Hi Murdoch,
Sorry, I screwed up who says what, resending it. It is interesting and I like to write about or publish from somebody, a piece that in a correct way mirrors the result of the past policies and how the oil was paid. At 08:49 PM 12/31/2002 -0800, murdoch wrote: >On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:15:21 +0100, you wrote: > > > > >I wrote the following for publication at "Energy Saving Now", please look, > >comment, correct and suggest a good heading, I took the heading for this > >discussion as a temporary one and maybe it is the best. I would also be > >happy if Keith could look at the language. > >One other thing for now. I see a lot of folks discussing whether >reducing U.S. oil dependencies on some countries might help make the >U.S. less combative. I see less discussion of whether the U.S. has >been enriching the folks whose economies include the folks who are now >at war with the U.S. and its allies. With its past and current oil dependencies, it is difficult to see any alternative in less combative stance. The combative stance is there to keep the oil flowing and the price down on long term. This have been possible only thanks to the Saudi ruling family, who in reality helped to block price rises. In return the US have assisted in giving "stability" to the Saudis and in this way create the aggressive attitude by opposition elements towards US. >That is, when you're at "war", or claim to be, it is not appropriate >to ignore the opportunity to cut your enemy off from sources of >funding. The U.S. has been in a state of conflict, and now is in full >nearly-declared "war" with some terrorists, many of whom are funded, >third-hand, via nations whose source of wealth is Oil. Much of the >reason Oil is valuable on world markets is that it is valuable in the >Internal-Combustion-Engine transportation paradigm the U.S. helped >invent. This is probably the best US could do to the world because of this "funding", the world might have been a more peaceful place today. You should be aware of that the "funding" have been used to buy an enormous amount of weaponry from US and kept the US defence industry in a financially strong position. The biggest problem is that the terrorist are not buying US weapons.They are already cut off from that possibility and they are left to buy on a black market. An other problem is also that the "Axis of evil" are non US customers and in some senses competition. >By refusing over many decades even to *discuss* its dependencies, the >U.S. has blithely sent hundreds of billions of dollars oversease, and >continues to do so, some of which makes it into the very hands that >now act to seek weapons of mass destruction and use them against U.S. >citizens and soldiers and against other world citizens. It is >arguable that cessation of trade in Oil by the U.S. would do more to >stem the flow of money to its claimed enemies, and more to weaken >them, than some of the bombs and battle plans which it now puts >forward. It is not really true. Saddam Hussein was very supportive of the US in the past, so much that he even started a war with Iran. It cannot yet be proved, since the information is carefully classified, but it is some evidence that Iraq's war with Iran was a proxy war on the behalf of US. The revolution in Iran and the failure by US to protect the Shah, was a major political setback for US in the region. It is already proven that Saddam Hussein thought that he had the approval from US to invade Kuweit. This because that the communication between Iraq and US was already in the public domain. >I do not suggest the War On Terrorism is winnable without violent >conflict, but it is also totally incumbent in a war, or even in the >events leading up to it, for a good country to seek every possible way >to weaken its enemy. > >The much-admired WWII generation of the U.S. would *never* have >allowed for this silent complete betrayal, during their wartime. I think that you need to read some history about WWII and WWI for that matter. The largest contribution by US in WWII and for which they should be admired, was Roosevelt's support of ships and supplies, which was without popular support in US. An other major contribution was the Marshal plan, which was a courageous new idea of helping the defeated. The Marshal plan did also pay back handsomely with the large presence of America corporations in the assisted areas and a strong popular support for US. The actual combative role of US in Europe was relatively small, but very profitable for Hollywood. >Sure, they fought imperfectly, as all must. But I'm sure they sought >to reduce the flow of wealth to their enemies. When have we done so? >Blocking illegal bank accounts is *not* what I'm talking about. >Violent confirmed active wartime enemies of the U.S. are enriched, at >this point, every time one fills a gas tank in the U.S. This has been >somewhat true for several decades. It is now simply very clear, and >we are at a crossroads where even the most blind can no longer ignore >it. It is doing damage to the war effort, in my view. It is not that easy, US would not have the wealth and position it has today, without the cheap oil. It is very complex relationships and even if we put some sort of US good face on this, it is too obvious that the cheap oil and pillage of natural resources helped US to be the super power it is today. Without it the US could not have the SUVs of today and had to have much more of the admired fuel efficient European and Japanese cars. It is naive to think that this could have been done without creating enemies. Without judging the US and develop a negative attitude towards the American people as such, I still think it is better to be a little bit honest and "call a spade a spade". An other popular excuse is of course to blame the American corporations and the US government. It is a paradox that the people in "the worlds greatest democracy", have so little influence over their corporations and government. Is this what they call indirect democracy? Hakan Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
