|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
 Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:24 am
|
 |
|
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL......
by Michael T. Klare
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20030512&s=klare
O n the second day of the invasion of Iraq, US commandos seized two Iraqi offshore oil terminals in the Persian Gulf, capturing their defenders without a fight. "Swooping silently out of the Persian Gulf night," exulted James Dao of the New York Times, Navy SEALs claimed "a bloodless victory in the battle for Iraq's vast oil empire."
Dao's dramatic turn of phrase revealed more about the Administration's plans for Iraq than almost every other report from the battlefield. While American forces turned a blind eye to the looting of Iraq's archeological treasures, they moved quickly to gain control over oilfields, refineries and pipelines. Even before Iraqi resistance had been squelched, top US officials were boasting that Iraq's oil infrastructure was safely in American hands.
Oil had nothing to do with Washington's motives for the invasion, we were told. "The only interest the United States has in the region is furthering the cause of peace and stability, not in [Iraq's] ability to generate oil," said press secretary Ari Fleischer in late 2002. But at a January briefing an unnamed "senior Defense official" revealed that Gen. Tommy Franks and his staff "have crafted strategies that will allow us to secure and protect those fields as rapidly as possible in order to preserve those prior to destruction, as opposed to having to go in and clean them up after."
When pressed, the "senior Defense official" (presumably Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz) claimed that these fields would be protected so as to benefit the Iraqi people "at some point in the future." Other officials spoke of holding the fields "in trust" for the Iraqis. Nonetheless, the White House has talked with US energy companies about assuming a major role in the postconflict development of Iraq's mammoth reserves.
For now, the Administration's main concern appears to be to put existing oilfields back into operation as rapidly as possible so as to help subsidize the costs of occupying and reconstructing Iraq. To insure that this process will move quickly, the Defense Department awarded a noncompetitive, multimillion-dollar contract to Halliburton, the Houston-based oil-services firm once headed by Dick Cheney to fight fires and repair damage in the oilfields and begin the task of rehabilitation. In coming months other US oil-services firms, including Fluor and Bechtel (both with close ties to the Administration), will be invited to bid for even more lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. Ultimately, about $5 billion will be needed to restore Iraqi oil production to the levels achieved before the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War and the 1991 Gulf War.
Managing this complex enterprise will be an "interim authority" made up of Iraqis selected or approved by the US government, presumably including expatriates like Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), who enjoys close ties with the CIA and Defense. It can be safely assumed, however, that US occupation officials will retain ultimate authority over the oilfields during this period. Washington will seek United Nations Security Council resolutions lifting the economic sanctions in order to allow sales of Iraqi oil. But Administration officials vow to exclude the UN from decision-making on the disposition of Iraqi oil assets.
Once the fields are back in operation, the next item on the Administration's agenda will be to determine the fate of the Iraqi National Oil Company, the state-owned firm that has managed Iraq's oil assets since their nationalization in the 1970s. Most of INOC's current managers wish to keep the company under state ownership, but some of the exile leaders being courted by the Bush team, including Chalabi, favor privatizing the firm and parceling it out in large pieces to major American and British oil companies. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi declared in September 2002. This approach was given further support by a meeting of expatriate Iraqi oil officials convened by the State Department in early March. The officials, members of the oil and energy panel of State's Future of Iraq Project, declared that any post-Saddam Iraqi government should "develop the right economic environment to allow investment in and utilization of its oil and gas resources."
American oil firms have admitted to meeting with representatives of the INC and other exile groups to discuss postwar access to Iraqi oil. While exploitation of Iraq's existing fields, with total reserves estimated at 112 billion barrels (second only to Saudi Arabia's holdings of 261 billion barrels) is appealing enough, what US firms really want is to be able to tap into Iraq's "virgin" (undeveloped) fields in remote parts of the country.
According to the Energy Department, these undeveloped fields may hold as much as 200 billion barrels of oil, making this the largest pool of unexploited petroleum in the world. Saddam had awarded contracts to firms in Russia, China and France to develop some of these fields, but any government installed by the United States--certainly one headed by Chalabi--would declare those contracts void. With most big fields in the United States and other mature producing areas in decline, access to these reserves could prove essential to the survival and future prosperity of some of the major American energy firms. It is this fact, more than any other, that belies the Administration's claim that oil had nothing to do with the decision to invade and occupy Iraq.
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:27 am
|
|
|
WHERE ARE THE WMD'S? |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:32 am
|
|
|
HERE COMES THE BIG LIE ADMISSION......
Bush: Iraq's WMD May Have Been Destroyed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2602091,00.html
Friday April 25, 2003 1:49 AM
LIMA, Ohio (AP) - President Bush raised the possibility Thursday that any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were destroyed before or during the U.S.-led war, suggesting for the first time that coalition troops may come up empty in their search.
Bush, who is expected to mark the end of hostilities soon, defied much of the world to wage war against Saddam Hussein in a bid to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Iraqi leaders asserted the nation had none, and an intensive search by coalition forces has uncovered no proof so far of chemical or biological weapons or a nuclear weapons program.
``He tried to fool the United Nations and did for 12 years by hiding these weapons. And so it's going to take time to find them,'' the president said at the Lima Army Tank Plant. ``But we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth.''
In a television interview, meanwhile, Bush said there was ``some evidence'' suggesting Saddam Hussein is dead. ``The person who helped direct the (U.S. bombing) attacks believes that Saddam at the very minimum was severely wounded,'' Bush told NBC.
But he added, ``We would never make that declaration until we are more certain.''
He also said U.S. troops would remain in Iraq ``as long as necessary.'' In the interview aboard Air Force One, Bush was asked by NBC ``Nightly News'' anchor Tom Brokaw if that could take as long as two years. ``Could - or less,'' Bush said. ``Who knows?''
Bush said he expects neighboring Iran not to interfere with Iraq's becoming ``a stable and peaceful society.''
``We just expect them to cooperate and we will work with the world to encourage them to cooperate,'' Bush said.
Senior administration officials began this week to scale back expectations that weapons of mass destruction would be found. Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said Wednesday that success of the search effort depends ``not on finding something by bumping into it'' but on information provided by Iraqis who might have been involved in such programs.
A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bush's remarks were based on information from at least one Iraqi scientist who has led coalition forces to materials used in the production of weapons of mass destruction and who has said some weapons were destroyed before the war, others perhaps afterward.
It is believed that some weapons may have been removed from Iraq, and some probably remain, the official said.
France, Russia and other allies opposed to the war want U.N. inspectors to verify any evidence of weapons uncovered by the United States. The Bush administration has refused, saying coalition forces are more efficient.
Bush did not say how likely it was that weapons had been destroyed, rather than hidden and perhaps soon to be uncovered.
``One thing's for certain, Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction,'' he said.
Troops on the ground have searched more than 80 sites that prewar U.S. intelligence judged the most likely hiding places for chemical and biological weapons as well as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. After a recent strategy shift, teams are now setting aside the search list and deciding where to go more on the basis of new information from Iraqis.
Bush's remarks came at the end of a politically charged three-city visit to Ohio, one of a dozen or so states that will be closely contested in the 2004 presidential election. Bush hopes to convert his wartime popularity into successes in Congress - particularly with his troubled $726 billion economic package.
Bush hoped to pressure Ohio Sen. George Voinovich, a Republican who derailed the White House tax package by refusing to back cuts of more than $350 billion.
Voinovich briefly greeted Bush at the airport in Dayton but he did not attend the president's speeches nor bow to White House demands.
``I think he knows where I'm at,'' the senator said of Bush.
The president made his disappointment clear.
``Some in Congress say the plan is too big. Well, it seems like to me they might have some explaining to do. If they agree that tax relief creates jobs, then why are they for a little bitty tax relief package?'' Bush said.
Democrats said Bush's plan favors the rich and offers low- and middle-income Americans a few hundred dollars in savings.
