Outlook is for war, then more war

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Outlook is for war, then more war
By Mike Carlton
November 27, 2004

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

So wrote H.L. Mencken (1880-1956), the acerbic American journalist and critic rightly known in his day as the Sage of Baltimore. I thank the Herald reader who reminded me of the quote for, with the re-election of George Bush, we can safely assume that Mencken's great and glorious day has arrived. In spades.

The moron and his svengali, the Vice-President Dick Cheney - their majority assured in this last term - are now marching towards the precipice of the lunar right. The imminent departure from the State Department of Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, will remove the last counsels of moderation from the conduct of American foreign and defence policy.

Powell's successor, the ghastly Condoleezza Rice, will be telling Bush only what he wants to hear, just as Donald Rumsfeld does from the Pentagon, which is that the US is locked in a struggle between good and evil which can be won only by fire and sword and, when that doesn't work in a hurry, by more fire and more sword.

Much the same noises will be coming from the CIA, where the White House has installed a hit man to purge the agency of its wimpy small-l liberals, thus ensuring Bush and Cheney get only the intelligence they want to hear. It is a sure-fire formula for more of the catastrophic events we have seen in Iraq.

This month Michael Scheuer, a CIA veteran of 22 years and the former head of the agency's secret unit for tracking Osama bin Laden, resigned in frustrated rage at the incompetence of the Bush Administration.

In a book titled Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror, Scheuer argues the switch from the hunt for bin Laden to fighting the Iraq war has inflamed the Islamic world against the US.

He fears that, rightly or wrongly, 1.3 billion Muslims now view the US as a colonial power waging war on Islam with Israel as America's surrogate. The Israeli tail wags the American dog. This, he says, will create a growing hatred that will yield growing violence.

Most dismal of all, Scheuer sees no end in sight. "There's no way out of this war at the moment," he told the CBS 60 Minutes program. "It's not a choice between war and peace. It's a choice between war and endless war."

Indeed. This is where the faith-based Bushies are leading us, with all their moralising claptrap about the dawn of democracy and freedom in the Middle East.

Which neatly takes us to another aphorism from Henry Louis Mencken: "To wage a war for a purely moral reason is as absurd as to ravish a woman for a purely moral reason."

ON THURSDAY a woman rang me on air on 2UE, choking back tears. Her name was Gail. She was waiting in a hospital for her husband to emerge from radiation therapy for the asbestos cancer, mesothelioma, which has destroyed his left lung and threatens to take his life.

He had begun work as a roofer at 16, she said, cutting asbestos sheeting. Now 52 - it had been his birthday the day before - he was the wreck of a man. That morning, as they were leaving for the hospital, they had heard on the radio that the Medical Research and Compensation Foundation, which manages payouts to asbestos victims, would be applying for voluntary liquidation. There might be no money left for the two of them.

I cannot remember taking a more wretched call. Gail was in the pits of despair. I could do nothing but lend her an ear, offering what meaningless comfort I could muster.

So let us cut to the chase. The root cause of Gail's misery is James Hardie, the company which made the lethal asbestos products that have devastated, and will continue to devastate, thousands of families like hers.

Hardie's brutal refusal to meet its financial and moral responsibilities to its victims is an outrage, perhaps the greatest in our corporate history.

Each month this disgusting outfit seems to come up with a new and more devious stratagem for getting out from under, all smothered in banal public relations blather. In the latest, from its bolt-hole in the Netherlands, James Hardie set up a shell company in Australia, ABN 60, to deposit $31 million in the compensation fund. That is $31 million against estimated current and future liabilities of $1.5 billion or more.

And even with that derisory pittance there are strings attached. Strings like wire hawsers. Dennis Cooper, the managing director of the compensation fund, says the money cannot be accepted because it would commit the fund to take no further legal action against James Hardie.

"Taking that decision could deprive us of funds and could deprive victims of long-term moneys," he told me. So provisional liquidation it is.

Let us hope there is a corner of hell reserved for James Hardie's board of directors. Asbestos-lined.

Some were not amused



Satire provokes extraordinary responses. Last week's column, all of it satire, drew praise, scorn and fury.

