that these ruling elite > have been doing to us. > > As noted by Olman, war on terrorism creates an > > "atmosphere of permanent crisis with its side-bars of fear and patriotism > that will help the GOP to push through the rest of its ultra-conservative > political agenda and win the next presidential election." > > It has been assumed that there will be "undeniable" advantages to Israel > when the U.S. wins this war against Iraq although often the obvious turns > out to be wrong. My feeling about this is it will hurt Israel by the > radicalization of even heretofore moderate Muslims who will consider this a > U.S./Zionist plan to kill Muslims. > > And George W. Bush has implied support for Israel if it should attack Iran. > > To quote Olman: > > "It is no surprise then that among our Government's top foreign policy > advisors some of the biggest hawks are right wing Zionists like - Paul > Wolfowitz (Deputy Defense Secretary, who earlier in life wanted to immigrate > to Israel and who wrote his first official paper calling for an invasion of > Iraq back in 1992), Douglas Feith (Under Secretary for Policy in the Dept. > of Defense), Elliot Abrams (National Security Council), Lewis Libby (Chief > of Staff for Vice President Cheney), Eric Edelman (Libby's top assistant), > and Richard Perle (Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, who the > F.B.I. found passing classified information from the National Security > Council to the Israeli Embassy when he was a Senate staffer in 1970 and who > has worked as an election advisor for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu > between 1996-'99). Can you imagine the ruckus there would be if this number > of communists or Free Masons or black nationalists were found in the higher > reaches of our foreign policy establishment? Let me repeat that I am not > speaking of Jews here but of right wing Zionists, or those who subscribe to > an extreme version of a nationalist ideology that is currently in power in > another country, a country that has a crucial stake in how the American > Government acts in its region. Now, I don't believe that U.S. policy on Iraq > has been made by these Zionists advisors, but neither do I believe that they > are without influence in the matter or that their right wing Zionism does > not affect what they tell Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld. Rather,in my view, > what we have here is a convergence of two imperialisms. It is Bush's and > Sharon's complementary interests that have put them in bed together. The > bevy of right wing Zionist advisors that surround Bush would have encouraged > this tryst and perhaps served as match-maker." > > These are very dangerous times, not only for Iraq, but for Americans and for > Israel. A war predicated on the reasons enumerated by the war makers is the > creation of a fascist administration. It is immoral and uncivilized to go to > war - especially for these bogus reasons. > > Many Israelis are also opposed to this war. The whole world (except for a > majority in the U.S.) were proportionally against this war. Bush wasn't > listening to dissent. The dissidents have a tendency to become the majority > once truth filters out and Americans are returned home in body bags. Protest > this War.... > > John Neumaier calls the U.S. message being spread by a mass media, which has > become increasingly unprofessional, "weapons of mass persuasion." He says: > > "As the nation continues to be subjected to the administration's powerful > weapons of mass persuasion, it becomes increasingly difficult for average > citizens to reflect clearly on the dangers, foreign and domestic, which are > facing them. The concentrated and ruthless use of governmental power is of > course not an American invention. Even before Machiavelli, rulers sought to > gain popular support with propaganda appeals to nationalism, patriotism, and > morality as well as materialistic self-interest." (? > <http://www.g0lem.net/PhpWiki/index.php/neuluther%40aol.com?action=create> > John J. Neumaier - Daily Freeman, Kingston, N.Y. Sunday, March 2, 2003 - > "Commentary: War or peace? The struggle continues") > > Certainly, there are some real threats - but they're mostly the threats of a > crazed president and his criminal cohorts threatening other people in places > he has never been and does not like - with death and destruction if they > don't capitulate and do what we tell them to do or hand over their country's > resources. And there is the growing threat of religious fanaticism not just > among Islamists, but also among Christians and Jewish fundamentalists who > would lead us down the path to Armaggedon. > > The attacks on the Twin Towers were not with weapons of mass destruction. > They were planes which were hijacked and this can be done again - but the > hype would have many believing that planes are weapons of mass destruction. > Those who flew those planes into the Twin Towers were not Iraqis, they were > not Afghanis. But they were Saudis, who are our allies. > > This administration, using Nazi tactics and fear has on a regular basis > issued threat alerts in order to instill fear and support for their their > fascist military buildup and "homeland security" expenditures. > > "Whatever the level of President Bush's understanding of state craft may be, > he is clearly at one with the war-like plans he advocates (in the name of > peace) and with the favor-the-rich economic policies which he advocates with > equal fervor (in the name of justice). It is doubtful that Mr. Bush has the > intellect of Herbert Hoover, but he does not seem to fear a depression any > more than Hoover did before the collapse of 1929." (Neumaier) > > And the economy is in the toilet too. I see it everyday. This administration > says any bad news is the fault of 9/11 and refuses to take the blame. The > economy has not been good for awhile now. For everything bad that can be > said about Clinton, including his conservatism, at least the economy was > good. And war may be good for some businesses, but it is not good for most > people and it is very bad for those who are wounded and very, very bad for > those who die from it. > > "War is hell to the poor, to the weak, to women, children, and the elderly. > It is often hell to the young men who wage wars, who see and experience the > inhuman horrors of war, and have to carry the physical and psychological > scars of battle to their last days..To the wealthy, to the elites, to the > business class, war is not only not hell, it's opportunity. Indeed war is > big business." (Mumia Abu-Jamal - "The Road to Iraq") > > War is hell for the military who must fight it. War is hell for those who > are maimed by it. War is hell for the parents of fallen victims of war. War > is hell for those who are killed by it. War is also very one-sided. It is > not a fair fight. The intent of making a war is not to give your enemy a > fair chance to fight