Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The U.S. Military as an Oil Acquisition Service

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 09:25 PM
Original message
The U.S. Military as an Oil Acquisition Service
Conspiracy theorist: A psychologically disturbed person who poses a danger to society by virtue of the fact that he frequently questions or refuses to accept the views or opinions of societys authorities The consensus definition of conspiracy theorist promoted by societys authorities.


You dont have to be a so-called conspiracy theorist these days to believe that a major function of the U.S. military is and has been for a long time to ensure a plentiful supply of oil for U.S. corporations and consumers, not to mention for the U.S. military itself.

John McCain himself, the 2008 Republican nominee for President, so much as admitted this when he said in May of this year, in the course of bragging about his woefully deficient energy plan:

My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will that will then prevent us that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said.

I dont know whether that was just a plain old gaff or some sort of trial balloon to see to what degree the American people are willing to consider wars for oil to be a legitimate purpose of our military. Either way, it was an admission of something that many Americans have believed for a long time and that has become increasingly obvious over time.


A brief and incomplete history of U.S. military and CIA actions to secure access to foreign oil

Iran 1953
In 1953 our CIA intervened in Iran to overthrow a popular prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, who had done much to improve the lot of the Iranian people. Here is how Stephen Kinzer describes Mossadegh in his book, All the Shahs Men An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror:

His achievements were profound and even earth-shattering. He set his people off on what would be a long and difficult voyage toward democracy and self-sufficiency He dealt a devastating blow to the imperial system and hastened its final collapse. He inspired people around the world who believe that nations can and must struggle for the right to govern themselves in freedom.

In Mossadeghs place we installed the dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Shah. The stated reason for our overthrow of Mossadegh was that we were concerned that he would open his country to Communist influence. Nevertheless, Mossadeghs nationalization of the Iranian oil industry was also undoubtedly at least part of, if not the most important reason for his overthrow. This is how Kinzer sums up the effect of that intervention:

In Iran, almost everyone has for decades known that the United States was responsible for putting an end to democratic rule in 1953 and installing what became the long dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Shah. His dictatorship produced the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which brought to power a passionately anti-American theocracy that embraced terrorism as a tool of statecraft. Its radicalism inspired anti-Western fanatics in many countries

The violent anti-Americanism that emerged from Iran after 1979 shocked most people in the United States. Americans had no idea of what might have set off such bitter hatred in a country where they had always imagined themselves more or less well liked. That was because almost no one in the United States knew what the CIA did there in 1953.

The first Gulf War
The United States has long been interested in Iraq because of its geostrategic location and because it was the worlds second largest producer of oil.

John Perkins book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is a description from personal experience of how the United States attempts to exert its influence in the world, short of war if possible. Perkins describes in that book U.S. interests in Iraq and its problems with Saddam Hussein:

I kept in touch with old friends who worked for Bechtel, Halliburton I was very aware that the economic hit men (EHMs) were hard at work in Iraq. The Reagan and Bush administrations were determined to turn Iraq into another Saudi Arabia (with respect to compliance with U.S. wishes) The EHM presence in Baghdad was very strong during the 1980s. They believed that Saddam eventually would see the light

However, by the late 1980s it was apparent that Saddam was not buying into the EHM scenario. This was a major frustration and great embarrassment to the first Bush administration.

The opportunity to do something about Saddam Hussein presented itself when the relationship between Iraq and Kuwait soured. However, Saddam could not invade Iraq without U.S. acquiescence. Here are excerpts from a meeting that show April Glaspie, then U.S. ambassador to Iraq, giving Saddam Hussein a green light to invade Kuwait, shortly before the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, which led directly to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

GLASPIE: I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the cause of your confrontation with Kuwait We can see that youve employed massive numbers of troops in the south I have received instructions to ask you, in the spirit of friendship Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwaits border?

SADDAM HUSSEIN: I am prepared to give negotiations one more brief chance. But if we are unable to find a solution it would be natural that Iraq would not accept death.

GLASPIE: What solutions would be acceptable?

