DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on March 01, 2007, 11:07:48 AM
-
Just plain old-fashioned common sense. Like a breath of fresh air after all the rightwing bullshit you get in this forum. Common sense and simple truths. The spin in this room was making me nauseous.
March 1, 2007
Americans Have Lost Their Country
by Paul Craig Roberts
The Bush-Cheney regime is America's first neoconservative regime. In a few short years, the regime has destroyed the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers, the Geneva Conventions, and the remains of America's moral reputation along with the infrastructures of two Muslim countries and countless thousands of Islamic civilians. Plans have been prepared, and forces moved into place, for an attack on a third Islamic country, Iran, and perhaps Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon as well.
This extraordinary aggressiveness toward the US Constitution, international law, and the Islamic world is the work, not of a vast movement, but of a handful of ideologues – principally Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, Philip Zelikow, and Attorney General Gonzales. These are the main operatives who have controlled policy. They have been supported by their media shills at the Weekly Standard, National Review, Fox News, New York Times, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and by "scholars" in assorted think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute.
The entirety of their success in miring the United States in what could become permanent conflict in the Middle East is based on the power of propaganda and the big lie.
Initially, the 9/11 attack was blamed on Osama bin Laden, but after an American puppet was installed in Afghanistan, the blame for 9/11 was shifted to Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who was said to have weapons of mass destruction that would be used against America. The regime sent Secretary of State Colin Powell to tell the lie to the UN that the Bush-Cheney regime had conclusive proof of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Having conned the UN, Congress, and the American people, the regime invaded Iraq under totally false pretenses and with totally false expectations. The regime's occupation of Iraq has failed in a military sense, but the neoconservatives are turning their failure into a strategic advantage. At the beginning of this year President Bush began blaming Iran for America's embarrassing defeat by a few thousand lightly armed insurgents in Iraq.
Bush accuses Iran of arming the Iraqi insurgents, a charge that experts regard as improbable. The Iraqi insurgents are Sunni. They inflict casualties on our troops, but spend most of their energy killing Iraqi Shi'ites, who are closely allied with Iran, which is Shi'ite. Bush's accusation requires us to believe that Iran is arming the enemies of its allies.
On the basis of this absurd accusation – a pure invention – Bush has ordered a heavy concentration of aircraft carrier attack forces off Iran's coast, and he has moved US attack planes to Turkish bases and other US bases in countries contingent to Iran.
In testimony before Congress on February 1 of this year, former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said that he expected the regime to orchestrate a "head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large." He said a plausible scenario was "a terrorist act blamed on Iran, culminating in a 'defensive' US military action against Iran." He said that the neoconservative propaganda machine was already articulating a "mythical historical narrative" for widening their war against Islam.
Why is the US spending one trillion dollars on wars, the reasons for which are patently false. What is going on?
There are several parts to the answer. Like their forebears among the Jacobins of the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks of the communist revolution, and the National Socialists of Hitler's revolution, neoconservatives believe that they have a monopoly on virtue and the right to impose hegemony on the rest of the world. Neoconservative conquests began in the Middle East because oil and Israel, with which neocons are closely allied, are both in the Middle East.
The American oil giant, UNOCAL, had plans for an oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan, but the Taliban were not sufficiently cooperative. The US invasion of Afghanistan was used to install Hamid Karzai, who had been on UNOCAL's payroll, as puppet prime minister. US neoconservative Zalmay Khalilzad, who also had been on UNOCAL's payroll, was installed as US ambassador to Afghanistan.
Two years later Khalilzad was appointed US ambassador to Iraq. American oil companies have been given control over the exploitation of Iraq's oil resources.
The Israeli relationship is perhaps even more important. In 1996 Richard Perle and the usual collection of neocons proposed that all of Israel's enemies in the Middle East be overthrown. "Israel's enemies" consist of the Muslim countries not in the hands of US puppets or allies. For decades Israel has been stealing Palestine from the Palestinians such that today there is not enough of Palestine left to comprise an independent country. The US and Israeli governments blame Iran, Iraq, and Syria for aiding and abetting Palestinian resistance to Israel's theft of Palestine.