back. The intent is to kill your opposition and the > more barbaric the better. War is a weapon of mass destruction of the strong > against the weak. To balance out the one-sided nature of war the weak enemy > sometimes cheats and doesn't play by the rules; it may resort to using > so-called "weapons of mass destruction" which ironically it procures from > the strongest powers which yell foul if used against them - while the > strongest power in the world, the United States uses carpet bombs, cluster > bombs, depleted uranium and it's own arsenal of weapons of mass destruction > with impunity. > > "To the US, war is profitable simply because it is the top arms dealer on > earth. The US military well knows Iraqi military capability, in part because > the bulk of their war material came from the united States..." (Abu-Jamal) > > "Actually, the issues of peace or war against Iraq, and of having a decent > job, health insurance, housing, and secure human rights, are matters of deep > concern to people, not only in this country but the world over. The > President and his preemptive war strategists must know that. Accordingly, > they continue to camouflage their threatened use of force, including the use > of weapons of mass destruction, behind the rhetoric of morality. Take their > retaliatory verbal attacks on France as an example. National Security > Adviser Condoleezza Rice implies moral indignation at France's ingratitude > as she reminds the American public (with plenty of `pro-active' help from > the mass media) that it was United States troops that liberated France from > Nazi Germany in World War II. Not mentioned is the fact that America long > resisted joining the military struggle against Nazism, coming in only after > the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war against > the U.S. The war hawk critics of France are equally silent about how the > French helped America's fight for independence against George III (of course > for their own geopolitical reasons)." (John J. Neumaier - Daily Freeman, > Kingston, N.Y. Sunday, March 2, 2003 - "Commentary: War or peace? The > struggle continues") > > Even as George Bush ordered the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq the > inspectors were supervising the destruction of Iraqi missiles. The > inspection process was working. Diplomacy works. Containment works. > > But war also works. War works for them. It works for Boeing and it works for > Halliburton. It works for Bush and got him elected to a second term. War is > the ultimate subversion. Innocent people will die under the legal subterfuge > of war. Winning this war is not the issue. Death and destruction is the > issue. Subversion of humanity is the issue. That is the REAL "evil". Blowing > up frogs is evil. Blowing up people is evil. War is immoral and George Bush > is evil. > > Our weapons have to be more lethal than their weapons. Their weapons are a > violation of humanity but our weapons are all right because they do bad > things and they are not democratic. Our democracy is seriously in question > since as Michael Parenti and others have written about, which is a > "Democracy for the Few" which essentially is a dictatorship under the guise > of democracy. It is a republic, not a democracy. There are representatives > who represent those who paid for their elections. People are influenced by > money spent to spread their propaganda no less so than the corporate owned > media which spreads their propaganda of a ruling elite which pays for it. > > What is different between them and us, between others and the U.S. is the > size of our military and the technology we create with our money - the money > which would be better spent on health care and improved working conditions > and jobs. > > "...What is different today is the far greater destructive force of military > weapons, as first dramatically illustrated by the American use of atomic > weapons of mass destruction at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This year the U.S.- > planned military expenditure of over $400 billion exceeds the combined total > of its NATO allies, and Russia, China, Japan and all its perceived enemy > states." (Neumaier) > > "In a 14-page section "Blood for Oil", the German news magazine DER > SPIEGEL(1/13/03) gives historical background to the rise of Saddam Hussein > and the threatened war against Iraq, including how the U.S. government > backed Hussein in the Iraqi war against Iran, in spite of his appalling > human rights record. The article features a 1983 photo of a smiling Donald > Rumsfeld (then President Reagan's emissary - now Secretary of Defense) > shaking the hand of our then ally Saddam Hussein. It shows how geopolitical > interests win out over any moral consideration. DER SPIEGEL also reminds us > of that day in August, 1990, when American ambassador April Glaspie let > Hussein believe that his planned invasion of Kuwait would not be of interest > to the United States. He thought he had a free hand to attack Kuwait, as had > been the case when he had the U.S. blessing in his war against Iran." > (Neumaier) > > "Powell only accused but did not provide any evidence that Iraq had tried to > get nuclear grade fissile material since 1998. He vainly gave the impression > that everything was set and readily waiting for just this material to be > acquired and the atomic bomb would be rolling out the other door....." > (former Iraqi nuclear engineer) Imad Khadduri - (Feb 7, 2003) > > Powell said: > > "Let me now turn to nuclear weapons. We have no indication that Saddam > Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program." > > "This verges on being humorous. But as the Arabic proverb goes: The worst > kind of misfortune is that which causes you to laugh." (Khadduri) > > "In The Hague on Monday, the secretary-general of the United Nations, Kofi > Annan, warned that U.S. military action against Iraq in the absence of > Security Council approval would "not be in conformity with the U.N. > charter."" (David E. Sanger, "Alternative coalition may launch Iraq attack" > - The New York Times) > > What was this "coalition of the willing?" IT is a coalition of willing to > kill for favors (lots of $$$$) from George W. Bush. > > * A Coalition of the Willing? <http://monkeyfist.com/articles/835> > > "...Bush has broken several laws including the US Constitution, the UN > Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, and the Geneva Convention. His illegal and > imprudent actions have killed many tens of thousands of people and threaten > the security of our great nation. An American President is given so much > power that we cannot allow them to disregard the law. We must impeach George > Bush now!" > > * Now More Than Ever <http://www.impeachbush.tv/> > > HankRoth <http://www.g0lem.net/PhpWiki/index.php/HankRoth> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 04/05/05 > > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
