|
“Our Oil Interests”
The U.S. public does not eat all the propaganda crumbs falling off the administration table – like we "promote democracy/piece in the Middle East" or we "free Iraqi people".
But other things like the false "Irak => terrorism" meme seem to stick.
The numbers are quite interesting and I am trying to understand the psychology behind this.
Here are answers to an open question from a current CBS News/New York Times poll (pdf):
53. Why do you think the Bush Administration decided to go to war against Iraq?
| Protect our oil interests |
17 |
|
Protect the U.S. from terrorism |
15 |
|
Finish what his father started/personal vendetta |
13 |
|
To get Saddam Hussein |
10 |
|
Protect the U.S. from WMD’s |
9 |
|
Because of 9/11 |
8 |
|
Protect the country in general |
4 |
|
Administration officials wanted to go to war |
2 |
|
Promote democracy/peace in Middle East |
2 |
|
So American companies can make money |
1 |
|
Free Iraqi people |
1 |
|
Other |
7 |
|
DK/NA |
11 |
Now could someone please explain what "our oil interests" are in this context?
Today oil climbed above $60/barrel again (and will keep rising). Are "our oil interests" and the failure of the Cheney regime to keep the price low the only decisive reason for the general bad poll numbers?
Insurgents Using Chem Weapons – On Themselves?
“This has to be the most bizarre twist in the WMD saga yet. Insurgents in Iraq could very well have chemical weapons. And they may be using them – on themselves.” After experimenting on a variety of hallucinogens, the Pentagon selected BZ, or 3-quinuclidinyl benzillate, a potent mind-altering substance that was colorless and odorless and readily amenable to delivery in an aerosol cloud, to weaponize in the ’50’s. It incapacitates with both physical and mental effects, supposedly without lethality. (From the description, it appears that its effects are largely anticholinergic actions. Anticholinergic toxicity from medications is a common cause of confusion, agitation and delirium in hospitalized patients. — FmH) However, it produced uncontrollable aggression in its victims, which among other unpredictable effects, caused it to fall out of favor. Supposedly, the US stockpile of hundreds of thousands of pounds of BZ was destroyed by 1990.
Although the US CIA discounts the reports, British intelligence sugests that Iraq developed a similar compound. A weblog by a US Marine, since taken down, suggested that insurgents were often juiced up with this chemical warfare agent, among other mind-altering drugs, in preparation for suicide attacks on occupation forces, the modern equivalent of the proverbial half-pint of rum issued to British seamen before naval actions. The article suggests that ‘cannon fodder’ guerrillas were exposed to the agent involuntarily, since it seems unlikely that anyone would take ‘this ultimate bad trip’ voluntarily.
Interesting speculation but, as the article takes pains to conclude, it is only speculation, with little evidence. It leaps from surmise to hypothesis to assumption, it seems to me. I find it much more likely that the paranoia and fanaticism of the insurgents attacking occupation forces have been inflamed by reason, not madness.
Also see:
PUBLIC LAW 95-79 [P.L. 95-79] TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32, SECTION 1520 “CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM” “The use of human subjects will be allowed for the testing of chemical and biological agents by the U.S. Department of Defense, accounting to Congressional committees with respect to the experiments and studies.” “The Secretary of Defense [may] conduct tests and experiments involving the use of chemical and biological [warfare] agents on civilian populations [within the United States].” -SOURCE- Public Law 95-79, Title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 91, page 334, you will find Public Law 95-79. Public Law 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1882. In U.S. Statutes-at-Large, Vol. 96, page 1882, you will find Public Law 97-375.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 8 2005 23:35 utc | 3
Also Steve Earle, activist country singer.
I don’t see that much distinction between slothrop’s position and r’giap’s. Shades of semantic grey.
However, I do agree with slothrop et. al. that comrade r’giap consistently implicates US empire as the only salient power construct, while minimizing or glossing over Europes’s historical and current record of both domination, and complicity with US domination. Let the record show that not a single European country stood up to America’s invasion of Iraq. Yes, numerous leaders talked a good game to their domestic public, but ALL lent aid, sending “advisors” (spies), soldiers, money, flight, refueling and overflight privleges, hosting airbases–even friggin’ Iceland, who one might think irrelevant enough to show some independence, allowed landing privleges and is dotted with US and NATO radar installations. Turkey, which is only very arguably a part of Europe, took the only brave stand, forgoing Billions of dollars to let the US invade from its territory.
And, on an historical note, let’s recall that France only relinquished significant portions of her empire–Indochine and Algeria–because she was unable to hold on to them; not because her capitalists were somehow more enlightened than US counterparts. And she still has significant imperial interests in Africa, particularly the West coast, having lost control of Central Africa in a US/British coup a decade ago. If less blood is being spilled in her holdings at the moment, it is only because it was spilled previously in the gaining of control, and the natives are now in their place.
Granted, European Capital does not have exactly the same interests as American, but significant portions of the time they coincide quite well. Evidence last years coup in Haiti, where French and American Capital interests joined hands in deposing the democratically elected leader, Aristide. And this while they were quite publically sniping at each other over Iraq. Also note that two major French private companies, Vivendi and Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, are part of the driving force behind the controversial privatisation of water world wide–including in the US’s backyard, South America, as well as in the US proper. So the capitalist’s divide the world and its resources up: The French get water, and the US gets GM food. Which one is deadlier and less democratic, and which one kills more people?
Often Europe plays the role of “Good Cop” on the international stage to the US’s “Bad Cop”; but both roles are necessary for domination. Its a ploy, one that any business person, or diplomat knows well. But what gets me is when Europeans act like their shit don’t stink. My ex-wife, who is Danish, called me up from out of the blue this spring. (We hadn’t spoken in 19 years!) After perfunctorily making sure I knew who she was, and asking how I was doing, she launched into the Euro-superior rant: “What is up with ‘your’ country? (She has a green card and lived here for over 1/3 of her life.) How could you do this, etc. etc. When I informed her that her country had 1/4 the number of troops we had in Iraq (on a per capita basis) she brought out the excuse list: We aren’t really there to fight, We’re trying to keep the peace (That is the peace of US domination), We have this awful conservative government here, but this is ‘Lille Danmark’, you know this is an aberation for us, (Imperialism is always presented as an aberation, even here in the US), we are such a small country, you are so large, what could we do but follow you. All well spoken as a true Euro-liberal.
Let’s face it either you are an activist, or you’re not. Either you lay your life potentially on the line to fight injustice, or you ignore it, or you talk about it, which is pretty much the same thing. And I don’t see significantly more activism taking place in Europe than the US these days, though I would be happy to be proven wrong.
So slothrop and r’giap are both partially correct. But we are all partially complicit if we are living on a first world level, as those resources had to come from someone else’s belly.
Posted by: Malooga | Dec 9 2005 5:50 utc | 36
I think it’s a big mistake to perpetuate this idea of some monolithic American Empire taking over the Middle East, simply because that hampers any solution. Bringing down America will accomplish little. I think there is an international cast of characters behind the Iraq invasion as many others had a lot to gain from Hussein’s removal. Several attempts had been made, including assaination, I understand, but nothing worked. It’s an extremely complex geopolitical situation and before any conclusions are drawn, it should be understood, so correct action can be taken. I also think there has been a lot of double crossing and that the PNAC crowd was used. They are flopping around quite impotently now.
Maybe it goes back to when our monetary system was privatized and became international.
Here is a perspective that might interest some of you and some ideas about the Internet as a political tool. Can’t link so it’s a little lengthy.
In his final speech as President, Dwight Eisenhower labeled this elite “the military-industrial complex.” This was only 40% of the complex. The banking-oil complex has always been part of the larger complex. This co-partner is uniquely international.
Until May 15, 1948, when Truman recognized the newly formed State of Israel, the American Establishment had been overwhelmingly WASP. Yet the Establishment was divided over this issue in 1948. The incarnation of the older Establishment, Secretary of State George C. Marshall, told Truman a few days before the recognition that he would not resign in protest if Truman recognized the State of Israel, but he would surely vote against Truman in November, if he voted, which as a military man, he didn’t. Somehow, this threat did not stop Truman. The Middle East from that day forth became a permanently divisive issue inside the American Establishment.
This five-part complex constitutes the largest concentration of capital in the world, and therefore is the most influential special-interest group in the world.
This special-interest group has its headquarters in New York City, but it rests on the cooperation of the political heads of oil-rich Muslim states. If the flow of oil stops because of a series of radical Islamic revolutions, the entire complex goes down, and with it the West’s economy. Fractional reserve banking is lubricated by oil.
All sides understand this, including Osama bin Laden. All sides of the Establishment have a special interest in keeping the oil flowing. No side trusts the free market to allocate oil, for oil is not strictly a free market commodity. It is controlled at the wellhead by civil governments. Problem: the civil governments of Arabia are no more stable than the tribes and sects of Islam.
The foreign policy Establishment is internally divided. The hawks in 2001 feared Iraq more than they feared Iran. Because of this division, President Bush got his war. The pro-Israel hawks are behind him. So is the military-industrial complex, which is reaping untold billions.
The banking-oil complex is out of the loop. The old timers in this segment of the Establishment worry that an overly aggressive American nationalism will threaten the stability of the Middle East, and hence threaten the flow of oil. These are the grand old masters of the complex. They are being ignored, just as they were ignored in 1948. They accepted a fait accompli in 1948. I do not think they regard the present Bush administration as a fait accompli. It is a temporary disruption that will go away in 2009. Their job is to find a replacement candidate in each party who will bring most of the troops home.
Today, the Internet is serving as the institutional equivalent of the university in 1967. But this time, there is no geographical location of the protest movement. Guns therefore cannot control it. Nothing can control it.
The foreign policy Establishment remains divided. Its primary mouthpieces are print media, which are rapidly losing market share. There is no way for this process to be reversed. The revolution was.
Years ago, Peter Drucker observed that any new technology which reduces the costs of production or distribution by 90% will inevitably replace the existing technology. The Internet has reduced the cost of distributing information by more than 90%. The cost of our time has increased, but we volunteer this time, either as producers (website owners) or consumers of information (readers).
Add to this the incredibly low cost of the Forward button.
The Internet is serving as a termite nest to the frame houses of the Establishment in every nation. It is providing facts and editorials that undermine the reading public’s confidence in the official sources of information.
There is no unifying voice on the Internet. There is no all-encompassing worldview. Most important of all, there is no centralized group to buy off.
The Internet has no strategy. That is why it constitutes a true revolution. It is a technology, not a strategy. The nature of this technology is counter-strategy. The cost of transmitting information is borne by people who volunteer their time and who have Forward buttons. This has never happened before.
The only thing I can think of that is comparable was the system of Roman roads in the first century. Every religious group could take its message across the empire. The infrastructure was maintained by the state.
The printing press was similar in the sixteenth century, but presses were expensive. They could be targeted by censors. Paper sales could be traced. The ideological conflicts of the Protestant Reformation and Counter-Reformation were conducted with atoms, not electrons. The Internet revolution isn’t.
The Internet is the incarnation of Hayek’s concept of the spontaneous order. We have never seen anything like it before. The degree of spontaneity is spectacularly high because the transaction costs are so low. You can get your two cents’ worth into the discussion for well under a penny. This fact is changing the world.
There is no overall strategy . . . not in anything connected with the Internet or to the Internet. It really is spontaneous, as far as non-Calvinists can affirm the existence of spontaneity.
This means that tactics are everything. Those critics who keep hammering away at the war in Iraq are like men with jack hammers. If they don’t quit early and their internal organs don’t fail, the highway will soon be a shambles.
I’m not sure about the exact explanation of the ME situation but I do believe the tentacles spread far and deep in a web primarily about business that will ultimately have a political solution. To focus too much on The USA as the criminal force is simplifying and shortchanging the full understanding of the international syndicate we are faced with.
Posted by: jm | Dec 10 2005 1:20 utc | 47
|
