The general consensus prior to the last Iraq ware that the US essentially going it alone, was a bad thing. Despite this, very little was done when the US started with their 'shock and awe' campaign.
The Iraqi's did have at least some support from their neighbours, most of them members of OPEC. Why then was there not revolt by the oil men?
Finacially, most of the OPEC countries were in pretty poor shape - flagging world demand and over expansion had led to flat oil prices. Record national debts loomed; the piggy banks were empty.
This year's high oil prices and near record output from SA and other OPEC countries has led to record income, and massive trade surplusses. In a couple of years, they will be flush with cash. A time, it seems that Bush will be on the war path again.
Could an OPEC rebellion be on the cards, if GW tries to destabilise the world peace? Could you imagine the consequences if the various oil ministers announced:
'It is with regret that we see Dubya igniting another anfounded war. As we feel responsible for aiding in this attack, with our oil supplies, we can see no choice but to embargo all oil destined for the USA with immediate effect.'
PeakOil is You
Could there ever be another unilateral US invasion?
First unread post • 19 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Could there ever be another unilateral US invasion?
by MarkR » Sun 19 Sep 2004, 13:59:38
- MarkR
- Peat
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: S. Yorkshire, UK
by Permanently_Baffled » Sun 19 Sep 2004, 14:03:07
A valid point , as OPEC could easily sell there oil elsewhere, and the dollar is going to be worth nothing soon as well.
It scares me half to death to think of 'thicko' Bush's reaction!
Probably something like ' NUKE EM ALL!'
PB
It scares me half to death to think of 'thicko' Bush's reaction!
Probably something like ' NUKE EM ALL!'
PB
-
Permanently_Baffled - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1151
- Joined: Thu 12 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: England
by Viper » Sun 19 Sep 2004, 14:52:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ould an OPEC rebellion be on the cards, if GW tries to destabilise the world peace?
Just exactly what "World Peace" are you talking about???
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')urrent “Major” wars and conflicts in the world—Major conflicts are defined here as wars and conflicts in which more than a thousand people have died, involve more than one nation (for internal conflicts) or more than two nations (for international conflicts), and/or have the near-term potential to turn into a multi-national regional conflict. Alphabetical listing.
q Afghan War (part of America’s world-wide War on Terrorism)--
q Al-Aqsa Intifada (Israeli-Palestinian Conflict) (high-risk to become a regional war)--
q Algerian Civil War—(1992-Present): After the Islamic Salvation Front won national elections in 1992, the military annulled the elections and the winning party's military wing, The Islamic Salvation Army (AIS), began a bloody rebellion. The AIS surrendered in June 1999, but other groups continue to fight the government.
q Basque Separatist Conflict—(1958-Present): The rebel group called Basque Fatherland and Liberty guerrilla group (ETA) has waged an urban guerrilla movement against the Spanish government. The organization's goal is independence for the Basque region of northern Spain and southwestern France. Some operations have taken place in France, causing Paris and Madrid to cooperate. Approximately 800 deaths are attributed to the ETA's campaign.
q Burma (Myanmar) Civil War—(1948-Present): In Earth's longest running and perhaps most complex conflict, several different ethnic groups attempted to secede in the years following World War 2. Most of these groups continue the struggle to this day, along with political dissidents who took up arms after a 1988 coup. Some areas of northern Burma have been controlled by Narco-guerrillas harvesting opium, which the government has attempted to halt. Military operations near border areas have brought both rebels and the Burmese government into occasional conflict with neighboring Thailand.
q Burundi Civil War—(1994-Present): The Tutsi-dominated government is fighting Hutu rebels. The rebels use neighboring Congo as a base to launch attacks, thereby giving the Burundi government reason to involve itself in the Second Congolese War.
q Colombian Civil War—(1964-Present): Marxist Guerrillas began a Cuban-inspired insurgency in the 1960s, which continued at a fairly low level until the 1990s, when the strength of the guerrilla groups increased due to their de facto alliance with narcotics-producing crime cartels. Over the past year (since 2001), the violence of the conflict has increased as the government realized that negotiations with the guerrillas were not leading to a peaceful solution. The United States is providing military and logistical support to the government.
q Congo: Second Congolese War (This IS a regional war)—(1998-Present): Peace talks may soon end what has been called “Africa’s World War.” Congolese rebels, backed by Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi, seek the overthrow of President Kabila (the father was assassinated and his son then became president), who is supported by rebels from the above three countries, in addition to the armies of Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia. Estimates put the number of dead in this war at over one million, mostly civilians. Also known as the “Great Lakes War.”