``For people who need prescription drugs or health insurance, that's a drop in the bucket,'' Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, said.
While aides said it was not yet time to declare victory in Iraq, the president nearly jumped the gun.
``We fought a war in Afghanistan, and now we have finished a war,'' Bush said in North Canton before catching himself and adding, ``in the process of finishing a war in Iraq.''
Several administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they expect commanding Gen. Tommy Franks to declare the hostilities over in a few days, paving the way for a presidential address as early as next week that would wrap up the war.
Separately, Bush plans to travel to Dearborn, Mich., on Monday to discuss the future of a newly liberated Iraq. The Detroit suburb is home to one of the nation's largest Arab communities.
While visiting the Lima plant, Bush put a positive spin on reports that some Iraqi factions do not welcome U.S. troops and that an Iranian-style theocracy may grow to power.
``In Iraq, there's discussion, debate, protest - all the hallmarks of liberty,'' Bush said. ``The path to freedom may not always be neat and orderly, but it is the right of every person and every nation.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
YEP...IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL AND CONTRACTS AFTER ALL. |
| |
|
|
Fastwalker
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
|
|
Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:34 am
|
|
|
Oil is going to be used to finance the re-building of Iraq (for Iraqis) Mech to ease some of the American taxpayer burden. This is why seizing Iraqi oil wells was important.....it's the greatest source of natural wealth for Iraqis that could go into immediate use in re-building it’s economic infrastructure after the war. It does not benefit America…except in the sense it eases American tax burden. It benefits Iraqis…and is the foremost strategic aid towards the quick transformation into a system based upon a representative democratic, capitalist republic.. (in other words…a free society). You are painfully oblivious to reality. |
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:36 am
|
|
|
how's them tunes there mech  |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:44 am
|
|
|
Did Bush Deceive Us in His Rush to War?
* The 'threats' that Hussein posed to the United States are nowhere to be seen.
Robert Scheer: LA TIMES
April 22, 2003
http://www.latimes.com/la-war-oescheer22apr22,0,1263293.column
Now that the war has been won, is it permissible to suggest that our emperor has no clothes? I'm not referring to his abysmal stewardship of the economy but rather the fig-leaf war he donned to cover up his glaring domestic failures.
President Bush went to war with Hitler's Germany and found another Afghanistan instead. After comparing the threat of Hussein to that of the Führer, it was odd to find upon our arrival a tottering regime squatting on a demoralized Third World populace.
Now the pressure is on for Bush to find or plant those alleged weapons of mass destruction fast or stand exposed as a bullying fraud.
Of course, our vaunted intelligence forces knew well from our overhead flights and the reports of U.N. inspectors freely surveying the country that Iraq had been reduced by two decades of wars, sanctions and arms inspections to a paper tiger, but that didn't keep the current administration from depicting Baghdad as a seat of evil so powerful it might soon block the very sun from shining.
And while Emperor Bush piled on the fire-and-brimstone rhetoric, his bespectacled vizier for defense presented a mad-hatter laundry list of Iraq's alleged weapons collection, as long and specific as it was phony and circumstantial.
Secretary of State Colin Powell's now infamous speech to the U.N. Security Council employed "intelligence" cribbed from a graduate student's thesis, documents later acknowledged as fakes, and a defector's affirmation of the existence of chemical weapons while excluding his admission that they had subsequently been destroyed.
Having taken over the country, we now know with a great deal of certainty that if chemical or biological weapons were extant there, they were not deployed within the Iraqi military in a manner that threatened the U.S. or anyone else.
Likewise, Bush's fear-mongering about Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program has proven baseless. There was no reason to hurriedly yank the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq.
Even Bush's only real ally outside of Washington, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, is worried that the fearsome weapons will not turn up — or that a skeptical world will believe they were planted as an afterthought. "Some sort of objective verification" of weapons finds would be a "good idea," he said last week.
However, the refusal of the U.S. to permit the return of U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and his team to continue their work is damning evidence of our fear that the weapons simply do not exist, at least in any usable quantity or form. It also raises the suspicion that Iraqi scientists now held incommunicado in U.S. captivity will be squeezed until they tell us what we want to hear. Whatever happened to the prewar demand that those same scientists be given the freedom to tell their story in a non-intimidating environment?
Bush may fear the truth because the still-AWOL weapons are a potential tar baby for this administration. Undoubtedly the U.S. will find mixed-used chemical precursors for weapons, as was claimed only this week, but that is a far cry from being an "imminent threat."
As Joseph Cirincione, a top weapons expert at the Carnegie Endowment, put it, the purported existence of those weapons "was the core reason for going to war with Iraq and the reason we had to go now If we don't find fairly large stockpiles of these weapons, in quantities large enough to pose a strategic threat to the United States, the president's credibility will be seriously undermined and the legitimacy of the war repudiated."
That concern is largely absent in the U.S. media, where "liberation" is now a code word that smoothes over any irritating questions one may ask when a Christian superpower invades the heart of the Muslim world. Its partner phrase, "the building of democracy," is also all the rage, as if real democracy was something you could create with Legos or SimCity software.
At this point, though, we can only hope it will all turn out for the best, and that a retired U.S. general will figure out how to use the country's natural resources to end poverty, build excellent schools and provide crime-free streets and an electoral system where positions of power don't go to the highest bidder. Then he can come back and apply this genius at home, where we've got plenty of unwelcome violence, poverty and on-the-take politicians.
However, in the unlikely case this fantasy comes true, albeit at an untold price in money, lives and human suffering, it should be remembered that this was not the justification for war given to the American people.
And, in a more sober mood, one must still ask the embarrassing yet essential question: Did our president knowingly deceive us in his rush to war?
If he did, and we are truly concerned about our own democracy, we would have to acknowledge that such an egregious abuse of power rises to the status of an impeachable offense.
|
| |
|
|
Fastwalker
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
|
|
Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:58 am
|
|
|
Once again Mech quotes one of the most liberal publications in America.
If this war is about oil....how are they profiting from it Mech? And who's "they"....
Answer the questions Mech.
Oh...and banned weapons have been found..and used. Facilities used for WMD production have been found. All that's left is to find the weapons...
They will be found, but even without them, the toppling of Saddam's regime is justified a thousand times over. |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:08 am
|
|
|
JUSTIFIED FOR OIL AND $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:13 am
|
|
|
BLOOD FOR OIL
Mosul/Haifa_Pipeline
“[T]his is a new world order now. This is what things look like particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that it is all about oil, for the United States and its ally [Israel].” - - James Akins, a former US ambassador [Observer, 4/20/03]
“It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration [of President George W. Bush] and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel's energy supply as well as that of the United States.” unnamed former senior CIA official [Observer, 4/20/03]
“All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a master plan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests.” [Janes Foreign Report, 4/16/03]
Summary:
It has been revealed that a top priority of the neoconservatives in Washington is to construct a pipeline from the politically unstable northern Iraqi city of Mosul to the neighboring country of Jordan where it would connect with an existing pipeline that leads to the Israeli port city of Haifa
Related Outlines:
Invasion of Iraq.
Arab and Iraqi Civilian response to U.S. war of 'liberation'
Problems encountered by U.S. troops during the beginning of the U.S. invasion
Plans for Post-Saddam Colonial Iraq
Preparing for War
Main
Hawks' legal pretext for war
US coercing support from Allies
Plans for War Against Iraq
'Reasons' to attack Iraq
Iraq's alleged ties to the al Qaeda terrorist group
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, and nuclear
'Saddam Hussein is a War Criminal'
'Saddam Hussein is Evil'
Britain's Dossier of proof against Iraq
British government’s release of plagiarized dossier
Other
U.S./Israeli interests in Iraq
Iraqi Opposition Groups
Iraqi Response to U.S. Threats
Opposition to Invading Iraq [not current]
U.S. divided over Iraq.
Public opinion
Weapons Inspections
'Prewar' Military Operations in Iraq
Reasons not to go to war with Iraq
Turkey and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
Push For War on Iraq Timeline [not current]
U.S. support for during the 1980s
Pre-911 calls for war on Iraq
The Decision to 'Get Saddam'
Last Updated: 4/24/2003
1 Background.
a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’
i Summary.
(A) In 1975, Henry Kissinger signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” which obligated the U.S. to ensure the security of Israel's oil reserves and energy supply in times of crisis. “The memorandum has been quietly renewed every five years” reported the London Observer, “with special legislation attached whereby the US stocks a strategic oil reserve for Israel even if it entailed domestic shortages - at a cost of $3 billion in 2002 to US taxpayers.” [Memorandum of Understanding, 9/1/1975; Observer, 4/20/03; Janes Foreign Report, 4/16/03] In the event that commercial shippers refuse to ship oil to Israel, the U.S. is obligated to ship its ally oil using its own tankers. [Janes Foreign Report, 4/16/03]
b Proposed Bechtel Iraq-Aqaba pipeline
i Summary.
(A) Donald Rumsfeld had met with Saddam Hussein in 1983 to discuss plans authored by Henry Kissinger [Observer, 4/20/03] for a pipeline to be built by Bechtel [profile] from Iraq to Aqaba in Jordan, opposite the Israeli port of Eilat. [Institute for Policy Studies, 3/24/03; Observer, 4/20/03] According to Hanan Bar-On, then the deputy director-general of the Foreign Ministry, Israel had been involved in those discussions. [Ha’aretz, 3/31/02] Read more about this here. The video of the meeting can be viewed here.
2 Current proposals for a Mosul-Haifa pipeline.
a Summary.
i Neoconservatives in Washington want the new government in Baghdad to help pay for the reconstruction of the long abandoned Mosul-Haifa pipeline. The pipeline – the resurrection of which would inevitably stir discontent in the Arab world – passes through Jordan and Syria, and ends in the Israeli port city of Hiafa. While much of the pipeline is intact, the section that travels though Iraq lays in ruins. [Christian Science Monitor, 4/23/03]
b Cost.
i The pipeline would cost about $1 billion dollars, according to the Cyprus oil journal Middle East Economic Survey (MEES). [Christian Science Monitor, 4/23/03]
c Companies which would build the pipeline.
i U.S. Firms.
(A) U.S. firms would build the proposed pipeline, according to the Cyprus oil journal, Middle East Economic Survey (MEES). [Christian Science Monitor, 4/23/03]
ii Turkish firms.
(A) The Turkish Daily Zaman reported that the Israeli government and Israeli firms had approached Turkish companies about possible contracts to reactivate the Mosul-Haifa pipeline. This was confirmed by Turkish Contractors Union Chairman Nihat Ozdemir. [Zaman, 4/17/03]
d Requirements.
i In order for this pipeline to be viable, the new Iraqi government would have to be on good terms with the U.S. and Israel. It was reported in the Observer of London that these plans had been discussed by the Pentagon with Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress (INC). The INC is the Iraqi opposition group that the Pentagon hopes will run Iraq’s future government. [Observer, 4/20/03; Asia Times, 4/4/03] In fact, Janes Intelligence reported, “It is understood from diplomatic sources that the Bush administration has said it will not support lifting UN sanctions on Iraq unless Saddam's successors agree to supply Israel with oil.” [Janes Foreign Report, 4/16/03]
ii In order to recommence the flow of oil through this pipeline, Syria’s government would have to provide its consent. The Asia Times explained: “However, its full operation, including the required repair work, needs the consent of .. Syria. … [but] the existing Syrian regime will never grant its consent as long as” Israel continues its occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights. “Hence, unless the pipeline were redirected through Jordan, another country bordering Israel and Iraq with normalized relations with Israel, the pipeline project will require a different regime in Syria. In other words, regime change in both Iraq and Syria is the prerequisite for the project. As Paritzky did not mention a redirecting option, it is safe to suggest that the Israelis are also optimistic about a regime change in Syria in the near future.” [Emphasis added] [Asia Times, 4/4/03; see also Hindustan Times, 4/14/03]
iii Iraq would have to ensure the security of the pipeline, protecting it from any militant groups opposed to piping Iraq’s oil to Israel.
e Significances of the proposed pipeline.
i It would benefit the U.S.
(A) Summary.
(1) The proposed pipeline would provide the U.S. with cheap reliable access to Iraq’s cheap, high-quality oil. [Observer, 4/20/03; Ha’aretz, 3/31/02; Asia Times, 4/4/03; Hindustan Times, 4/14/03]
(B) Reports.
(1) In May 2002, the U.S. Department of Energy noted in its Israel Country Brief that a trans-Arabian pipeline bringing Gulf oil to Israel’s Hiafa port could “cost as much as 40% less than shipping by tanker through the Suez Canal.” [U.S. Department of Energy, May 2002]
ii It would benefit Israel.
(A) Summary.
(1) Israel imports nearly all of the oil it consumes. Much of it comes from Russia, whose oil is much more expensive to produce and ship then oil from Iraq. A pipeline coming directly from Iraq would greatly reduce Israel’s energy costs and thus be of help to its staggering economy.
(B) Statements.
(1) A source quoted by Reuters explained that the proposed pipeline would be an economic blessing for Israel, potentially cutting the country’s fuel costs by as much as 25 percent, and turning its port city, Haifa, into “the Rotterdam of the Middle East.” But it’s “too soon to estimate the chances of the pipeline restarting or its financial impact for Israel although it would obviously be substantial,” noted the source, who added, “It depends on what kind of government takes office in Iraq.” [Reuters, 4/9/03; see also BBC, 4/9/03; Christian Science Monitor, 4/23/03; Hindustan Times, 4/14/03]
3 Events.
a Discussions between Israel and Jordan.
i Summary.
(A) In the March 31 edition of the Israeli Ha’aretz, Israel's National Infrastructure Minister Joseph Paritzky was quoted saying that Israeli and Jordanian officials had made plans to discuss a proposed pipeline that would transport oil from Northern Iraq to Israel’s Mediterranean port city of Haifa. [Ha’aretz, 3/31/02; Christian Science Monitor, 4/23/03; BBC, 4/9/03; Observer, 4/20/03] And then a little more than a week later, an Israeli source told Reuters: “Jordan contacted the [Israeli] prime minister's office who asked the [National Infrastructure] minister [Paritzky] to meet with the Jordanian officials. We know the section of the pipeline here is in excellent condition but we want to know what the Jordanian part is like and whether it can be restarted easily.” [Reuters, 4/9/03] This was immediately denied by Jordan. [Reuters, 4/9/03b]
b Discussions among neoconservatives in Washington.
i Summary.
(A) According to the Observer of London, US intelligence sources had confirmed that the proposed pipeline project has been discussed. The paper quoted one former senior CIA official who explained: “It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration [of President George W. Bush] and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel's energy supply as well as that of the United States.” [Observer, 4/20/03]
4 Observations.
a James Akins, a former US ambassador to the region and one of America's leading Arabists.
i “[T]his is a new world order now. This is what things look like particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that it is all about oil, for the United States and its ally [Israel].” [Observer, 4/20/03]
b Janes Intelligence.
i “All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a master plan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests.” [Janes Foreign Report, 4/16/03]
c Asia Times.
i “The Israeli oil pipeline plan, though, runs contrary to the stated US war objectives in Iraq. The two key members of the "coalition of the willing" - the United States and the United Kingdom - have rejected oil as a motivation for the war, a point not taken seriously by many all over the world. Nevertheless, the Israeli plan, the US-stated goal of securing Iraqi oilfields, including those of Mosul, and the declared US objective of a regime change in Iraq offer some evidence to the contrary.” [Asia Times, 4/4/03]
d Hindustan Times.
i “Syria might well be next on the US hit-list for a ‘regime change’ - the purpose being to restart the defunct Mosul-Haifa pipeline and solve Israel's oil needs. And the Iraq war, after all, might prove to be just the first chapter in this project. … [A]ll attempts [to restart the pipeline] have failed as the governments in both Iraq and Syria have remained antagonized to Israel owing to anti-Palestinian violence. The only way out was a regime change in both countries.” [Hindustan Times, 4/14/03]
2003 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:38 am
|
|
|
NEXT...THE PROPAGANDA WAR
Arab world now faces invasion by American TV
Oliver Burkeman in Washington
Thursday April 24, 2003
The Guardian
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,942357,00.html
Washington's battle to win public support in the Arab world has begun in earnest with the first broadcasts of what officials say will become a 24-hour satellite television network aimed at changing minds throughout the region by American-style morning chat-shows, sports, news and children's programmes.
Faced with allegations that the channel will be a propaganda arm of the US government the broadcasting magnate setting it up, Norman Pattiz, vowed that it would remain independent.
Iraq and the World, the prototype channel being beamed into the country from a US air force plane, began showing American evening news bulletins this week.
A full-service version should be broadcasting 24 hours a day to 22 countries in the Middle East by the end of the year, Mr Pattiz, chairman of Westwood One, said.
Faces familiar to US audiences, including Dan Rather of CBS and Tom Brokaw of ABC, are appearing with their words translated into Arabic.
The aim is "to counter the negative images being broadcast right now, the incitement to violence, the hate radio, the journalistic self-censorship", Mr Pattiz told the Guardian.
The broadcasts are on separate channels to those being used by the Pentagon and the state department, and are run by a the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, a body of citizens appointed by the president, of which Mr Pattiz is one.
"We don't do propaganda," he insisted.
"We'll do anything that any legitimate news organisation in the world might do," he said - including al-Jazeera.
The working title for the channel is the Middle Eastern Television Network, and while information programmes will occupy most of the schedule, softer formats will play a crucial role in the broader cultural campaign, Mr Pattiz said.
Jerry Springer can abandon any hope of a new market, though. "We won't have the same kind of inflammatory talk television you see on al-Jazeera," Mr Pattiz said.
"It likes to present itself as the CNN of the Middle East, but I think of them more as CNN meets Jerry Springer. Except people in the US find Jerry Springer amusing, and in the Middle East ... people can lose their lives over that kind of rhetoric."
Mr Pattiz's sureness of touch helped his company earn $551m last year supplying programmes to radio and TV stations.
But his confidence that the approach can be easily exported to the world of public diplomacy is far from shared, and is derided by some as naive or counter-productive.
"It's part of this enormous faith, this unquestioned faith, that when the people in the Middle East are introduced to American values and style, and look and feel, they will fall for it," said Michael Wolff, a media columnist for New York magazine. "And it's virtually unchallenged. It's almost missionary-like."
The network's planners were obsessed with al-Jazeera and the idea that it was indoctrinating a generation of viewers, said Samer Shehata, a professor of Arab studies at Georgetown University in Washington.
"Think about the assumptions involved in that - that the Arabs just sit in front of TV sets and al-Jazeera just pumps this information into them?"
The operation betrayed the widespread belief that "the primary problem to the hackneyed question, 'why do people hate us?' is that they don't understand us".
"A small amount of that is true, but the primary problem is policy... US policy towards Israel, towards Iraq, support for authoritarianism."
|
| |
|
|
Fastwalker
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
|
|
Fri Apr 25, 2003 9:31 am
|
|
|
I didn't read much of your cut and paste crap Mech (Hint....nobody does)...but a person can read the first few lines to get the gist of it;
quote:
“[T]his is a new world order now. This is what things look like particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that it is all about oil, for the United States and its ally [Israel].” - - James Akins, a former US ambassador [Observer, 4/20/03]
Uh...it's convenient to ignore the fact that Syria happens to be a terrorist breeding ground and home to many major terrorist groups. What an idiotic quote...everything GW has done has been consistent with his stated goal, to eliminate the terrorist threat....Yet these idiots still claim it is about oil. Why is wiping out the terrorist threat, ignored? You want the truth?...there's your answer. Bush has been stating what the goal is plain as day...and his every action from homeland security, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...and possibly Syria, are absolutely and precisely consistent with that goal...to seek out terrorism where it lives, and the nations who harbor terrorists, and take them out. Yet this fact is ignored as if terrorism wasn't a big threat...as if there wasn't motivation enough to remove that threat...Idiots!
quote:
“It has long been a dream of a powerful section of the people now driving this administration [of President George W. Bush] and the war in Iraq to safeguard Israel's energy supply as well as that of the United States.” unnamed former senior CIA official [Observer, 4/20/03]
Well..no kidding...What the hell is wrong with safeguarding the world's oil supply (including the democratic country of Israel? Europe is MOST dependent on Iraqi oil than any other area of the world, BTW. Check out the reactions of France and Germany....and Russia...if you don't believe me. They definitely have an interest in safeguarding their Iraqi oil at all costs....including morality and basic human decency.
quote:
“All of this lends weight to the theory that Bush's war is part of a master plan to reshape the Middle East to serve Israel's interests.” [Janes Foreign Report, 4/16/03]
It lends weight only in the deluded mind of a complete moron who ignores the fact that terrorist groups exist and present a real threat to the world....And to draw such a dumbass conclusion that we are re-shaping the Middle East to serve Israel's interests is non-sensical beyond belief. America's interest is wiping out the terrorist threat and promoting free and democratic countries....because free and democratic countries do not start wars. They provide stability to the world and the world's economies. America's interest is in creating world stability so there can be peace and so that people can live in freedom....Why is this so difficult to understand, you morons? This is motivation enough.
|
| |
|
|
Fastwalker
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
|
|
Fri Apr 25, 2003 9:36 am
|
|
|
quote:
Washington's battle to win public support in the Arab world has begun in earnest with the first broadcasts of what officials say will become a 24-hour satellite television network aimed at changing minds throughout the region by American-style morning chat-shows, sports, news and children's programmes.
Excellent idea. We need to counter the propaganda of Arab TV, with the truth....
|
| |
|
|
theseeker
Joined: 25 Jul 2000
Posts: 3403
Location: Damnit...I'm a doctor jim |
|
Fri Apr 25, 2003 9:43 am
|
|
|
I really think the midi is wearing mech down...yep...
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Fri Apr 25, 2003 12:11 pm
|
|
|
What threat Fastwalker? WHERE are the WMD's?
There are none. You beloved war was all about OIL and propping up a corrupt country called Israel. |
| |
|
|
Fastwalker
Joined: 26 Mar 2003
Posts: 832
|
|
Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:19 pm
|
|
|
quote:
What threat Fastwalker? WHERE are the WMD's?
I've already answered this in a fairly detailed and logical way, but you ignored it...just like you ignored what I've written above, in order to make the following statement.
quote:
You beloved war was all about OIL and propping up a corrupt country called Israel.
To say a war is beloved...is just plain idiotic. Nobody wants war...especially me. I've already gone into great detail (which has YET to be refuted by you) as to why this war is not about oil. ....Heck, you can't even answer a few simple questions as to how companies profit from this oil, and who these companies are. Now to say that Israel is corrupt (when they are the victims of terrorism rather than the cause) is more ignorance of reality. I suppose, in your view, Iraq, Syria, Iran, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, Russia and red China are not corrupt...but if it is a capitalist democratic country like Israel, whose women and children and other innocent non-combatants are being murdered by Satanic, brainwashed, soulless Palestinian maniacs with bombs...then it is corrupt in your perverted view of the world. To say that we would spend 80 to 100 billion dollars, risking American lives and getting some killed to "prop up Israel" defies any form of reason. Do you make this idiocy up as you go along Mech?
|
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 7:11 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