The Bush-Cheney regime came to power with the plans drawn to attack the remaining independent countries in the Middle East and with neoconservatives in office to implement the plans. However, an excuse was required. Neoconservatives had called for "a new Pearl Harbor," and 9/11 provided the propaganda event needed in order to stampede the public and Congress into war. Neoconservative Philip Zelikow was put in charge of the 9/11 Commission Report to make certain no uncomfortable facts emerged.
The neoconservatives have had enormous help from the corporate media, from Christian evangelicals, particularly from the "Rapture Evangelicals," from flag-waving superpatriots, and from the military-industrial complex whose profits have prospered. But the fact remains that the dozen men named in the second paragraph above were able to overthrow the US Constitution and launch military aggression under the guise of a preventive/preemptive "war against terrorism."
When the American people caught on that the "war on terror" was a cloak for wars of aggression, they put Democrats in control of Congress in order to apply a brake to the regime's warmongering. However, the Democrats have proven to be impotent to stop the neoconservative drive to wider war and, perhaps, world conflagration.
We are witnessing the triumph of a dozen evil men over American democracy and a free press.
-
The American oil giant, UNOCAL, had plans for an oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan, but the Taliban were not sufficiently cooperative. The US invasion of Afghanistan was used to install Hamid Karzai, who had been on UNOCAL's payroll, as puppet prime minister. US neoconservative Zalmay Khalilzad, who also had been on UNOCAL's payroll, was installed as US ambassador to Afghanistan.
This one jumped out at me. In reality, UNOCAL had dropped these plans in 1998.
As of today, they are not doing business in, nor do they have any pipeline plans for, Afghanistan.
-
<<This one jumped out at me. In reality, UNOCAL had dropped these plans in 1998.>>
But we all know that "dropped" plans can be "dusted off" for later use.
Wonder if the plans were "dropped" due to the unreliability of the Afghan government at the time. Maybe they didn't trust the Afghan armed forces, such as they were, to be suitable guardians of their precious pipes and pumps. But, then, miraculously, things started to change in Afghanistan. Better soldiers than the Afghan National Army began to appear. How wonderful for UNOCAL. How long before their "dropped" plans are due for a good "dusting off?" I'll bet it happens before the shooting stops.
-
But, then, miraculously, things started to change in Afghanistan. Better soldiers than the Afghan National Army began to appear. How wonderful for UNOCAL. How long before their "dropped" plans are due for a good "dusting off?" I'll bet it happens before the shooting stops.
Not likely, unless Hillary gets into office.
It was, after all, the Clinton Administration that was pushing the pipeline idea.
-
That sounds logical. The Clintons had their hand in everything, from Vince Foster's assassination to the top-level decision-making in the UNOCAL boardroom.
-
That sounds logical. The Clintons had their hand in everything, from Vince Foster's assassination to the top-level decision-making in the UNOCAL boardroom.
Don't forget Enron.
-
That sounds logical. The Clintons had their hand in everything, from Vince Foster's assassination to the top-level decision-making in the UNOCAL boardroom.
Don't forget Enron.
Ouch :D
-
""
a few thousand lightly armed insurgents in Iraq.
""
Oh? Are only a few thousand Iriquis fighing us?
I agree with this supposition.
-
<<Ouch>>
Let me explain something for you, sirs.
I was making a little joke about the right-wing paranoid fantasies regarding the Clintons. Repeating the absurd lies (as if I were dead serious, as if I were a Republican true believer) that the Clintons "had their hand in everything" from the Vince Foster assassination to the UNOCAL boardroom. A joke at Ami's expense, actually. For reasons that you obviously don't get, but I can't explain everything to you. It's sufficient that you understand a joke was being made.
Ami, in his good-humoured way, went along with the joke. He extended it - - I had given two absurd examples of the Clintons' nefarious activity, he gave a third (Enron.) That was supposed to be funny, sirs. It was funny. Everyone got the joke. Except one person, apparently.