q Chechnya (Russia): Second Chechen War--
q Iraq-Coalition Conflict (high-risk to become a regional war)—
q Israeli Airstrikes on Syrian Forces in Lebanon—Part of ongoing conflict between Israel and Syria in Lebanon. (high-risk to become a regional war)—
o July 1, 2001: Israeli warplanes struck a Syrian Army radar post and anti-aircraft site in Lebanon in retaliation for a Hezbollah attack on the Israel-Lebanon border in an area called the Cheba Farms. Israel believes Syria controls the Hezbollah and struck the Syrians in order to "send a message."
o April 15, 2001: Israel dropped six bombs on a Syrian Army radar post in Lebanon in retaliation for a Hezbollah attack on the Israel-Lebanon border. Israel believes Syria controls the Hezbollah. Three Syrian troops died in the attack.
q Israeli –Syrian Border Clashes—Part of ongoing conflict between Israel and Syria in Lebanon. (high-risk to become a regional war)—
o January 10, 2003: Israeli troops shot and killed one Syrian soldier and captured another in an apparent attempt by the Syrian soldiers to infiltrate across the border into the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Approximately one hour after the initial shooting, a Syrian outpost opened fire on Israeli forces. Israel chose not to respond for fear of escalating the violence. Isael later turned over the body of the dead soldier and the prisoner to the United Nations for transfer back to Syria.
o July, 1991: Three Syrians, members of a military intellegence unit, infiltrated into Israeli-Occupied territory near Mount Hermon. They fired an anitank weapon at an Israeli military outpost, killing one Israeli soldier.
q Israeli-Palestinian Conflict-àSee Al-Aqsa Intifada (above)-- (high-risk to become a regional war)—
q q q Ivory Coast (Cote d’Ivorie) Civil War—(Sept. 19, 2002-Present): Rebel soldiers (who later called themselves the Patriotic Movement of Ivory Coast (MPCI) launched a coordinated, nation-wide attack on forces loyal to President Laurent Gbagbo. Loyalist forces held onto the capital city of Abidjan, but lost control of the northern cities of Bouake and Korhogo. Initial reports had former military dictator General Robert Guei as the leader of the coup. It was also reported that he perished in the fighting. Ivory Coast has seen ethnic and religious violence since 2000 between northern Muslims (such as Guei) and southern Christians (such as President Gbagbo). The government also claims that rebel reinforcement entered the country from a bordering nation, most likely Burkina Faso to the north. Tensions have increased between the two West African nations partly as a result of the status of millions of migrant Burkina Faso citizens living in Ivory Coast seeking jobs. A cease-fire began on Oct. 17, which held until the last week of November, as government forces launched a new offensive with recently acquired helicopters and what appeared to be a unit of English-speaking mercenaries. Also, a new rebel group appeared, seizing several towns along the western border with Liberia. This group, calling itself the Ivorian Popular Movement for the Greater West, clashed with French peacekeeping forces that were attempting to evacuate Europeans from the area. This Yacouba-based tribal group, which appears to include some Liberians, may be connected to one of the factions involved in the Liberian Civil War. A second western rebel group, called the Movement for Justice and Peace, appears loyal to the late General Guei.
q Kashmir Conflict (high-risk to become a regional war)—(1991-Present): Kashmir is divided between India and Pakistan, and a Kashmiri rebel movement is aided by Pakistan. Intermittent clashes along the border nearly turned into full-scale war in the summer of 1999 and in late 2001.
o o o o Intense Clashes Along the LOC-- (Dec. 23, 2001-Continuing): Following the terrorist attack on India's Parliament, tensions between India and Pakistan increased, with machine gun, mortar and artillery fire across their border (Line of Control) in disputed Kashmir.
o o o o Terrorist/Rebel Attack on the Indian Parliament in New Delhi—( Dec. 13, 2001): Kashmiri Terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament, attempting to blow it up during a legislative session. Security guard killed the militants before they could enter the Parliament building. 5 terrorists and 7 Indian security officers and 2 Indian bystanders were killed in the attack. This attack triggered a violent confrontation along the Line of Control (LOC) in Kashmir between the armies of India and Pakistan. India blamed Pakistan for aiding the rebels
q Liberian Civil War--
q Nepal Civil War—(Feb. 13, 1996- Present): Maoist Guerrillas seek to overthrow the Nepal monarchy though a rural uprising. This conflict has grown in intensity in recent months. Chinese aid to the rebels is alleged.