SADDAM HUSSEIN: (Gives a list of conditions). What is the U.S. opinion on this?

GLASPIE: We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary of State James Baker has directed me to emphasize that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.

In State of Darkness U.S. Complicity in Genocides Since 1945 David Model describes how President Bush rejected all efforts by Hussein to negotiate a peaceful settlement, before giving the order to invade Iraq on August 7, 1990.

Afghanistan
Two French intelligence analysts, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, offer clues to the reasons for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in their book, '' Bin Laden, la verit interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''). They were told by former FBI Deputy Director John ONeil that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''.

Julio Godoy summarizes Brisards and Dasquies book with respect to the background behind the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan:

The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia Until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ''as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia'', from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.

But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, ''This rationale of energy security changed into a military one At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs'.''

The government of Bush began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power The last meeting between U.S. and Taliban representatives took place in August, five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington.

Evidence of bin Ladens involvement in those attacks was flimsy at best. Nevertheless, the Taliban agreed to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan an American ally to stand trial for charges of participation in 9/11. They agreed that if the court found sufficient evidence that bin Laden would then be extradited to the United States. But George Bush turned down all Taliban offers, saying We know hes guilty. Turn him over. Bush later elaborated further on that, saying, When I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations.

The 2003 Iraq War
The evidence that the Bush administrations invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the reasons that it gave, and everything to do with oil and other issues related to imperial conquest, is overwhelming. Heres a small sample:

According to Bushs first Treasury Secretary, Paul ONeil, the Bush administration began planning for war with Iraq within days of Bushs inauguration. A document from Dick Cheneys March 2001 Energy Task Force Meeting, titled Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts, included a map of areas for potential oil exploration. According to Richard Clarke, Bushs counterterrorism coordinator at the time of the 9/11 attacks, Bush asked him to find an excuse for war against Iraq almost immediately following the attacks. And Seymour Hersh unearthed a systematic effort by the Bush administration to pressure its intelligence agencies to produce evidence to help make its case for war, as suggested in this excerpt from his book, Chain of Command The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib:

According to a former high level CIA official senior CIA analysts dealing with Iraq were constantly being urged by the Vice Presidents office to provide worst-case assessments on Iraqi weapons issues. They got pounded on, day after day.Pretty soon you say Fuck it. And they began to provide the intelligence that was wanted.

Shortly after the U.S. military captured Baghdad, troops where dispensed to guard the oil ministry, while much of the rest of Baghdad was looted.

Antonia Juhasz, in her book The Bush Agenda Invading the World One Economy at a Time, notes that prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, U.S. oil companies had little or no access to Iraqi oil:

Since the 2003 invasion, however, imports have been far more steady and at consistently sizeable levels.Iraqs oil has therefore already contributed to skyrocketing oil company profits. So, too, it seems, has the myth of a dramatically reduced oil supply from the Middle East due to the Iraq War.

The model that won out was the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) PSAs turn the entire exploration, drilling, and infrastructure building process over to private companies that lock in the laws in effect at the time the contract was signed

Before new oil contracts could be signed, the existing contracts had to be erased. This all-important step was taken back in May 2003 The U.S.-appointed senior advisor to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, Thamer al-Ghadban, announced that few, if any, of the dozens of contracts signed with foreign oil companies under the Hussein regime would be ]honored


Use of oil by the United States and its military

Though the United States comprises only about 5% of the worlds population, it uses 25% of the worlds oil. Our military accounts for a good portion of that. Michael Klare, in an article titled The Pentagon Vs Peak Oil, describes the magnitude of oil use by our military:

Sixteen gallons of oil. Thats how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan and 30,000 in the surrounding region and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone. Multiply that daily tab by 365 and you get 1.3 billion gallons: the estimated annual oil expenditure for U.S. combat operations in Southwest Asia. Thats greater than the total annual oil usage of Bangladesh, population 150 million and yet its a gross underestimate of the Pentagons wartime consumption.

Klare goes on to explain why his estimate represents only a small fraction of total oil use by our military, and he cites a report suggesting that our military might consume as much as 14 million gallons of oil a day.

He then discusses the fact that the time is soon coming when world oil production will peak, which will lead to rapidly rising oil costs (unless we find enough suitable alternatives to oil.) The Pentagon recently studied this matter, resulting in a report titled Transforming the Way that DoD Looks at Energy, which concluded that current planning presents a situation in which the aggregate operational capability of the force may be unsustainable in the long term. That follows from a consideration of our militarys current mode of operation under the Bush administration:

Our forces must expand geographically and be more mobile and expeditionary so that they can be engaged in more theaters and prepared for expedient deployment anywhere in the world They must transition from a reactive to a proactive force posture to deter enemy forces from organizing for and conducting potentially catastrophic attacks To carry out these activities, the U.S. military will have to be even more energy intense


How will our military deal with declining availability and rising costs of oil?

Klare discusses two possible ways in which our military could deal with the declining availability and rising cost of oil. One would be to go green that is, to develop alternative energy sources for the running of our military. But that would not appear to be a feasible means of meeting the monstrous energy needs of our military any time in the near future.

Klare discusses a much scarier prospect:

To ensure itself a reliable source of oil in perpetuity, the Pentagon will increase its efforts to maintain control over foreign sources of supply, notably oil fields and refineries in the Persian Gulf region This would help explain the recent talk of U.S. plans to retain enduring" bases in Iraq, along with its already impressive and elaborate basing infrastructure in other countries.

That appears to be the way that our military is currently headed. Klare notes the fact that we often use our War on Terror as an excuse for foreign military intervention. However, we sometimes have trouble telling the difference between fighting terror and our desire for oil, as Klare discussed in a 2004 article:

A close reading of Pentagon and State Department documents shows that antiterrorism and the protection of oil supplies are closely related in administration thinking. When requesting funds in 2004 to establish a "rapid-reaction brigade" in Kazakhstan, for example, the State Department told Congress that such a force is needed to "enhance Kazakhstan's capability to respond to major terrorist threats to oil platforms" in the Caspian Sea.

A very similar trajectory is now under way in Colombia. The American military presence in oil-producing areas of Africa, though less conspicuous, is growing rapidly. The Department of Defense has stepped up its arms deliveries to military forces in Angola and Nigeria, and is helping to train their officers and enlisted personnel; meanwhile, Pentagon officials have begun to look for permanent U.S. bases in the area, focusing on Senegal, Ghana, Mali, Uganda, and Kenya. Although these officials tend to talk only about terrorism when explaining the need for such facilities, one officer told Greg Jaffe of the Wall Street Journal in June 2003 that "a key mission for U.S. forces (in Africa) would be to ensure that Nigeria's oil fields, which in the future could account for as much as 25 percent of all U.S. oil imports, are secure."

Klare concludes with the ultimate nightmare scenario:

It would be both sad and ironic if the military now began fighting wars mainly so that it could be guaranteed the fuel to run its own planes, ships and tanks consuming hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could instead be spent on the development of petroleum alternatives.


My thoughts on the idea of U.S. wars for oil

When I was a child, my parents told me that our country only fought wars for good reasons. Its hard to imagine that they told me that. They were liberal and well informed when they were alive. They actively protested against the Vietnam War.

But the guardians of our nations cultural heritage have made a tremendous effort to keep the American people ignorant and quiet about our nations wars. One way they do this is by exhibiting contempt for those of us who are too negative on the subject. They call us isolationist, nave, unpatriotic, or when we question the motives or truthfulness of our leaders, conspiracy theorists.

Another way they keep us in the dark is by keeping a firm handle on the educational curricula of our youth. In the early 1990s, an historical policy-setting body was established, called the National Council for History Standards (NCHS), consisting of the presidents of nine major organizations and twenty-two other nationally recognized administrators, historians, and teachers, with substantial input from thirty-one national organizations. In November 1994, NCHS released its document, titled National Standards for United States History, which was meant to provide purely voluntary guidelines for national curricula in history for grades 5-12. As explained by Gary Nash, who led the effort, these standards were meant to have one thing in common: to provide students with a more comprehensive, challenging, and thought-provoking education in the nation's public schools. Their signature features were said to include a new framework for critical thinking and active learning and repeated references to primary documents that would allow students to read and hear authentic voices from the past.