-
<<Oh? Are only a few thousand Iriquis fighing us? I agree with this supposition.>>
You should read it again before you agree with it so quickly, plane: << . . . Bush began blaming Iran for America's embarrassing defeat by a few thousand lightly armed insurgents in Iraq.>>
The fighting edge of the insurgency may well be "a few thousand lightly armed insurgents" but like Mao's guerrilla armies, they move about in a sea of supportive people who may be unarmed but can provide all kinds of services for them. You may only be fighting a few thousand armed men (although who knows that for sure, who's counted them?) but you are trying to subdue an entire nation.
-
I was making a little joke about the right-wing paranoid fantasies regarding the Clintons. Repeating the absurd lies (as if I were dead serious, as if I were a Republican true believer) that the Clintons "had their hand in everything" from the Vince Foster assassination to the UNOCAL boardroom. A joke at Ami's expense, actually. For reasons that you obviously don't get, but I can't explain everything to you. It's sufficient that you understand a joke was being made.
Oh I get the joke. It's basically everything being posted with the handle Michael Tee. (http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_9.gif) But seriously, Ami quite artfully, demonstrated the absurdity of your joke, by adding the Enron reference, thus the "ouch", on my part. Do try to keep up
-
The absurdity of my joke was what made it a joke. It required no further demonstration that it was absurd, since everyone understood the intended absurdity from the beginning. (Well, almost everyone) Ami went along with the joke by adding further absurdity, not by introducing absurdity as a novel element. If you still don't understand the situation, best not to strain what you are pleased to refer to as your mind any further. Just take another two "Excedrins" or whatever those pills really are that you are popping.
-
The absurdity of my joke was what made it a joke. It required no further demonstration that it was absurd, since everyone understood the intended absurdity from the beginning.
Yes, it was absurd with the innuendo of the right believing that the Clintons were involved in everything that went wrong/bad/illegal. Made even more absurd by Ami's addition. Again, try to keep up
-
The absurdity of my joke was what made it a joke. It required no further demonstration that it was absurd, since everyone understood the intended absurdity from the beginning. (Well, almost everyone) Ami went along with the joke by adding further absurdity, not by introducing absurdity as a novel element. If you still don't understand the situation, best not to strain what you are pleased to refer to as your mind any further. Just take another two "Excedrins" or whatever those pills really are that you are popping.
Why is this so funny?
Was Enron saintly during the Clinton administration? Did Clinton escew cotact with the Enron brass?
Did Vince Foster kill himself? Why?
Now what is "is" ,that was funny.
-
<<Yes, it was absurd with the innuendo of the right believing that the Clintons were involved in everything that went wrong/bad/illegal. >>
No such innuendo and it wasn't necessary either to make the joke funny or to further the argument the joke was originally meant to resolve. The joke couldn't have been appreciated by Ami if he didn't already grasp the absurdity of its premise.
When Ami reminded me that the UNOCAL pipeline plan was prepared during the Clinton administration, the point of the joke (that the Clinton administration was not the originator of the plan) could only be made if both Ami and myself understood the absurdity of the Clintons being everywhere and having a hand in everything. The activities of the Clintons as described in the joke were obviously absurd enough. If Ami had been arguing against my point, he would have been obliged to blunt the idea behind the joke, not add to it.
But this is my last effort to straighten out your thoughts on this. If by now, you still don't get it, I'm done. Whether or not you respond to this.
-
<<Why is this so funny?>>
It's only moderately funny. Originally. Just a mild dig at Ami's reminder that the UNOCAL pipeline plans were drawn up durng the Clinton administration. The real point I should have been making was along the lines of the corporations giving their marching orders to the government of the day, not the government of the day (the Clinton administration in this case) telling the boardroom what to do. My point was that the UNOCAL plans to make or abandon a pipeline proceeded on UNOCAL time and on UNOCAL principles and whatever they decided, they would decide first and then enlist government support (if necessary to the project) when and as required. But I got sidetracked by the issue raised by Ami - - that perhaps it was the Clinton administration which developed interests in Afghanistan, which led to the invasion. (The Roberts article at the head of the thread postulated that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was in furtherance of U.S. economic interests, of which the UNOCAL pipeline plans were given as an example.)