q Northern Ireland Conflict—(1969-Present): This is the latest in a very long series of conflicts fought by Britain in Ireland. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, with a Protestant majority loyal to London. The Irish Catholic minority has sought to break away and join the Irish Republic in the southern part of the island. The IRA and other groups have conducted a largely urban guerrilla campaign since 1969. Protestant para-military groups also wage an underground war against the Catholic population. Peace talks have been under way for some time. Over 2,500 deaths have occurred since1969.
q Philippines Conflicts—
o Muslim Rebellion in the Southern Philippines--(1969-Present): Muslim rebel groups seek autonomy/independence from the mostly Christian Philippines. One rebel group, the Abu Sayaf Group, is believed linked to Osama bin-Laden’s Al-Qaida. This connection, plus their tactic of kidnapping and beheading Americans, led the United States to send Special Forces to aid the Philippine Army.
o New People’s Army Rebellion--(1969-Present): The Communist New People’s Army (along with the rival Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB); is attempting to overthrow the Philippine government and install a Marxist regime.
q Rwandan Civil War—(1994-Present): The current Rwandan government is dominated by the Tutsi tribe, which overthrew the old government dominated by the Hutu tribe. Before losing power, the Hutu rulers and their militia massacred over half a million people. The Hutus now conduct a guerrilla war against the Tutsi government from bases in the Congo. Rwanda used the presence of these Hutu guerrillas to take part in both of the recent Congolese Wars.
q Sri Lankan Civil War—(1983-Present): Sri Lanka's civil war is due to problems between the Tamil minority and the Sinhalese majority. In the 1980's, India intervened on the government's side, but has since withdrawn its troops. Over 70,000 deaths have resulted from this war. Peace talks have been under way for some time.
q Sudanese Civil War—(1983-Present): This is a war based largely on racial, religious and regional differences. The government is dominated by Muslim Arabs, while the south of the country is largely black Christian.
q War on Terrorism—Officially beginning Oct. 7, 2001, this American-led crusade against al-Qaida thus far involves: the campaign against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the search by U.S. and Pakistani forces for al-Qaida followers in Pakistan, the deployment of U.S. special forces to aid government forces in the Philippines battle the Abu Sayyaf guerrillas on the southern Philippine island of Bamiyan, the deployment of U.S. special forces to Yemen to train and aid government forces dealing with rural tribes possibly allied with al-Qaida and the deployment of U.S. special forces to the republic of Georgia to train and aid government forces against rebels. Other military, para-military and covert missions are probably ongoing, but not yet public.
q Ugandan Civil War--
Current “Minor” wars and conflicts in the world— Wars and conflicts, which are relatively small impact on the world or the region in which they occur. Placement on this list is somewhat subjective. For nations and individual people caught up in these conflicts, these wars are far from “minor,” but from the perspective of the world as a whole, they are possess a lower “profile” than the wars in the “major” category. This category also contains “one-time” occurrences such as the Korean border battles, which are part of a long-standing hostility. Generally speaking, these conflicts involve few than 1,000 deaths, involve only one nation (for internal conflicts) or only two nations (for international conflicts) and/or do not possess the likelihood of developing into multi-national regional conflicts.
Alphabetical listing.
q Bougainville War of Independence—(1989-Present): The island of Bougainville seeks independence from Papua New Guinea.
q Cabinda (Angola) Separatist War—(1984-Present): The Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda (FLEC) seeks to separate the oil-rich enclave of Cabinda from Angola. On September 19, 2002, the Angolan army began a major military offensive against the Cabinda rebels.
q Chad-Central African Republic Border Conflict—(Aug. 7, 2002): The armies of Chad and the CAR clashed in an exchange that left approximately two dozen dead. Each side blamed the other for initiating the attack. Tensions have been high since an attempted coup in the CAR last November.
q Chittagong Hill Tracts War in Bangladesh- (1975?-Present): Peace settlements have ended some fighting, but at least one rebel group remains active.
q Hmong Insurgency in Laos—(1975-Present): The Hmong ethnic group have fought the Communist government since it took power following the end of the Vietnam (2nd Indochina) War in 1975. Vietnam provides military aid and troops to the Laotian government periodically.
q India: Minor Wars—A series of conflicts mostly involving ethnic groups seeking independence or autonomy from the central government. One conflict, the Naxalite War, is political rather than ethnic. These are in addition to the Kashmir Rebellion, which rates as a major conflict.