The praise was nice, outweighing the rest, although even I modestly thought that one reader went over the top and out of sight by putting me up there with the founding genius of the genre, Jonathan Swift. But thank you, anyway.

The scorn I can live with. It was along the lines of "not funny ... pathetic ... time you retired", etc. Nothing much I can do about that. If you don't think it works then you don't think it works.

The fury was astounding but rewarding in that it suggested I'd hit a few targets bang on. One seething reader thought it racist to makes jokes about Condoleezza Rice. I would have thought it racist not to make jokes about her, but however.

And in an apoplectic email splattered with obscenities, a lunatic informed me that "Yasser Arafat (pedophile, sodomist, mass-murderer and terrorist)" had died of AIDS.

But "the wheel is turning", he warned me. "And sooner or later (hopefully sooner) it's going to grind you and your kind into meaningless slime."

Deary me. This sort of hysteria is stoked by the majority ratbags of the right in the media who, while complaining loudly that they can never get a word in edgeways, are bent upon silencing any dissent from their strutting world view. This is understandable: to the victor, the spoils. But you have got to acknowledge that Joseph Goebbels took much the same view.

On which note I finish for 2004. A Happy Christmas and New Year to you.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/11/26/1101219747007.html?oneclick=true#

Registration Required
 

Paranoid Dot Calm

Council Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,142
0
36
Hide-Away Lane, Toronto
I got this in my e-mail .... I don't have a direct link to the story.


Mother's view of the war
Battle fatigue on the home front
By Teri Wills Allison
November 25, 2004

I am not a pacifist. I am a mother. By nature, the two are incompatible, for
even a cottontail rabbit will fight to protect her young.

Violent action may be necessary in defense of one's family or home, and that
definition of home can easily be extended to community and beyond, but
violence, no matter how warranted, always takes a heavy toll.

Violence taken to the extreme -- war -- exacts the most extreme costs. There
may be a just war, but there is no such thing as a good war. And the burdens
of an unjust war are insufferable.

I know something about the costs of an unjust war, for my son, Nick, an Army
infantryman, is fighting one in Iraq. I don't speak for him. I couldn't even
if I wanted to, for all I hear through the mom filter is "I'm fine, Mom,
don't worry. I'm fine. Everything is fine, fine, fine. We're fine, just
fine. '' But I can tell you what some of the costs are as I live and breathe
them.

First, the minor stuff: my constant feelings of dread and despair, the
sweeping rage that alternates with petrifying fear, the torrents of tears
that accompany a maddening sense of helplessness and vulnerability.

My son is involved in a deadly situation that should never have been. I feel
like a mother lion in a cage, my grown cub in danger, and all I can do is
throw myself furiously against the bars, impotent to protect him. My
tolerance for b.s. is zero, and I've snapped off more heads in the last
several months than in all the rest of my 48 years combined.

For the first time in my life and with great amazement and sorrow, I feel
what can only be described as hatred. It took me a long time to admit it,
but there it is. I loathe the hubris, the callousness, and the lies of those
in the Bush administration who led us into this war.

Truth be told, I even loathe the fallible and very human purveyors of those
lies. I feel no satisfaction in this admission, only sadness and
recognition. I hope that, given time, I can do better. I never wanted to
hate anyone.

Xanax helps a bit. At least it holds the debilitating panic attacks somewhat
at bay, so I can fake it through one more day. A friend in the same
situation relies on a six-pack of beer every night. Another has drifted into
a la-la land of denial. Nice.

Then there is the wedge that has been driven between part of my extended
family and me. They don't see this war as one based on lies. They've become
evangelical believers in a false faith, swallowing Bush's fearmongering, his
chicken-hawk posturing and strutting. They cheer his "bring 'em on" attitude
as a sign of strength and resoluteness.

Perhaps life is just easier that way. These are the same people who have
known my son since he was a baby; who have held him, loved him and played
with him; who have bought him birthday presents and taken him fishing. I
don't know them anymore.

But enough of my whining. My son is alive and in one piece, unlike the 1,
215 dead and more than 8,000 severely wounded American soldiers, which equal
9, 215 blood-soaked uniforms. That doesn't even count the estimated 20,000
troops, not publicly reported by the Department of Defense, taken out of
Iraq for "noncombat-related injuries."