So I picked an example which I felt everyone would regard as absurd - - the allegation that the Clintons had Vince Foster killed - - and paired it with Ami's inference that the Clintons were behind the UNOCAL pipeline plans, to show (IMHO) the absurdity of Clinton developing pipeline plans for UNOCAL and setting their agenda for them. Ami went along with the joke, by adding Enron to the Clintons' supposed misdeeds.
As I said, it was mildly humorous, it certainly wasn't hilarious.
<<Was Enron saintly during the Clinton administration? >>
My understanding of the situation is that Enron started off legit and went bad later. Whether that "later" was in the Clinton or the Bush administration I don't know and I suspect is immaterial. These guys were bad guys on their own account. However, they were enormously enabled by the deregulation of the energy markets, which I understand was largely the work of the Bush administration. I stand to be corrected on that last point by anyone who has the exact timelines of Enron malfeasance and energy dereg.
<<Did Clinton escew cotact with the Enron brass?>>
Let's put it this way - - Enron was smart enough to contribute to both major parties but gave much more to the Republicans. I don't know how much contact Clinton had with Enron managment, but he never got close enough to call Ken Lay "Kenny Boy" and there's no doubt in my mind that the Republicans had a lot more contact than the Democrats with Enron.
<<Did Vince Foster kill himself? Why?>>
There may be some mysteries regarding Foster's death, but there's no evidence whatsoever linking the Clinton's to it comparable to the evidence linking Bush and the people around him, for example, to lying about Saddam's WMD, or to stealing the Florida election in 2000. Or if there is, I haven't seen it to date. At this point, the claims of Clinton involvement in Foster's death are right up there with claims of alien abductions or live sightings of Elvis.
<<Now what is "is" ,that was funny.>>
You'll have to explain that to me, then. It sailed right over my head.
-
...there's no evidence whatsoever linking the Clinton's to it comparable to the evidence linking Bush and the people around him, for example, to lying about Saddam's WMD, or to stealing the Florida election in 2000.
Yea, Tee, is perfectly rational (http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_5.gif)
-
So I picked an example which I felt everyone would regard as absurd - - the allegation that the Clintons had Vince Foster killed
There is my problem, I would have thought this funny if I had thought the allegation absurd .
<<Was Enron saintly during the Clinton administration? >>
My understanding of the situation is that Enron started off legit and went bad later. Whether that "later" was in the Clinton or the Bush administration I don't know and I suspect is immaterial. These guys were bad guys on their own account. However, they were enormously enabled by the deregulation of the energy markets, which I understand was largely the work of the Bush administration. I stand to be corrected on that last point by anyone who has the exact timelines of Enron malfeasance and energy dereg.
They "went " bad during the Clinton Administrtion , they were "caught" during the Bush administration, they might well have been pardoned if they had been caught during the Clinton administration , he was holding auctions for pardons.
-
Bush accuses Iran of arming the Iraqi insurgents, a charge that experts regard as improbable. The Iraqi insurgents are Sunni. They inflict casualties on our troops, but spend most of their energy killing Iraqi Shi'ites, who are closely allied with Iran, which is Shi'ite. Bush's accusation requires us to believe that Iran is arming the enemies of its allies.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories and I don't put a lot of stock into many of the statements made in the article.
Yet, the author makes an excellent point here and really just confirms what we already know. Why does the administration focus so much on Iran?
I read that at most 170 American soldier's deaths can be linked to Shi'ite militia attacks where IED's were used. Of those, it is unknown how many used the materials that have been assumed bys some to have come from Iran. The overwhelming vast majority of American combat deaths have come at the hands of Sunni militia and before anyone jumps in chanting "Syria", there is no preponderance of evidence linking Syrian weapons to Sunni insurgents.