The document was widely criticized by those who felt threatened by it. For example, Lynn Cheney aggressively criticized it as containing multicultural excess, a grim and gloomy portrayal of American history, a politicized history, and a disparaging of the West. In 1995 the U.S. Senate rejected the document by a vote of 99-1.

Our nation MUST get over this way of thinking. We cant just keep on moving from one mindless imperial war to the next. It is bankrupting our nation and preventing the worlds nations from coming together to solve the crucial problems confronting us all, such as global climate change and world-wide poverty and hunger. Most important of all, the death and destruction that we rain down on our victims is blatantly immoral. History shows that nations that engage in imperial over-reach eventually decline and crash. As we do that, we just might take the rest of the world down with us.

I believe that President-Elect Obama is fundamentally a good and peace loving man. But he is now the President of a nation that is well on the road to imperialistic conquest and tyranny and whose military machine is out of control. The pressure to continue on that course will be tremendous.

The American people need to learn a different way of viewing war. They need to know that it isnt necessary for us to spend nearly as much on our military as the rest of the world combined. They need to reject wars for oil or other nefarious purposes. But any President or Presidential candidate who tells them that will be politically crucified for it. It will take tremendous political courage and skills to do that successfully. Our new President will have a tremendous challenge in front of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mr Rabble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good post here TFC.
Lots of good basic sources for people to look at to understand the underpinnings of US policy in the ME.

Hopefully this will get some traction.

The one thing I would add is this-

US leadership has for many years openly admitted that they are willing to and prefer to use violence to control the worlds energy reserves. They are in no way interested in diplomacy or reason, and they are often proud of it. There are far too many examples to go into beyond those you cite- hopefully people will delve deeper...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
20. Thank you - It is difficult to understand how people could be proud of being the world's bully
The only thing I can think of is that their self-esteem is so low that that's the only thing they can think of to be proud of.

You are certainly right that there are far too many examples of this -- enough to fill several books.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's expensive to fuel an empire..

It's Time for a Trillion-Dollar Tag Sale at the Pentagon
by Nick Turse, Tomdispatch.com
www.alternet.org, October 29, 2008

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/Trill ...
Wars, bases, and money. The three are inextricably tied together.

Today, the Pentagon acknowledges 761 active military "sites" in foreign countries -- and that's without bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and certain other countries even being counted. This "empire of bases," as Chalmers Johnson has noted, "began as the leftover residue of World War II," later evolving into a Cold War and post-Cold War garrisoning of the planet.
---------------
While squandering money, the Global War on Terror has also acted as a production line for the creation of yet more military bases in the oil heartlands of the planet. Just how many is unknown -- the Pentagon keeps exact figures under wraps -- but, in 2005, according to the Washington Post, there were 106 American bases, from macro to micro, in Iraq alone.
If you were to begin the process of disentangling Americans from this world of war and the war economy that goes with it, those bases would be a good place to start. There is no way to estimate the true costs of our empire of bases, but it's worth considering what an imperial tag sale could mean for America's financial well-being. One thing is clear: in getting rid of those bases, the United States would be able to recoup, or save, hundreds of billions of dollars, despite the costs associated with shutting them down.
------------------------