o Hindu-Muslim Sectarian Violence—(1947-Present): Since independence from Britain in 1947, Hindus and Muslims in India have engaged in periodic outbursts of violence against each other. The latest mob violence in early 2002 in the state of Gujarat claimed 800 to 1,000 lives.
o Naga Rebellion—(1952-Present): The Naga ethnic group sought independence from India. A cease-fire took effect in 1997, though some Naga groups continue to oppose the government.
o Mizo Rebellion—(Feb. 28, 1966-Present): The Mizo National Front (MNF) seeks independence from India for the Mizoram region.
o Naxalite Guerrilla War—(May 25, 1967-Present): Beginning with a peasant uprising in the town of Naxalbari, this Marxist/Maoist rebellion sputters on in the Indian countryside. The guerrillas operate among the impoverished peasants and fight both the government security forces and the private paramilitary groups funded by wealthy landowners. Most fighting takes place in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Mahrashtra, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh.
o Tripura Rebellion—(1979-Present): Tripura, in Northeast India, is embroiled in a separatist rebellion as several rebel groups fight for independence.
o Assam Rebellion—(1980-Present): The United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) formed in April 1979 in response to an influx of non-Assamese from Bangladesh and parts of North East India. This movement seeks to evict those "foreigners" and seek greater autonomy from the Indian government.
o Bodo Rebellion—(Mid-1980s-Present): The National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) is fighting for a separate state within India. They feel that their ethnic group is persecuted by the Assamese and Bengali groups which dominate the region.
q Indonesia: Minor Wars—A series of rebellions against the government, along with sectarian and ethnic violence between Indonesia’s many ethnic and religious groups continues to threaten the unity and perhaps the continued survival of Indonesia. These do not include the recently resolved conflict in East Timor, which resulted in that island’s independence.
o West Papua Rebellion—(1965-Present):
o Aceh Rebellion—(mid-1980s-Present):
o Ambon Ethnic Violence—(1999-Present)
o Sulawesi Sectarian Violence—(1998-Present): Violence between Muslims and Christians on the island of Sulawesi. Violence escalated in mid-2001, when thousands of members of a fundamentalist Muslim militia called Laskar Jihad arrived from the island of Java.
q Iranian Mujahadeen Khalq Guerrilla War—(1979-Present): After the Iranian Revolution in 1979 toppled the government of the Shah, the Mujahadeen Khalq soon began a bloody guerrilla war against the new Islamic government. The Mujahadeen are currently based in Iraq and conduct cross-border raids into Iran, as well as conducting urban guerrilla operations in the cities and conducting political assassinations. Iran occasionally launches raids against Khalq bases in Iraq.
q Japanese Coast Guard Sinking of Suspected Spy Ship—(Dec. 21 and 22, 2001): The Japanese Coast Guard chased a suspected spy ship and sank it. Crewmembers of the spy ship fired on the Japanese ships, wounding two Coast Guard sailors. The spy ship crew all perished when their vessel sank. Japan suspects the ship was North Korean.
q Korean Border Battle at Sea—(June 28, 2002): North and South Korean naval vessels fought a twenty-minute gun battle in which 4 South Korean sailors died and 18 wounded near Yeonpyeong island in the Yellow Sea. A South Korean vessel was sunk and a North Korean vessel sustained damage, with casualties. This is one of several Korean border fights in recent years. News link—BBC
q Korean Border Battle—(Nov. 27, 2001): The first cross-border shooting of 2001 between North and South Korea. North Korean troops fired several shots at a South Korean guard post. The South Koreans returned fire.
q Kurdish Rebellion in Iraq—(1991-Present): Following Iraq's defeat in the Second Persian Gulf War (1990-1991), Iraq's Kurds rebelled, seeking independence. This is the latest in a long series of Kurdish uprisings. The Kurds currently enjoy autonomy in north Iraq under the protection of the United States and the United Kingdom.
q Kurdish Rebellion in Turkey—(1984-Present): Rebel groups of the Kurdish ethnic group seek independence from Turkey.
q Namibia: Caprivi Uprising—(Aug. 2, 1999-Present): The Caprivi Liberation Army, led by Namibian politician Mishake Muyongo, claims that the government is neglecting their region. Guerrillas attacked Namibian military and police on August 2 in the Caprivi area.
