11-11-2005, 06:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-11-2005, 06:28 PM by Occhidiangela.)
Frag:
You will note that WJ Clinton was not president on 8 March 2001. What else do you have wrong in your citation? Not sure, a lot of it looks familiar, and none of it is news.
Carter Doctrine is not news, it is what created what is now Central Command, and was at the time "Rapid Reaction Force." This was an outgrowth of the 1973 Yom Kippur War and his own Camp David accords that got Israel and Egypt to stop fighting one another.
Oil is the necessary commodity for the International Economy. It has been made indispensible over the past 100 years, for better and worse. Blame "science and progress." Oil wealth has enabled two-bit potentates all over the Mid East to think they matter, and to influence some matters globally. Bully for them. The blatant slant that the US is the only nation backing the continued global addiction to oil is false, however, the world's addiction to oil is true.
If the Mid East were not so rich in oil, their political influence would be considerably less. Given the medeival nature of their societies, that might not be such a bad thing. One plays the hand one is dealt.
American foreign policy since the birth of our nation has been aimed at keeping freedom of the seas and generally continued access to international markets. We have grown from the age of sail to the age of oil. Or mutated, pick your poison. ;) But we were late comers to the Internatinoal Trade scene, following behind the Empires of Europe, the Ottoman Empire (Silk Road anyone?) and the Chinese.
If the supply of oil were to be significantly disrupted, the entire global economy would suffer a shock, which includes the American economy. It is logical and natural that American foreign policy take measures to proactively influence the unimpeded traffic in oil, globally, both for self interest and for the larger interest of facilitating international commerce. That does not necessarily mean taking over Iraq. "Working a deal" and dealing in coalitions is something we've been doing for decades, in Europe and Asia, why not in the Mid East?
I note that you don't comment on Central Asian oil, Russian Oil, Venezuelan and Canadian oil, nor France's multi billion dollar projects (ELF) in Iraq at and around 2003. It's a bigger picture than the Persian Gulf and Donald Rumsfeld.
Saddam Hussein tried to become John Galt in 1991. He failed. If you don't know who John Galt is, read Atlas Shrugged. Chavez of Venezuela thinks he can pull it off as well. If VP Cheney is trying to become John Galt, I think he too is doomed to fail.
Occhi
You will note that WJ Clinton was not president on 8 March 2001. What else do you have wrong in your citation? Not sure, a lot of it looks familiar, and none of it is news.
Carter Doctrine is not news, it is what created what is now Central Command, and was at the time "Rapid Reaction Force." This was an outgrowth of the 1973 Yom Kippur War and his own Camp David accords that got Israel and Egypt to stop fighting one another.
Oil is the necessary commodity for the International Economy. It has been made indispensible over the past 100 years, for better and worse. Blame "science and progress." Oil wealth has enabled two-bit potentates all over the Mid East to think they matter, and to influence some matters globally. Bully for them. The blatant slant that the US is the only nation backing the continued global addiction to oil is false, however, the world's addiction to oil is true.
If the Mid East were not so rich in oil, their political influence would be considerably less. Given the medeival nature of their societies, that might not be such a bad thing. One plays the hand one is dealt.
American foreign policy since the birth of our nation has been aimed at keeping freedom of the seas and generally continued access to international markets. We have grown from the age of sail to the age of oil. Or mutated, pick your poison. ;) But we were late comers to the Internatinoal Trade scene, following behind the Empires of Europe, the Ottoman Empire (Silk Road anyone?) and the Chinese.
If the supply of oil were to be significantly disrupted, the entire global economy would suffer a shock, which includes the American economy. It is logical and natural that American foreign policy take measures to proactively influence the unimpeded traffic in oil, globally, both for self interest and for the larger interest of facilitating international commerce. That does not necessarily mean taking over Iraq. "Working a deal" and dealing in coalitions is something we've been doing for decades, in Europe and Asia, why not in the Mid East?
I note that you don't comment on Central Asian oil, Russian Oil, Venezuelan and Canadian oil, nor France's multi billion dollar projects (ELF) in Iraq at and around 2003. It's a bigger picture than the Persian Gulf and Donald Rumsfeld.
Saddam Hussein tried to become John Galt in 1991. He failed. If you don't know who John Galt is, read Atlas Shrugged. Chavez of Venezuela thinks he can pull it off as well. If VP Cheney is trying to become John Galt, I think he too is doomed to fail.
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete