Nothing in this blog can be believed. If you think that anything in this blog is true or factual, you'll need to verify it from another source. Do you understand? No? Then read it again, and repeat this process, until you understand that you cannot sue me for anything you read here. Also, having been sucked into taking part in the mass-murder of more than 3 million Vietnamese people on behalf of U.S. Big Business "interests", I'm as mad as a cut snake (and broke) so it might be a bit silly to try to sue me anyway...

Thursday, April 14, 2005

now let's see if I got this right...

The Iraq war. It was about oil, right?

Before the war, the US knew oil prices were going to blow right out through the roof. Buying oil owned by someone else, at stratospheric prices, can send you broke. Owning that oil can make you rich. The Saudis and Kuwaitis were not interested in allowing foreign investment (ownership) in their oil.

But wait!!! Iraq was a socialist state (no investment there was possible.) The US never could stomach socialism (because it can't get rich on it), and Saddam was eminently demonisable, the sanctions (to stop Iraq selling too much of that oil to China, France and Russia) were starting to smell a bit, so, Iraq it had to be. That's where they would install a puppet government which would allow unlimited American investment (ownership) in their oil. Easy...

So that was the plan. Now they started scratching their heads about how to implement it... Not so easy...

Then 9/11 happened. (Did they put bin Laden up to it?) Anyhow, it looked to Big Dubbya like a God-sent opportunity.

And so the mass-murder of Iraqis was begun. The oil thieves had arrived in a wave of Shock and Awe and the Ministry of Oil building in Bagdhad was saved and they began to implement the US Blood For Oil Program.

They were about to "liberate" the Iraqi people by removing from them the ownership of their one-and-only major natural (and finite) resource, their sole source of income. (aside: Why does "the liberation of East Timor" pop into my head here, Mr Howard?)

Well, that was the plan, anyhow...

But it's starting to unravel...

They can't seem to get a lot of "liberated" oil out of Iraq. Someone keeps blowing up the (now) foreign-owned installations and pipelines. And the US is going nuts because it's going to go broke having to pay for the oil like the rest of the world. Who said there's no God?

So there it is. All nicely explained here. Thanks must go to Evan Jones for covering this on his blog first.

So what do you reckon? Have I got it right? Have I? Waddya reackon, ASIO, have I got it right? Isn't it your job to tell the PM?!? Oh that's right, you arseholes have sold us out to the Yanks too... Fucking traitors !!!

Hey, Cosgrove, ya puddin'!! Do the right thing before ya cut and run in June (to your next cushy job, no doubt) - pull our troops out now !


Blogger Dave Riley said...

traditionally the US has relied on Israel (which still recieves most of the US's overseas aid) to police the middle east while doing quisling deals with any number of arab regimes. in many ways the iraq invasion was a "final solution' to that problem but i guess so too would be an invasion of iran.
sure it's about oil and the state capitalist way the Bathists ran the industry (which is now being privatised). indeed such incomes were the source of so much security for many in Iraq under Hussein( not everyone of course as that was how Hussein built his power base)
but a bit more than oil is a stake here otherwise the afghanistan occupation wouldn't make much sense. sure that invasion was a precursor to iraq but a more general principle of controlling that sector of the world is a key rationale --especially since Turkey may be a touch unreliable and israel's status as kosher home for the jews is being threatened by increasing world wide support for the palestinians.
but you need to refer back to the new world order doctrine which is being played out under aegis of such a pre-emptive strike such as this. if the iraqi =occupation succeeds then essentially the vietnam syndrome and even any other limitation to US military hegemony is dead. it does become what gore vidal said it was "permanent war for permanent peace". just like Orwells' 1984.
so while it IS about oil it is ALSO about terrorism -- not the culprits Bush engineers but terrorism of the US state. it is like Iraq being a Hiroshima or Nagasaki template and at stake is who has their finger on the button to punish anyone who transgresses the new --US-- doctrine of hegemony by force. thats' why the europeans weren't so enamoured with the Iraq invasion,. oil means as much to them too you know. but this oil war came at too big a price for them -- a price that required the ECC to kowtow to US dominance.
so the iraqi invasion is a celebation of the collapse of a bipolar world. in the wake of the 'fall of communism' (and bush noted the connection in his speech yesterday between iraq and that event) this is what imperial power and confidence is really like -- extending politics by war as it suits. and democracy is something that is now quite esxpendable as there is nothing bearing down on the US that would warrant democratic cant in way of fighting on the ideological front. look at iraq. democracy? absurd. it's regime change at the request of washington.
the related thread is the role military spending and wars play in a capitalist economy. you just have to look back to the 1930s depression and monitor how that downturn was addressed primarily through the carnage of WWII. thats' where the 'post war' boom came from. it rested on the destruction and expenditure of wartime.
as for australia -- howard (and beazely too!) have decided like Blair to throw in their lot with Washaington as a preferred manoevre to scrape off a few cash flow gains from thsi enterprise. it is better to be the sidekick rather than an expendable oppositionist. so they wear that connection despite the fallout in asia and elsewhere or the price paid at home. for australian capitalism there are gains to ebe made by being lympets to whatever the us has on offer in thier great adventure in terrorism. ditto for the UK(it givee Blair an angle that being tied to Europe completely would not)

so it isn't one thing -- oil -- being considered here. the game plan and stakes are much bigger and they get bigger by the day as the impact of this war pans out. EG: new confidence by the US religious right and the advancemnt of their ahenda (ditto Australia); massive moves to roll back democracy in the US, Aust and GB under excuse of terrorism; the engendering of a new bogeyman to replace the Red Scare which served the US so well for 50 years,etc
it's a great win win. fine, except we loose.

April 14, 2005 12:38 PM  
Anonymous Rowen said...

But wait!!! Iran is an islamic state that hates the US (no investment there was possible.) The US cannot stomach Islamic states (because it can't get rich on it), and the Mullahs are eminently demonisable, so, Iran it has to be. That's where they will install a puppet government which will allow unlimited American investment (ownership) in their oil.

I know I'm being cynical, but am I being cynical enough?

April 14, 2005 12:46 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Dave, I think Afghansistan was about oil/gas pipelines. Read this. Again bin Laden and 9/11 provided the golden opportunity. I also see Afghanistan as a superb strategic place for US military bases in a future war with China.

Rowen, I think you're cynical enough. :-) But tell me, would that be a "bad" war or a "good" war? (grins, ducks and runs)

April 14, 2005 1:22 PM  
Blogger Dave Riley said...

sure there can be direct attributes referred to like pipelines in Afghanistan and i don't dispute that. but it is a mistake to simplify what is a complex commitment on the part of the US. leave that to the conspiracy theorists.

i agree with the china containment question thats further grist for the mill but you coudl easily ask why not continue to rely on the old ally pakistan? so i6t gets complex--and mnay fronts one approach technique. anyway the key aspect now is not why they came and conquered but why they dopn;t leave ---these two articles are interesting in regard to the pressures in motion. essenyillay why are they ken to risk another vietnam despite the risks?

(1)check out this article from salon (if you don't subscribe)

How many have gone to war?
Even experts are surprised at the vast numbers of U.S. soldiers who have been deployed after 9/11. Even if troop levels in Iraq are cut next year, the military may be permanently damaged.
By Mark Benjamin

Good discusion about morale and force strength

(2)and this review of the united opposition in iraq:


An interview with Sheik Jawad Khalisi of the Iraqi National Foundation Congress by Herbert Docena

April 14, 2005 4:32 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Thanks for those links, Dave.

What do you mean by "if the Iraq occupation succeeds"? How would you define such a success?

April 14, 2005 5:24 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<<<<< Home