Alan knows how to pursue strong intellectual disagreements in a way that
promotes the development of insights and understanding. Rare and good stuff.
LeaNder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: very, very
good debate. One of the best lately, it feels.
h/t to Sean and Alan. (should I have noticed you here before?)
-jo
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, "Alan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride
> smcbride2@ wrote:
> >
> > Ok -- I just reviewed the latest posts on this issue. What's
> missing:
> >
> > 1. No names of *specific* individuals or organizations from the
> > oil industry lobbying for the Iraq War
>
> No specific names necessary, IMO, if the big picture is understood
> (Engdahl's writing is especially good for this). Cheap oil/resources
> is the big prize. Always has been. It is what keeps the whole
> machine going. It is what keeps you and me
> rich at this very moment.
>
> You think we're doing all this for Israel, alone?
>
> > 2. No coming to terms with the fact that the oil-soaked Bush 41
> > inner circle, including Bush Senior, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker,
> > Colin Powell and others (and Zbigniew Brzezinski from the Carter
> > administration) have been highly skeptical about or strongly
> > opposed to the Iraq War, an Iran War, and the entire neocon grand
> > plan for attacking Israel's neighbors in the Mideast. This is a
> > gigantic hole in the "war for oil" claims.
>
> Not at all. The guys you mention are not opposed to war for oil.
> They are opposed to the specific WAY that the war(s) are being
> waged by the neocons.
>
> The guys you mention are all aboard the empire train. They
> never object to the grand design and general trajectory of things;
> i.e. imperial domination. They merely object (sometimes) to
> specific tactics employed, e.g. by the neocons. The neocons are
> are putting the imperial design in jeopardy, because they are
> (it seems) such belligerant assholes.
>
> More level-headed thinkers such as Brzezinski recognize this,
> but it is not because of any fundamental objection to empire, or
> some noble desire to refrain from further imperial adventure.
> Brzezinski et al simply want the operation to proceed more
> intelligently, and with more discretion. Brzezinski
> outlined the overall imperial strategy in The Grand Chessboard.
> He's no fool, and he's no anti-imperialist. It is also clear
> that the imperial project is not being undertaken merely for the
> sake of Israel. The imperial project goes back, far before the
> birth of Israel. Israel is a late comer. It is influential, and
> it exacerbates things, but is not the main driver. Study history.
>
> Oil/resources is our lifeblood. It is the lifeblood of all empires.
>
> > There is no conceivable way that the United States can acquire
> > control of Iraqi and Iranian oil through military force or by
> > beating Iraqis and Iranians into submission. That is a
> > neoconservative delusion, and one likely down the line to deprive
> > the United States of access to any oil resources in the Mideast.
>
> You may be right. But that does not argue against the
> thesis. It only states that open (hot) warfare is not a good tactic
> in the grand design. (Or if it is a good tactic, it should be used
> with lots more discretion and care than the neocons have been able
> to proffer.) High-level geopolitical thinkers, some of whom
> you cited (e.g. Brzezinski), seem to agree with you.
>
> The neocons, under great pressure from Israel, think that they've
> got to make decisive grabs RIGHT NOW, whatever the cost. It is
> possible that they are right -- I mean "right" from their
> standpoint, as unreconstructed imperialists. As much as I hate
> them, their actions make a certain measure of sense (from their
> standpoint, of course). They might be right that the only thing
> to do now is make a desperate grab, with overt military action,
> before things get out of control (i.e. before resource competition
> from China and others renders the empire's dream untenable).
>
> > It is quite possible that the neocons, and everyone and every
> > cause associated with, are going to be held responsible by an
> > enraged American people for the destruction of the United States
> > as a superpower.
>
> The seeds of the destruction of the U.S. as a superpower have been
> laid for many decades. The main seed is our suicidal (IMO) dependence
> on foreign resources, particularly but not exclusively oil. Domestic
> oil peaked and went into decline in 1970. THAT was the time to
> develop alternatives, aggressively. We did not do so. And now it is
> too late.
>
> > If I am missing something obvious here, please correct me.
>
> Please study Chussodovksy's, Engdahl's, and other literature
> on the total context.
>
> It is tempting to blame it all on Israel, but inconsistent
> with the larger and resource realities.
>
> > Remember when Paul Wolfowitz, Ken Adelman and the rest of the
> > cabal promised that the Iraq War would be a cakewalk and that
> > Iraqi oil would pay for the costs (now projected at greater than
> > $2 trillion) of the Iraq War?
>
> Yes. And they could have been right; i.e. things could have gone
> a whole lot better, and Iraq oil really would have paid for a
> tremendous amount. In fact, the quantity of oil in Iraq, at a
> decent price (say, $150 per barrel), would just about pay for
> the U.S.'s many-trillion-$$ unfunded liabilities problem. Iraqi
> oil could have bailed us out of the disastrous bankruptcy that
> will now occur, almost certainly, barring some miracle.
>
> Did you know that we are bankrupt? That the dollar is doomed?
> That we have far more debt that we can possibly repay, absent
> some dramatic change in the resource picture?
> The only hope ("hope" from the standpoint of empire, and from
> the standpoint of conventional middle-class comfort) is to
> secure megatons of resources from elsewhere. In this respect
> the neocons -- however execrable they are (and they are!) --
> are behaving in a manner that is at least understandable.
> Brzezinski et al may be correct that they're going about it
> the wrong way -- but they ARE going about IT, and IT must be
> gone about! Again, "must" from the standpoint of empire, and from
> the standpoint of maintenance of bourgeois comfort -- e.g.
> social security checks. The awful truth is that the neocons
> are doing THEIR level best (however poor that is) to keep us
> all filthy rich for a while longer. If we don't get the
> resources, we get poor -- very poor (relatively speaking),
> very fast.
>
> Alan
>