Tag Sales and Savings
If the Pentagon sold off just the buildings and structures on its officially acknowledged overseas bases at their current estimated replacement value, the country would stand to gain more than $119 billion. Think of this as but a down payment on a full-scale Pentagon bailout package.
In addition, while it leases the property on which most of its bases abroad are built, the Pentagon does own some lucrative lands that could be sold off. For instance, it is the proud owner of more than 11,000 acres in Abu Dhabi, "the richest and most powerful of the seven kingdoms of the United Arab Emirates." With land values there averaging $1,100 per square meter last year, this property alone is worth an estimated $48.9 billion. The Pentagon also owns several thousand acres spread across Oman, Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Belgium. Selling off these lands as well would net a sizeable sum.
Without those bases, billions of dollars in other Pentagon expenses would immediately disappear. For instance, during the years of the Global War on Terror, the Overseas Cost of Living Allowance, which equalizes the "purchasing power between members overseas and their U.S.-based counterparts," has reached about $12 billion. Over the same period, the price tag for educating the children of U.S. military personnel abroad has clocked in at around $3.5 billion. By shutting down the 127 Department of Defense schools in Europe and the Pacific (as well as the 65 scattered across the U.S. mainland, Puerto Rico, and Cuba) and sending the children to public schools, the U.S. would realize modest long-term savings. Once no longer garrisoning the globe, the Pentagon would also be able to cease paying out the $1 billion or so that goes into the routine construction of housing and other base facilities each year, not to mention the multi-billions that have gone into the construction, and continual upgrading, of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And that's not the end of it either. Back in the 1990s, the Pentagon estimated that it was spending $30 billion each year on "base support activities" -- though the exact meaning of this phrase remains vague. Just take, for example, five bases being handed back to Germany: Buedingen, Gelnhausen, Darmstadt, Hanau and Turley Barracks in Mannheim. The annual cost of "operating" them is approximately $176 million. Imagine, then, what it has cost to run those 750+ bases during the Global War on Terror years.
Some recent Pentagon contracts for general operations and support functions overseas are instructive. In March, for instance, Bahrain Maritime and Mercantile International was awarded a one-year contract worth $2.8 billion to supply and distribute "food and non-food products" to "Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and other approved customers located in the Middle East countries of Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia."
In July, the French foodservices giant Sodexo received a one-year contract worth $180 million for "maintenance, repair and operations for the Korea Zone of the Pacific Region."
These and other pricey support contracts for food, fuel, maintenance, transport, and other non-military expenses, paid to foreign firms, would disappear along with those U.S. garrisons, as would enormous sums spent on all sorts of military projects overseas.[] In 2007, for instance, the Army, Navy, and Air Force spent $2.5 billion in Germany, $1 billion in Japan, and $164 million in Qatar. And this year, the Pentagon paid a jaw-dropping $1 billion-plus for contracts carried out in South Korea alone.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/Trill...




The Mega-Pentagon: A Bush-Enabled Monster We Can't Stop
The Pentagon has developed a taste for unrivaled power and unequaled access to the treasury that won't be easily undone by future administrations.

by Frida Berrigan, Tomdispatch.com
www.alternet.org/, May 28, 2008

The Pentagon's massive bulk-up these last seven years will not be easily unbuilt, no matter who dons the presidential mantle on January 19, 2009. "The Pentagon" is now so much more than a five-sided building across the Potomac from Washington or even the seat of the Department of Defense. In many ways, it defies description or labeling.
-------------------------------------------------
With the war added to the Pentagon's core budget, the United States now spends nearly as much on military matters as the rest of the world combined. Military spending also throws all other parts of the federal budget into shadow, representing 58 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government on "discretionary programs" (those that Congress gets to vote up or down on an annual basis).
The total Pentagon budget represents more than our combined spending on education, environmental protection, justice administration, veteran's benefits, housing assistance, transportation, job training, agriculture, energy, and economic development. No wonder, then, that, as it collects ever more money, the Pentagon is taking on (or taking over) ever more functions and roles.

---------
3. The Pentagon as Arms Dealer: In the Bush years, the Pentagon has aggressively increased its role as the planet's foremost arms dealer, pumping up its weapons sales everywhere it can -- and so seeding the future with war and conflict.
By 2006 (the last year for which full data is available), the United States alone accounted for more than half the world's trade in arms with $14 billion in sales. Noteworthy were a $5 billion deal for F-16s to Pakistan and a $5.8 billion agreement to completely reequip Saudi Arabia's internal security force. U.S. arms sales for 2006 came in at roughly twice the level of any previous year of the Bush administration.
----------------
7. The Pentagon as Global Viceroy and Ruler of the Heavens: In the Bush years, the Pentagon finished dividing the globe into military "commands," which are functionally viceroyalties. True, even before 9/11, it was hard to imagine a place on the globe where the United States military was not, but until recently, the continent of Africa largely qualified.
Along with the creation of Northcom, however, the establishment of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) in 2008 officially filled in the last Pentagon empty spot on the map. A key military document, the 2006 National Security Strategy for the United States signaled the move, asserting that "Africa holds growing geo-strategic importance and is a high-priority of this administration." (Think: oil and other key raw materials.)

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Military_Budget/Mega_...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
22. "The Pentagon's massive bulk-up these last seven years will not be easily unbuilt...
no matter who dons the presidential mantle on January 19, 2009"

Exactly. That's what I'm so worried about. I believe that it will take superb leadership, skill and courage to turn us around on this. We'll begin to see soon if Obama has what it takes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. Great title ...
Edited on Wed Dec-03-08 10:59 PM by slipslidingaway
just a quick addition on Iran, we should remember that the people fought for many years to have a say in their government. If memeory is correct from the mid-1800's until the Constitutional Revolution in the early 1900's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Constitutional_Rev...

"...The Iranian Constitutional Revolution was the first event of its kind in the Middle East. The Revolution opened the way for cataclysmic change in Persia, heralding the modern era. It saw a period of unprecedented debate in a burgeoning press. The revolution created new opportunities and opened up seemingly boundless possibilities for Persias future..."


Thanks for your work, will read the balance tomorrow.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
24. Thanks for the additional info on Iran
It is outrageous what we did to them, and it's outrageous that it's hardly ever discussed in our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. YW...
a tiny bit of info in comparison to your posts.

Yes it is outrageous to have "fought" for almost a hundred years and gained some success, only to have a couple of foreign powers remove a popular secular leader.

Unfortunately the history before 1979 is rarely discussed in our country.

Two items I have not found and would be interested in reading, Musaddiq's speech to the UN and the report by T. Cuyler Young of Princeton University.

And I still have not read the balance of your post.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R Lots of good info
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. Kicking this again....
one reason is because it is difficult to see where to recommend and reply to the OP.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. Bravo! Kick and rec (sorry I can only rec once).
It seems the party that claims to support the military is only using them to further their own selfish needs.

Thank you for posting.

This definitely deserves a bookmark too!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bigmack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 11:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. Wouldn't it have been cheaper....
to just buy the fucking oil? I mean.. all those bases, all those wars, all that ill-will toward the US.

Not even counting the oil that was used up in trying to rule the world.

I'm not singing "Kumbaya" here... I'm talking hard-headed economic decision-making.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. Probably it would
Edited on Thu Dec-04-08 09:37 AM by Time for change
But the Military-Industrial complex is about more than just oil. There are many other major industries tied up in it, our imperial conquests of other countries open up lucrative opportunities for our corporations (especially those that are close to the current administration), and in the process of occupying other countries we establish our role as a nation that can dictate to other nations how we want them to behave with respect to a large range of issues.