In fact, the only nation to overtly discuss aiding the Sunni insurgents was Saudi Arabia who told President Bush that if he pulls out American troops, they will aid the Sunni paramilitaries. In other words, it was a threat. Stay, or else.
If anything, Iran would have good reason to want to see us get out and leave behind a Shi'ite majority government. It is far less expensive to send in political operatives and shi'ite mullahs to preach about the dignity and holiness of living in an Islamic Republic than it is to fight a protracted guerilla war. Now they might feel a need to help the Shi'a defend themselves against the Sunni.
I'm just not seeing it, even if there is some aid from Tehran (and with the evidence thus far that seems to be a big "if"), it doesn't seem to be enough to garner the response we've seen from Bush and the right-wing. Is this just a diversion to reassign blame from Bush and his staff to Iran?
-
Bush accuses Iran of arming the Iraqi insurgents, a charge that experts regard as improbable. The Iraqi insurgents are Sunni. They inflict casualties on our troops, but spend most of their energy killing Iraqi Shi'ites, who are closely allied with Iran, which is Shi'ite. Bush's accusation requires us to believe that Iran is arming the enemies of its allies.
I'm not big on conspiracy theories and I don't put a lot of stock into many of the statements made in the article.
Yet, the author makes an excellent point here and really just confirms what we already know. Why does the administration focus so much on Iran?
So Syria and Iran are not co-operateing?
I thought they were.
-
So Syria and Iran are not co-operateing?
I thought they were.
=====================================
Syria and Iran are both nervous about the US occupying Iraq. Both are nervous about an unstable Iraq. Each of these counties acts according to the realities as perceived by therir governments. They do not agree on everything. Syria is majority Sunni, Iran is mostly Shia. Iran has a lot of oil wealth and does not have to worry so much about pissing off the Americans. Syria has territory in Israeli hands, Iran doesn't.
It would be silly to regard them as marching in anything resembling lock-step formation.
-
So Syria and Iran are not co-operateing?
I thought they were.
=====================================
Syria and Iran are both nervous about the US occupying Iraq. Both are nervous about an unstable Iraq. Each of these counties acts according to the realities as perceived by therir governments. They do not agree on everything. Syria is majority Sunni, Iran is mostly Shia. Iran has a lot of oil wealth and does not have to worry so much about pissing off the Americans. Syria has territory in Israeli hands, Iran doesn't.
It would be silly to regard them as marching in anything resembling lock-step formation.
Ok but they both arm Hezbollah , is it inconceveable that they would both arm Iranians who want to shoot Americans? Perhaps the same ones?
-
<<They do not agree on everything. Syria is majority Sunni, Iran is mostly Shia. >>
Keep in mind, though, that the ruling dynasty, the al Assads, and their inner circle, are Alawites, which is a minor branch of the Shi'ite religion. As long as the Assad family stays on top in Syria, I feel the mullahs in Iran will do what they can to support them, because a fall of the ruling Alawites will lead most likely to the majority Sunni Muslims gaining power. So it's probably worth a few petrobucks on the part of the Iranians to keep the present Syrian administration on side.
Syria also has powerful interests in Lebanon, which was formerly part of their national territory, split off by the French allegedly because of its half-Christian population, which provided a further opportunity to put the colonial divide-and-rule maxim into practice. To the extent that a pro-Western Lebanese government (which is always Christian-backed) blocks Syria from regaining Lebanon, the Western supporters of Lebanese "power-sharing" or "democracy" (read the U.S.A.) are enemies of Syria. To the extent (100% IMHO) that U.S. policy towards Iran and Iraq is oriented towards invading them and taking control of their oil, the U.S.A. is also the enemy of the Iraqis AND the Iranians. Applying the old Arab maxim, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," it would seem that all three of Syria, Iraq and Iran, plus the Muslim underclass of Lebanon, have good reason to become and/or stay on very good terms with one another.