Every death, every injury burns like a knife in my gut, for these are all
America's sons and daughters. And I know I'm not immune to that knock on my
door either.

Yes, my son is alive and, as far as I know, well. I wish I could say the
same for some of his friends.

One young man who was involved in heavy fighting during the invasion is now
so debilitated by post-traumatic stress disorder that he routinely has
flashbacks in which he smells burning flesh. He can't close his eyes without
seeing people's heads squashed like frogs in the middle of the road, or dead
and dying women and children, burned, bleeding and dismembered.

Sometimes he hears the sounds of battle raging around him, and he has been
hospitalized twice for suicidal tendencies. When he was home on leave, this
27- year-old man would crawl into his mother's room at night and sob in her
lap for hours.

Instead of getting treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, he has just
received a "less than honorable" discharge from the Army. The rest of his
unit redeploys to Iraq in February.

Another friend of Nick's was horrifically wounded when his humvee stopped on
a bomb. He didn't even have time to instinctively raise his arm and protect
his face. Shrapnel ripped through his right eye, obliterating it to gooey
shreds, and penetrated his brain. He has been in a coma since March.

His mother spends every day with him in the hospital. His wife is
devastated, and their 1 1/2-year-old daughter doesn't know her daddy. But my
son's friend is a fighter and so is making steady, incremental progress
toward consciousness.

He has a long hard struggle ahead of him, one that he shouldn't have to
face, and his family has had to fight every step of the way to get him the
treatment he needs. So much for supporting the troops.

I visit him every week. It breaks my heart to see the burned faces, the
missing limbs, the limps and the vacant stares one encounters in an
acute-care military hospital.

In front of the hospital there is a cannon, and every afternoon they blast
that sucker off. You should see all those poor guys hit the pavement.

Although many requests have been made to discontinue the practice for the
sake of the returning wounded, the general in charge refuses. Boom.

When Nick left for Iraq, I granted myself permission to be stark raving mad
for the length of his deployment. I've done a good job of it, without
apology or excuse.

And I dare say there are at least 139,999 other moms who have done the same,
although considering troop rotations needed to maintain that magical number
of 140,000 in the sand could put the number of crazed military moms as high
as 300,000, maybe more. You might want to be careful about cutting in line
in front of a middle-aged woman.

I know there are military moms who view the war in Iraq through different
ideological lenses than mine. Sometimes I envy them. How much easier it must
be to believe one's son or daughter is fighting for a just and noble cause.

But no matter how hard I scrutinize the invasion and occupation of Iraq, all
I see are lies, corruption, and greed fueled by a powerful addiction to oil.
Real soldiers get blown to tatters in their Hummers so that well-heeled
American suburbanites can play in theirs.

For my family and me, the costs of this war are real and not abstract. By
day, I fight my demons of dreaded possibility, beat them back into the
shadows, into the dark recesses of my mind. Every night they hiss and
whisper a vile prognosis of gloom and desolation. I order the voices into
silence, but too often they laugh at and mock my commands.
 

Paco

Electoral Member
Jul 6, 2004
172
0
16
7000 ft. asl and on full auto
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

Mecken shows his ignorance. America is not a democracy, it is a republic. Yes, there is a huge difference.

The moron and his svengali, the Vice-President Dick Cheney

Only three paragraphs into this "missive" and Bush is called a moron for the second time. When one can only call names, one has no legitimate argument.

Powell's successor, the ghastly Condoleezza Rice, will be telling Bush only what he wants to hear,

Obviously, Mike Carlton is a long time acquaintance of Condi. His special personal knowledge of Condi and her personality provides him a look at the future that he can share with us all. And look! He can call her names too!

Much the same noises will be coming from the CIA, where the White House has installed a hit man to purge the agency of its wimpy small-l liberals, thus ensuring Bush and Cheney get only the intelligence they want to hear.

The CIA has been a huge failure over the last 12 years or so. This "argument" is just plain stupid. After being embarrassed in front of the world by an intelligence agency that failed him, Bush is going to... what??? Put people in there that will give him the intelligence he wants to hear? But, but, but... the intelligence that Iraq had WMD is exactly Bush wants to hear. Right? <Heh>

This month Michael Scheuer, a CIA veteran of 22 years and the former head of the agency's secret unit for tracking Osama bin Laden, resigned in frustrated rage at the incompetence of the Bush Administration.

In a book titled Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror,

Michael Scheuer loves to hear himself talk. He has a big mouth and he can't control it. He has also ripped the 911 commission, the Clinton administration, and the head of the CIA, George Tenent. At one time he indicated there was a link between al Qaeda and Iraq, then he flipped on that position. Quoting Mr. Scheuer in an opinion piece to advance one's position is like quoting a whore on morality.

Most dismal of all, Scheuer sees no end in sight. "There's no way out of this war at the moment," he told the CBS 60 Minutes program. "It's not a choice between war and peace. It's a choice between war and endless war."

Duh. The man has a knack for the obvious. General Tommy Franks' war plan included years of "war" or strife. Bush has told the world this will not end next week. We are in this for the long haul and we know it.

Indeed. This is where the faith-based Bushies are leading us, with all their moralising claptrap about the dawn of democracy and freedom in the Middle East.

Right. 20 years of terror attacks against Americans had nothing to do with where we are now. 20 years of acting passively was rewarded with September 11.

This entire screed is feces. You may wallow in it if that is your desire.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Mecken shows his ignorance. America is not a democracy, it is a republic. Yes, there is a huge difference.

Mencken understood American politics and the nature of the puritanical right perfectly. It made him famous.

If the US isn't a democracy maybe they should quit traipsing around the world murdering people and claiming to be sprading democracy.

Only three paragraphs into this "missive" and Bush is called a moron for the second time.

Would you like me dig through your posts for examples of all the times you spewed epithets at what you perceive to be the left?

Obviously, Mike Carlton is a long time acquaintance of Condi. His special personal knowledge of Condi and her personality provides him a look at the future that he can share with us all. And look! He can call her names too!

His appraisal matches that of most of the world. It is based on her record. Do you have personal knowledge of Ms. Rice? She is ghastly by the way.

The CIA has been a huge failure over the last 12 years or so. This "argument" is just plain stupid. After being embarrassed in front of the world by an intelligence agency that failed him, Bush is going to... what??? Put people in there that will give him the intelligence he wants to hear? But, but, but... the intelligence that Iraq had WMD is exactly Bush wants to hear. Right?

Come on, Paco...the evidence of the Bush regime encouraging the intelligence community to offer only things that back up their wish-list has been documented all over the place from a variety of sources. Their brutal and illegal attack on Valerie Plame was a message being sent to those who wouldn't play their game.

Michael Scheuer loves to hear himself talk. He has a big mouth and he can't control it. He has also ripped the 911 commission, the Clinton administration, and the head of the CIA, George Tenent. At one time he indicated there was a link between al Qaeda and Iraq, then he flipped on that position.

Scheuer is a professional. His criticisms are not based on partisanship.


Quoting Mr. Scheuer in an opinion piece to advance one's position is like quoting a whore on morality.

What was it you were saying about name-calling earlier?

Duh. The man has a knack for the obvious. General Tommy Franks' war plan included years of "war" or strife. Bush has told the world this will not end next week. We are in this for the long haul and we know it.

Funny...I seem to remember hearing that this was going to be a cakewalk. I also remember Georgie standing on a boat and declaring the war over. He was lying of course...you could tell because his lips were moving...but he still did it.

Right. 20 years of terror attacks against Americans had nothing to do with where we are now. 20 years of acting passively was rewarded with September 11.

Sixty years of brutal imperialism brought on those terror attacks, Paco.

This entire screed is feces. You may wallow in it if that is your desire.

When one can only call names, one has no legitimate argument.

You're a funny man, Paco...in contradictory kind of way.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Reverend Blair said:
Funny...I seem to remember hearing that this was going to be a cakewalk.

Where? Please do tell!

I also remember Georgie standing on a boat and declaring the war over. He was lying of course...

No, he didn't, and therefore, he wasn't, of course.

I believe this is the boat you're speaking of:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2627-2003May1

...my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed....

...The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on....


We've already discussed the difference between the "war on Iraq" vs. the "war in Iraq" (i.e. Saddam Hussein vs. Al Qaeda) in a previous thread.

you could tell because his lips were moving...but he still did it.

That made me laugh :laughing3: very clever. Yet Alas, he still did not.

Sixty years of brutal imperialism brought on those terror attacks, Paco.

Again, please do tell. Seriously, I've been looking for the concrete explanation of this whole "U.S. Foreign Policy" thing. Aside from support for Israel (which is mitigated by support for all other Arab nations as well) I just don't get this whole brutal imperialism thing. Some underhanded dark ops...probably. Aggressive marketing...absolutely. But brutal imperialism? Lemme in on it.

(And please, no references to the Sandanista's, Chile, Granada, Panama, etc. etc. Al Qaeda declared war on the United States in 1998, and I REALLY don't believe it was because they were pissed about Pinochet!) :wink:
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
I'm not even sure you deserve a reply, Facts...but here goes.

More than a year ago, Kenneth Adelman, a prominent national-security official in the Reagan Administration who now serves part time, with Richard Perle, on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, wrote a piece for the Washington Post. Its title was “Cakewalk in Iraq,” and its payoff went like this: “I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they’ve become much weaker; (3) we’ve become much stronger; and (4) now we’re playing for keeps.” It’s worth remembering that “last time”—that is, in 1991, when a genuine coalition of American, European, and Arab armies expelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait—the ground war was over in a hundred hours. Next time, the reader was left to conclude, the job would be wrapped up even faster.
http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?talk/030414ta_talk_hertzberg

No quibbling...you know as well as I do that things like that are released by who they are for "plausible deniability" but they come from the top. It was part of the sales job.

No, he didn't, and therefore, he wasn't, of course.

I believe this is the boat you're speaking of:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2627-2003May1

...my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed....

...The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on....

We've already discussed the difference between the "war on Iraq" vs. the "war in Iraq"

Fallujah never looked like a minor thing to me. Neither does the constant guerilla war that goes on every day. Or are "major combat operations" defined only as the US bombing the crap out of a civilian population?

Again, please do tell. Seriously, I've been looking for the concrete explanation of this whole "U.S. Foreign Policy" thing. Aside from support for Israel (which is mitigated by support for all other Arab nations as well) I just don't get this whole brutal imperialism thing. Some underhanded dark ops...probably. Aggressive marketing...absolutely. But brutal imperialism? Lemme in on it.

Just read about the history of the US in the Middle East. Propping up an unpopular Saudi government while occupying a holy country, the entire history of Iran after the British pulled out, let's not forget Iraq. How 'bout Libya?

Look at what they US oil companies have done and how they were backed by the US government every step of the way. Tell me that isn't imperialism. Look at the fact that Georgie just invaded Iraq for the oil. That's an imperialist act.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Reverend Blair said:
I'm not even sure you deserve a reply, Facts

Gee, thanks. :cry:

No quibbling...you know as well as I do that things like that are released by who they are for "plausible deniability" but they come from the top.

I know no such thing, but I'll let it go since it's a minor point.

Fallujah never looked like a minor thing to me. Neither does the constant guerilla war that goes on every day. Or are "major combat operations" defined only as the US bombing the crap out of a civilian population?

No, I agree, it's not minor at all. It just doesn't involve the massive scale of coordinated effort of multiple divisions of land sea and air forces to execute. Surely you can see the difference between the attack on Falluja, and say, the first two weeks of the war.

Just read about the history of the US in the Middle East.

Yes, I intend to do that, and to some extent, as time permits I have done that. I'm still coming up empty. I was hoping you could help me out.

Propping up an unpopular Saudi government while occupying a holy country,

This one confuses me. How exactly is the U.S. propping up the house of Saud. SA sells oil to all the world, not just the U.S. The house of Saud is propped up, it seems to my layman's understanding of all things, by gouging the world for oil through OPEC.

As for the occupation, the U.S. was there by invitation to protect the Saudi's butts from Saddam, and have since left. The Saudi Royal family is still there.

the entire history of Iran after the British pulled out,

Yes I've heard about that and would like to learn more about the King and the Shah, etc. I'll get back to you when I know more about this. I do know, however, that the United States is quite popular among Iranians, who I'm hearing are really getting tired of the Mullahs.

let's not forget Iraq.