There are many malignant factors driving our militarism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #7
18. Delete -- duplicate
Edited on Thu Dec-04-08 08:51 AM by Time for change
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conscious evolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
8. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelly4hope Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-03-08 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Very Informative, thanks...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
10. This is brilliant piece, thank-you for taking the time to put it togeter. K&R
Edited on Thu Dec-04-08 01:16 AM by Turborama
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
11. The US Military, when exploited by the hawks and chickenhawks, also maintains
a high demand for oil. As long as they can keep a war going, they will need oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 02:02 AM
Response to Original message
12. Smedley Buter wrote that the purpose of the US military was to protect US Corporate interests
around the world. That was written shortly after the Spanish-American war when the interests he was talking about were sugar, bananas and gambling in Central and South America. It seems that the only thing that might have changed is the scope of the area that the military has to cover to protect US Corporate interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 05:45 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Minor correction: he wrote it in 1935
"War Is A Racket", still available in print and on the web after all these years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conscious evolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. "War is a Racket"
A must read for anyones reading list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #14
19. Yes. Sorry. It was during the Spanish-American War that he joined the Marines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #12
25. His book was a real eye opener
He's an excellent example of someone who has the courage to learn from their mistakes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
13. Very good read. K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taterguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
15. Maybe people opposed to militarism should avoid consuming oil
Just a wacky thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. An even better idea -- since not many people would be willing to freeze this winter
would be to work towards the development of clean, renewable energy alternatives and improved energy efficiency. That would make great strides towards a permanent solution to peak oil -- and to air pollution and global warming as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taterguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Who says that both can't be done?
And I wasn't talking about consuming oil when it's a necessity. I was talking about the millions of gallons of fuel that are wasted every day when other methods of transportation are available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. They can be
I'm just saying that development of clean, renewable energy alternatives and improved energy efficiency have the potential to cut down on a lot more oil use than simply trying to avoid using it. Take transportation, for example, as you mentioned. Most people don't have alternatives to a car for getting to work. The oil and the auto industries lobbied successfully against mass transportation systems, so now we're in a situation where few people have the choice of using other means for getting to work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taterguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. New energy sources take years to develop, a change in mentality could be implemented instantly
I guess we could endlessly quibble about the definition of "few" and "most" and I realize that the lack of actual data is a problem.

However, in real life I constantly see people using cars for trips that could be easily done on foot or bike.

The average American would rather get somewhere in 5 minutes instead of 10 minutes, and they don't want to expose themselves to things like danger, weather and sweat (The horror)

We'll have wars as long as that mentality exists, no matter what energy sources we use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDemo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
21. Answer: redefine terrorism

The day may come (and shortly) when the US will simply define the failure of a nation or region to keep the spigots open and the pipelines flowing as economic warfare.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. They virtually do that now
The big problem the Neocons had with Saddam Husseing had nothing to do with WMD or his tyrannical rule. Their biggest problem with him was that he wasn't giving U.S. corporations enough access to Iraq's oil.

And many of the so-called "benchmarks" that we lay on the Iraqi government have to do with allowing U.S. corporations access to their resources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
23. K&R. How will the entrenchment of the MIC/Oil oligarchy be loosened?
Edited on Thu Dec-04-08 12:25 PM by balantz
"I believe that President-Elect Obama is fundamentally a good and peace loving man. But he is now the President of a nation that is well on the road to imperialistic conquest and tyranny and whose military machine is out of control. The pressure to continue on that course will be tremendous."

Even if it is true that Obama is "a good and peace loving man" we should understand that he is shackled to the agenda of the oligarchy. They are far too powerful and thoroughly own our government, as well as owning the media which feeds the citizenry daily lies.

Saying that our nation is well on the road to imperialistic conquest and tyranny with an out of control military machine is an understatement.

This state of affairs will not be changed from within a corrupt government; corrupt on both sides of the aisle. The problem has long been far out of reach by our little votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. You're right -- That was an understatement
It's hard to imagine how this is going to be changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Yes it is hard to see any road out from the corporate hold on our government.
I forgot to say, nice work. Thanks for all the important information. Good read!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. One first step toward change would be to turn completely away from MSM
Edited on Thu Dec-04-08 09:57 PM by balantz
and encourage others to do so. It is pure poison. Even when folks say "Oh yes, I know, it's corporate garbage" but they continue to get information fed to them by MSM they are still being brainwashed. If I ever watch, listen to or read MSM information I do so with full knowledge that it is propaganda crap. Even a show like Frontline is only sanctioned and safe material that the corporations will allow to be shown. If it is on one of their stations (and of course PBS is one of their stations) then it is lies and propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. The internet is gradually gaining on the corporate news media as a source of news for Americans
The internet is a much more active media than TV -- i.e. it requires a lot more active participation by its users. That is a real bright spot IMO. McCain/Palin were killed by it because it wouldn't let them get away with their repeated and blatant lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
33. K & R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eric blair Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
37. I created the account just to ask this question
Sir:
The below quote is 'interesting' - did you make it up or do you have an actual reference you can cite as the source of the quote?

