Bush has already explained to the Palestineans that
people have a right to elect who they choose. But,
he continued, THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES, and if the
people elect people America does not like, they
cannot expect America to look approvingly on
the situation. We trust you are LISTENING, children,
and that you will DO THE RIGHT THING.
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/quotes2.html#Q110
--
He who, venturing high above his place,
Mistakes what is not for what is,
Loses his place in the end.
(--Sophocles, "Ode to Man", _Antigone_)
\brad mccormick
William B Ward wrote:
>
> What blows my mind is Bush's assumption that he can introduce a friendly
> regime in Baghdad. This is quite unlikely. If anyone has been following
> the election returns in Pakistan, Islamic fundamentalists made a strong
> showing. Of course, we are backing a military dictator in Pakistan, which
> is always our favorite. What I see happening is a toppling of the Sa'ud
> family and the instituting of a regime much closer to what we have in
> Iran. Kuwait will be the next to go. In fact, we are going to realize
> that we should have been courting the Iranians since, as Tom Friedman
> argues, they are moving in a rational direction. My feeling is that this
> is what will be needed to move beyond fundamentalism to the more moderate
> government which exists in Iran at this point.
>
> Bill Ward
>
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 05:45:06 +0100 Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes:
> > Karen,
> >
> > At 07:50 11/10/02 -0700, you wrote:
> > <<<<
> > Keith, this is for you and all the hard work you have shared with us
> > online. Not a conclusive opinion, but certainly elaborates on the
> > case in
> > point.
> > >>>>
> >
> > That's nice of you to say so. But my hypothesis wasn't hard work --
> > just
> > me, being carried away by the apparent absurdity of Bush's ME
> > policy. The
> > following article that you posted is one of the best I've read. Yet
> > it's
> > self-contradictory! Michael Moran makes a good case for suggesting
> > that
> > Bush/Cheney/etc are attempting to build up a second strategic oil
> > reserve
> > (that is, in Iraq as well as in Saudi Arabia), and then he denies
> > it,
> > saying it's too simplistic!
> >
> > Whether Bush is aiming for regime change in Saudi Arabia primarily
> > (my
> > former hypothesis) or in Iraq, I wouldn't like to guess now. All I
> > would
> > suggest is that, because the pressure that Bush is exerting is so
> > considerable, then any regime change, however "democratic" it might
> > be
> > dressed up to be, will have been done under duress, and will only
> > add to
> > instability in the Middle East.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> > <<<<
> > Oil, war and the future of Iraq
> > Washington finds a novel way to use the �oil weapon�
> >
> > By Michael Moran
> >
> > NEW YORK, Oct. 10 � Oil: the ultimate conspiracy theory. Forget
> > �wag the
> > dog� electoral explanations for George W. Bush�s determination to go
> > to war
> > in Iraq; put aside the idea that he is �avenging his father�s
> > honor,� or
> > the alleged al-Qaida bigwigs in Baghdad, or even the need to divert
> > public
> > attention away from Osama bin Laden�s next move. Nothing animates
> > Bush�s
> > critics more effectively than the suggestion that our Texas oilman
> > president and his ex-Halliburton CEO sidekick are plotting to turn
> > Iraq
> > into America�s strategic petroleum reserve.
> >
> > Like all good conspiracy theories, this one is only about half true.
> > Colonizing Middle Eastern nations, in the classic European sense of
> > the
> > word, is the last thing the current administration desires. After
> > all, they
> > want out of Afghanistan even before they have determined whether or
> > not bin
> > Laden still walks the earth. The CPR gang � Cheney, Powell,
> > Rumsfeld � are
> > not imperialists, at least not in that sense.
> >
> > But neither is oil irrelevant, and at the very least the
> > administration�s
> > current actions suggest that the United States will use the prize of
> > Iraq�s
> > oil and gas � the world�s second-largest proven reserves � to get
> > what it
> > wants before the war and afterward, as well. If anyone still
> > wonders
> > whether America will succeed in getting the resolution it wants out
> > of the
> > United Nations Security Council, let me assure you below that
> > Washington�s
> > diplomats fully understand how oil relates to this game.
> >
> > SUBTLE AND FRANK
> > Many nations and corporations � some of them American � have signed
> > oil
> > deals with Saddam Hussein�s regime in the hope that, once U.N.
> > sanctions
> > are lifted, they will reap lucrative benefits. The three nations
> > whose
> > contracts are most at risk should Saddam somehow disappear are
> > China,
> > Russia and France.* Coincidentally, these same three nations � along
> > with
> > the United States and Britain � control the U.N. Security Council by
> > virtue
> > of their power to veto any resolution they dislike.
> >
> > The job of persuading these nations to sign onto a tough new U.N.
> > resolution on Iraq involves two distinct campaigns: one public and
> > somewhat
> > subtle, the other behind the scenes, where frank talk between
> > diplomats is
> > possible.
> >
> > Consider the public, subtle approach this week of Ahmed Chalabi, a
> > leader
> > of the U.S.-based Iraqi opposition whose aides have been meeting
> > with
> > Russian officials. Speaking of Russia�s oil contracts, the Iraqi
> > National
> > Congress leader says: �People in Iraq will be more amenable if
> > Russia does
> > not obstruct the liberation of Iraq.� Russia�s current financial
> > exposure
> > in Iraq � the amount Baghdad owes to Moscow � is thought to be on
> > the order
> > of $8 billion.
> >
> > But that is chump change next to what Russian oil companies might
> > earn if
> > they can begin exploiting oil and gas reserves currently assigned to
> > them.
> > In the post-Saddam world, who�s to say that Moscow�s contracts with
> > the
> > Butcher of Baghdad will be honored? Why, America will say.