:?: You mean 1991? When the majority of the Arab world allied with the U.S., because they had more to lose to Saddam than anybody else? Bottom line on that is that Saddam attacked (brutally, I might add) a U.S. protectorate. He was given ample warning and ample opportunity to withdraw. He refused. He got his butt kicked. If the "Arab Street" is pissed off at the U.S. for coming to their aid, then the U.S. obviously can do nothing right in their eyes, which leaves no good reason to even try.

How 'bout Libya?

You mean Lockerby? What about Libya? Isn't whats 'is name actually becoming very pro-western?

Look at what they US oil companies have done and how they were backed by the US government every step of the way. Tell me that isn't imperialism.

OK I'll check it out. I'm not aware of oil companies doing much other than drilling oil. A hint would be great.

Look at the fact that Georgie just invaded Iraq for the oil. That's an imperialist act.

Now there's something I do know a little about. Enough to know that's an opinion, compelling as it may seem, but not a fact
 

Paco

Electoral Member
Jul 6, 2004
172
0
16
7000 ft. asl and on full auto
Reverend Blair said:
No quibbling...you know as well as I do that things like that are released by who they are for "plausible deniability" but they come from the top. It was part of the sales job.

The article you refer to is dated April 7, 2003. Kenneth Adelman (a part time policy board member) commented it would be a cakewalk “more than a year” before the war started. It’s no wonder you included a defensive proviso before anyone could comment.

Tommy Franks drew up the plans for that war. He had four phases with timelines for each phase. The fourth phase included an underground resistance or the current terrorist activities. The timeline for conclusion of phase four was ambiguous but was counted in “years.” Tommy Franks submitted that four phase plan to Rumsfeld and Bush and they approved it. Everyone at the highest level was quite aware that we would have ongoing military operations for “years” to come.

Reverend Blair said:
Fallujah never looked like a minor thing to me. Neither does the constant guerilla war that goes on every day. Or are "major combat operations" defined only as the US bombing the crap out of a civilian population?

Fallujah was no minor thing. I lost a good friend in that operation. Mistakes have been made. One mistake we made was Fallujah. In our attempt to give the Iraqis their country back, to let them have a voice, we acceded to them on Fallajah. It was an Iraqi decision to withdraw twice from Fallujah before this last operation.

While here, let me explain something. “Guerilla war” is not what is happening in Iraq. Guerilla warfare is waged in small scale against an enemy’s military. Basic concepts are attack; withdraw; harass the enemy when he stops; pursue and harass when he withdraws. Killing innocent civilians with bombs and beheadings is not guerilla war.

But that doesn't fit neatly into your concept, does it?

Reverend Blair said:
Just read about the history of the US in the Middle East. Propping up an unpopular Saudi government while occupying a holy country, the entire history of Iran after the British pulled out, let's not forget Iraq. How 'bout Libya?

Look at what they US oil companies have done and how they were backed by the US government every step of the way. Tell me that isn't imperialism. Look at the fact that Georgie just invaded Iraq for the oil. That's an imperialist act.

Who’s version of history should one read? I’m sure I could read anything you suggest and find myself of a different opinion than you.

Ok. It isn’t imperialism. While the US may meddle in the Middle East, that hardly equates to imperialism.

Georgie invaded for oil is a fact? You must be having trouble translating the word "fact." It doesn't mean what you think it does.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Outlook is for war, t

What are the three holiest places in Islam? The Saudi Peninsula, Iraq, and Jerusalem. Did you think that the Muslim people wouldn't mind those places being occupied and controlled by people they consider to be infidels?

Check out a book called, "It's the Crude, Dude" by Linda McQuaig, Facts. It has a pretty good overview of the history of US oil companies in the Middle East. Pay particular attention to the saga of Exxon and the Rockefellers. If you cross-check the facts, you'll find them to be accurate.

"Paris 1919 : Six Months That Changed the World" by Margaret MacMillan gives a pretty good background into where it all really started though...with Europe and the US divvying up the Middle East after WWI.

What it comes down to in the end that the US has been controlling governments in the Middle East for decades in order to benefit the oil companies. While it's true that those companies export to countries other than the US, that does not negate the fact that the US government protects those companies.