Conspiracy theorist: A psychologically disturbed person who poses a danger to society by virtue of the fact that he frequently questions or refuses to accept the views or opinions of societys authorities The consensus definition of conspiracy theorist promoted by societys authorities.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. I made it up
It's my opinion of how society's "authorities" define "conspiracy theorist".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 06:58 AM
Response to Original message
38. Re. the CIA/MI6 1953 black op to overthrow Iranian PM Mossadegh
Another good read on this, and one which explains why the British initially instigated the plot to overthrow a democratically elected prime minister in Iran and what role they played in the plot itself, is the article "A 'great venture': overthrowing the government of Iran" by Mark Curtiss. Please note another use of false flag terror tactics by the CIA and MI6 to demonize and discredit the targeted "boogyman," in this case Prime Minister Mossadegh. (See snip below)

A 'great venture':
overthrowing the government of Iran

by Mark Curtis

This is a slightly abridged version of part of chapter four of Mark Curtis's book The Ambiguities of Power: British Foreign Policy since 1945 (Zed Press, 1995).

SNIP

The go-ahead for the coup was finally given by the US in late June - Britain by then already having presented a 'complete plan' to the CIA (54) - and Churchill's authorisation soon followed, the date being set for mid-August. (55) That month, the head of the CIA operation met with the Shah, the CIA director visited some members of the Shah's family in Switzerland, whilst a US army general arrived in Tehran to meet 'old friends', among them the Shah and General Zahidi. (56)

When the coup scenario finally began, huge demonstrations proceeded in the streets of Tehran, funded by CIA and MI6 money, $1 million dollars of which was in a safe in the US embassy (57) and 1.5 million which had been delivered by Britain to its agents in Iran, according to the MI6 officer responsible for delivering it. (58)

According to then CIA officer Richard Cottam, 'that mob that came into north Tehran and was decisive in the overthrow was a mercenary mob. It had no ideology. That mob was paid for by American dollars.' (59) One key aspect of the plot was to portray the demonstrating mobs as supporters of the Communist Party - Tudeh - in order to provide a suitable pretext for the coup and the assumption of control by the Shah. Cottam observes that agents working on behalf of the British 'saw the opportunity and sent the people we had under our control into the streets to act as if they were Tudeh. They were more than just provocateurs, they were shock troops, who acted as if they were Tudeh people throwing rocks at mosques and priests'. (60) 'The purpose', Brian Lapping explains, 'was to frighten the majority of Iranians into believing that a victory for Mussadeq would be a victory for the Tudeh, the Soviet Union and irreligion'. (61)

The head of the CIA operation also sent envoys to the commanders of some provincial armies, encouraging them to move on to Tehran. (62) In the fighting in the capital, 300 people were killed before Musaddiq's supporters were defeated by the Shah's forces. AUS general later testified that 'the guns they had in their hands, the trucks they rode in, the armoured cars that they drove through the streets, and the radio communications that permitted their control, were all furnished through the military defence assistance program'. (63)

'All in all', US Iran analyst Barry Rubin comments, 'only five Americans with a half-dozen Iranian contacts had organised the entire uprising'. (64) The British input, however, had clearly been significant. One Iranian agent of the British - Shahpour Reporter, who subsequently served as adviser to the Shah - was later rewarded with a knighthood, before becoming a chief middleman for British arms sales to Iran, in particular for the manufacturers of Chieftain tanks and Rapier missiles. (65) Two years after the coup, the head of the MI6 end of the operation became Director of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, one of Britain's leading 'independent' academic research institutes. (66)

http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
39. Nixon and Kissinger drew up plans in 1973 to invade Saudi Arabia.
They love us for our freedom.



http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/6057

Thank you for another outstanding post, Time for change. I know it's good because I always feel smarter reading your stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 23rd 2014, 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC