[FoRK] invasion was much better than Cats lets do it again and again

Albert S. <albert.scherbinsky at rogers.com> on Thu May 24 10:49:42 PDT 2007

This is an interesting theory but I'm not sure what
you mean by "Cheney, who has actually been
constructing the almost-perfect geopolitical and
financial hedge for almost his entire career".

Regards,
Albert


--- Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:

> 
> So despite having railed about the neo-cons for
> quite some time now,  
> and sent along just about every half-assed
> hypothesis I've come  
> across about what's really going on with our foreign
> policy, in the  
> last couple of weeks it's finally all become clear
> to me.  Here's  
> what Iraq is *not* and was *never* about:
> 
>    (1) "capturing" the oil to get it for our own use
>    (2) any sort of war on "terror" (indeed, has the
> opposite effect)
>    (3) revenge for the Bush clan
>    (4) Rummy and Cheney cleaning up a leftover mess
>    (5) establishing democracy in the Middle East
>    (6) WMDs, whether leftovers / the Islamic Bomb /
> Broken Arrow / etc.
>    (7) establishing a strategic beachhead / getting
> bases out of  
> Saudi Arabia
>    (8) any of the other du jour theories
> 
> It is actually very simple;  it's subtle but, in
> hindsight, perfectly  
> obvious.  It's a fight-on-the-right;  a power
> struggle between two  
> factions of our (US) "conservative" wing, with two
> initially  
> overlapping but ultimately divergent agendas. 
> (Weirdly, both of  
> these ultimately incompatible agendas ground out in
> Cheney, who has  
> actually been constructing the almost-perfect
> geopolitical and  
> financial hedge for almost his entire career.)
> 
> Side One:  the neo-cons + Pentagon.  MEANS: 
> creation of a *new* and  
> more controllable (than loose-cannon Saddam) puppet
> authoritarian  
> state tightly bound with a permanent free-market /
> private-sector  
> oriented constitution.  MOTIVE:  privatize the Iraq
> oil fields, get  
> them out of OPEC, and bust OPEC / the Saudis. 
> Strengthen the dollar  
> and get the Saudi debt-noose off of our necks. 
> Recover US economic  
> hegemony, and *hang onto it this time.* 
> OPPORTUNITY:  fear created  
> by 9-11.  They had the upper hand early in this
> fight, but caught the  
> backlash from...
> 
> Side Two:  Big Oil + State Department Bakerites +
> Saudis + Big  
> Construction.  The *last* thing they want is private
> companies in  
> control of the second-largest low-viscosity oil
> fields in the world.   
> The Saudis want to keep control of oil production; 
> they want to keep  
> racking up US debt;  and they'd like to see a
> middle-of-the-road to  
> slightly-devalued (strategic move --- prevent
> further foreign  
> investment by US / dollar-based interests) dollar. 
> Baker / Bush, and  
> to a lesser degree Cheney, are the House of Saud's
> men-on-the- 
> ground.  MEANS:  eliminate wild-card Saddam, install
> more  
> controllable puppet authoritarian regime, but MOST
> OF ALL keep a  
> state-controlled monopoly ownership of the fields
> that will heed  
> OPEC's ridiculously-low historical production
> quotas.  MOTIVE:  keep  
> oil prices high, and everybody's happy;  Big Oil
> makes MORE money  
> when oil is higher;  Saudis are happy;  OPEC
> continues to price-fix;   
> juicy reconstruction and security contracts for the
> favored ones;   
> etc. etc.  OPPORTUNITY:  same as above.
> 
> Ask yourself about all the maneuvering in the
> provisional authority,  
> etc.  Apply Ockham.  It's the simplest solution with
> the fewest  
> number of entities / interests / agendas --- indeed,
> there's really  
> one one primary issue at stake.  Opportunity
> presented, the initial  
> steps were identical for two different agendas, and
> the task was  
> undertaken;  but when things got to a certain point,
> divergence was  
> inevitable.  And hence we've been stuck for 3 years.
> 
> But none of this is new.  The same thing has,
> essentially, been going  
> on in Iraq since its independence in 1932 --- or
> even before.  It's  
> ALWAYS been about keeping Iraq's oil in the ground
> and off the market  
> and controlled by somebody who will do exactly that.
>  The neo-con  
> agenda's the first significant deviation from that
> agenda by any real  
> power players - ever.
> 
> Ironically, of the two, I find the neo-con position
> more attractive.
> 
> :-/
> 
> As for Iran --- well, there the threat / motivation
> / etc. may be  
> closer to what it prima facie appears to be.  Dunno;
>  not enough data  
> yet.
> 
> jb
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
> 


More information about the FoRK mailing list