> >
> > James Woolsey, the former CIA director and a hawkish advocate for
> > regime
> > change, put it this way in The Washington Post recently: �France
> > and
> > Russia have oil interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they
> > are of
> > assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we�ll do the
> > best we
> > can to ensure that the new government and American companies work
> > closely
> > with them.�
> >
> > Woolsey is not the kind of guy who speculates about such things.
> > When his
> > type says publicly �here�s what we should do,� you can bet it is
> > already
> > being done. Along those lines, it should strike no one as odd that
> > the
> > French, with enormous concessions to their oil giant Total at stake,
> > have
> > taken the lead in forging a diplomatic solution at the council.
> >
> > THE BEST WE CAN
> > Now take a leap of faith with me and assume that Saddam, by hook,
> > crook or
> > Tomahawk, is removed from power in Baghdad by a UN-sanctioned
> > operation and
> > the US-led coalition installs the Iraqi National Congress (INC) in
> > his
> > place. Does this mean that Exxon-Mobil, BP-Amoco, Chevron-Texaco
> > and the
> > rest split the country up the way the Allied Powers divided Germany
> > after
> > World War II?
> >
> > Not likely. First of all, the INC studiously has avoided taking a
> > stance
> > on post-war oil spoils, in part because the oil issue � like slavery
> > at the
> > American Continental Congress � is so sensitive that it could
> > destroy the
> > fragile, multi-ethnic INC. Furthermore, with help from Washington,
> > the
> > leadership of the Iraqi opposition has come to recognize the value
> > of
> > uncertainty in the oil realm. Leaving open the possibility that
> > Saddam-era
> > contracts will be honored not only helps the American diplomatic
> > cause; it
> > also may make it easier to deal with remnants of Saddam�s inner
> > circle if
> > it is they, rather than an international coalition, who effect
> > �regime
> > change.�
> >
> > An invasion scenario, however, clearly favors the United States.
> > Given the
> > enormous potential for civil conflict within a post-Saddam Iraq �
> > Shiites
> > taking revenge on Sunnis, ethnic Kurds and ethnic Turkmens battling
> > for the
> > oil capital of Kirkuk, remnants of Saddam�s Tikritis causing trouble
> > here
> > and there � American post-war scenarios all envision an occupation
> > force
> > lasting years. That puts America�s military in the cat-bird seat
> > when it
> > comes to enforcing oil claims. You can be sure that, whatever
> > France�s
> > Total or China�s state oil company may say they are due, this
> > particular
> > administration is more naturally inclined to see U.S. oil firms in a
> > position of dominance, and the Iraqi opposition figures who are
> > installed
> > Karzai-like in Baghdad will need a friendly superpower to protect
> > them for
> > some time.
> >
> > SO, CHEAP OIL?
> > Here we come to the $64 trillion question: Does an American-led
> > invasion
> > that topples Saddam and puts Iraq in the hands of a friendly
> > government
> > leave America with the world�s largest strategic petroleum reserve?
> >
> > Not really. For 30 years now, the price of oil has been controlled
> > primarily by Saudi Arabia. The way the Saudis do this is part
> > carrot, part
> > stick. OPEC members are required to produce only an agreed quota of
> > oil.
> > Even though most cheat, Saudi Arabia holds the other OPEC members
> > roughly
> > to their pledges by threatening renegades with bankruptcy. In
> > essence, if
> > OPEC doesn�t heel, Saudi Arabia can flood the market with its own
> > oil,
> > causing prices to plummet. Because of this power, the United States
> > protects the Saudi royals and overlooks their abusive regime. In
> > return,
> > America gets a $1 discount on every barrel it buys from the kingdom.
> >
> > Theoretically, Iraq�s oil industry � now producing 2.2 million
> > barrels per
> > day (bpd) � could break the Saudi hold on OPEC and thus allow the
> > big
> > consuming countries � the United States, Japan and Western Europe �
> > to call
> > the shots.
> >
> > But Iraq�s oil industry is in a shambles and likely to worsen after
> > any
> > bombing campaign. Current assessments suggest it would take up to a
> > decade
> > before production could increase significantly � this in the most
> > optimistic post-Saddam political scenarios.
> >
> > Furthermore, there are powerful interests both within the United
> > States and
> > outside who don�t want to see oil prices collapse. The
> > aforementioned
> > American oil giants, prominent butterers of the Bush
> > administration�s
> > bread, are exploring new fields in remote regions of Alaska,
> > Colombia and
> > Central and Southeast Asia that will only be profitable at prices
> > above
> > about $22 per barrel.
> >
> > Then there is Russia, suddenly a non-OPEC oil power in its own
> > right. The
> > Soviet oil industry collapsed just before the USSR did, but Russia�s
> > is now
> > back and already sparring with the Saudis for control of world
> > prices. But
> > Russian oil is located in some of the most unforgiving regions of
> > the
> > planet: northern Siberia, the frozen Arctic and Barents seas, and it
> > takes
> > world prices of $25 per barrel and above for this to be worthwhile.
> >
> > Too many voices right now � in America, Europe and especially the
> > Middle
> > East � see oil behind each and every word the Bush administration
> > utters on
> > Iraq. That is far too simplistic, and worse, it sets up a straw man
> > that
> > this administration takes great joy in knocking down. But oil is an
> > issue
> > � in a complex, long-term and very real way. To deny it is to deny
> > reality.
> >
> > *Other nations that have signed contracts with Saddam Hussein�s
> > government
> > since 1991 include India, Italy, the Netherlands, Algeria,
> > Singapore,
> > Malaysia and Vietnam. Among this group, only Singapore is on the
> > council
> > as one of the 10 �rotating� members until the end of 2002.
> > >>>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> > --------------
> > Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> > Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