q Niger Army Mutiny—( July 31-Aug. 9, 2002): Forces loyal to the government of Niger put down an army mutiny that had spread to several army garrisons across the country. The uprising is believed related to low pay for army soldiers. News link--BBC
q Nigerian Minor Conflicts—(1991-Present): Various ethnic and religious groups in Nigeria engage in sporadic communal violence. More detail to be added soon.
q Oromo Rebellion in Ethiopia—(1973-Present): Long-running rebellion by the Oromo Liberation Front. The OLF is currently allied to Eritrea, the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) and with the Aideed clan in Somalia--all of which are fighting the Ethiopian regime. See Ethiopian-Oromo Conflicts
q Russian Bombing of Pankisi Gorge in Georgia—(September, 2002): Russian warplanes bombed the Pankisi Gorge in Georgia, which borders on Chechnya. Russia claimed that Chechen rebels used the Gorge as a staging area for attacks on Russian forces in Chechnya. Georgia protested the attacks.
q Shiite Muslim Rebellion in Iraq--—(1991-Present): Following Iraq's defeat in the Second Persian Gulf War (1990-1991), Iraq's Shiites, a religious minority, rebelled against the government. Low-level guerrilla warfare continues in the southern marshes.
q Somali Civil War (state of anarchy)—(1991-Present): The Somali government ceased to exist following the 1991 overthrow of dictator Siade Barre. Rival Somali groups fight for advantage but the net result is anarchy. In 1992 and 1993, United Nations forces, led by the United States, attempted to bring order to the country and head off a famine. After incurring casualties, the U.S. and the U.N. withdrew.
q Tuareg Rebellion in Niger—
q Yemen Tribal Conflict—(Dec. 19, 2001): Yemeni armed forces moved against several villages of the Abida tribe suspected of harboring al-Qaida fugitives. 24 soldiers and 16 members of the Adiba tribe perished. American Special Forces were in Yemen to train the government military so that operations such as this one against suspected terrorists could be undertaken. No Americans are known to have taken part in this operation. (part of America’s world wide War on Terrorism)--
http://www.historyguy.com/new_and_recent_conflicts.html#newandrecentcurrent
Doesn't look like a very peaceful world to me.
Just because CNN and Fox news are not covering it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
-Viper
-
Viper - Peat
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Sat 05 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: MO
Who knows?
by TheSupplyGuy » Sun 19 Sep 2004, 16:27:34
I doubt that would happen. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait both owe their independence to the United States.
In the long run, men hit only what they aim at. Therefore, though they should fail immediately, they had better aim at something high.-Thoreau
Peak Oil
Peak Oil
-
TheSupplyGuy - Lignite
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Sat 15 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Southeast USA
by MonteQuest » Sun 19 Sep 2004, 20:41:18
Well, it would seem so. Excerpts from my book. Check out their battle plans here:
On Sept 20, 2002, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America was released. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html The administration has promulgated this new strategic doctrine (Bush Doctrine) that the United States will arrogate the right to pre-emptively attack any state which, in its view, might threaten its security at some indeterminate time in the indefinite future, which also happens to be a long standing Israeli military doctrine.
The same language is this report can be found in the Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century http://www.newamericancentury.org written by neo-conservatives that served as a sort of administration-in-waiting during the Clinton years. Upon his election in 2000, Bush immediately surrounded himself with this same group of CFR geopolitical strategists—Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle—who had developed international policy for the first Bush administration.
And here's Wofowitz in his younger years:
With the end of the Cold War, internationalists quickly pressed the American neoconservatives to seize the moment to begin an era of “beneficent global hegemony.” The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. Our pre-eminence over the globe was supreme. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.
The Republican establishment was first to advance this imperialist vision. Its hand was tipped in early 1992 in a secret Pentagon memorandum leaked to the New York Times. Prepared under the direction of then Undersecretary Paul Wofowitz, the forty-six-page memo was described by the Washington Post as a “classified blueprint intended to help set the nation's direction for the next century....”
The Wofowitz memo envisioned permanent U.S. involvement on every continent. America's dominance was to remain so great as to deter “potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” The Pentagon had decided the United States would never permit any nation to rise ever again—even to the status of regional superpower. To maintain global hegemony, the Pentagon anticipated U.S. military intervention for promoting ends far beyond the protection of vital interests.
From society’s point of view, geopolitics is a Darwinian collective struggle for increased carrying capacity; but from the individual geostrategist’s viewpoint, it is a game. Indeed, geopolitics could be considered the ultimate human game—one with immense consequences, and one that can only be played within a tiny club of elites. As long as there have been civilizations and empires, kings and emperors have played some version of this game. The game attracts a particular kind of personality, and it fosters a certain way of thinking and feeling about the world and about other human beings.
The act of playing the game confers feelings of immense superiority, aloofness, power, and importance. One can begin to appreciate the supremely addictive intoxication that flows from playing the geopolitical game by reading documents composed by prominent geostrategists, national security briefing papers by people like George Kennan and Richard Perle, or books by Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Take, for example, this passage from Kennan’s U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23 from 1948:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')We have 50 per cent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality... we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization.”
On Sept 20, 2002, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America was released. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html The administration has promulgated this new strategic doctrine (Bush Doctrine) that the United States will arrogate the right to pre-emptively attack any state which, in its view, might threaten its security at some indeterminate time in the indefinite future, which also happens to be a long standing Israeli military doctrine.
The same language is this report can be found in the Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century http://www.newamericancentury.org written by neo-conservatives that served as a sort of administration-in-waiting during the Clinton years. Upon his election in 2000, Bush immediately surrounded himself with this same group of CFR geopolitical strategists—Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle—who had developed international policy for the first Bush administration.
And here's Wofowitz in his younger years:
With the end of the Cold War, internationalists quickly pressed the American neoconservatives to seize the moment to begin an era of “beneficent global hegemony.” The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. Our pre-eminence over the globe was supreme. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.
The Republican establishment was first to advance this imperialist vision. Its hand was tipped in early 1992 in a secret Pentagon memorandum leaked to the New York Times. Prepared under the direction of then Undersecretary Paul Wofowitz, the forty-six-page memo was described by the Washington Post as a “classified blueprint intended to help set the nation's direction for the next century....”
The Wofowitz memo envisioned permanent U.S. involvement on every continent. America's dominance was to remain so great as to deter “potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” The Pentagon had decided the United States would never permit any nation to rise ever again—even to the status of regional superpower. To maintain global hegemony, the Pentagon anticipated U.S. military intervention for promoting ends far beyond the protection of vital interests.
From society’s point of view, geopolitics is a Darwinian collective struggle for increased carrying capacity; but from the individual geostrategist’s viewpoint, it is a game. Indeed, geopolitics could be considered the ultimate human game—one with immense consequences, and one that can only be played within a tiny club of elites. As long as there have been civilizations and empires, kings and emperors have played some version of this game. The game attracts a particular kind of personality, and it fosters a certain way of thinking and feeling about the world and about other human beings.
The act of playing the game confers feelings of immense superiority, aloofness, power, and importance. One can begin to appreciate the supremely addictive intoxication that flows from playing the geopolitical game by reading documents composed by prominent geostrategists, national security briefing papers by people like George Kennan and Richard Perle, or books by Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Take, for example, this passage from Kennan’s U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23 from 1948:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')We have 50 per cent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality... we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization.”
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest - Expert
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
by backstop » Sun 19 Sep 2004, 20:59:49
Monte - very good final quote - nice to see the evidence as to how long the present fascistic mindset has been in office, if not on public view within the US.
Re the thread, I suspect it could be inverted, at least for some years, to
"Could the US find any ally willing to join it in a multilateral invasion ?"
regards,
Backstop
Re the thread, I suspect it could be inverted, at least for some years, to
"Could the US find any ally willing to join it in a multilateral invasion ?"
regards,
Backstop
- backstop
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1463
- Joined: Tue 24 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Varies
by nigel » Mon 20 Sep 2004, 05:02:00
Viper & Montequest - interesting posts!
The neo-cons have already identified their desired targets in the ME - Syria and Iran. Black and white propaganda is already in full flow -
Syria supposedly trying out WMD in Sudan on the black Christians; Syria - get out of Lebanon; Syria stop backing terror in Israel; Syria stop sending fighters into Iraq; Syria - the repository for the missing Iraqi WMD; Syria the protector of missing Iraqi Baathists; Syria the ally of Iran; Syria secret nuke research...
Iran - mad mullahs holding down liberal Persians; Iran - nukes well on the way; Iran - ignoring/blocking UN; Iran - $14 billions spent on nuke research bases; Iran - underground nuke research; Iran - backing insurrection in Iraq; Iran anti Israel; Iran - largest supporter of international terror... Iran mullahs paranoid (understandably); Iran surrounded by USA troops... Perfect time to get stuck in as the kits there already....
Israel has recently been boasting the ability of its missile defence system.
Both Bush and Blair have made it clear they do not want atomic mullahs - hence the thread on who will bomb Iraq - Bush or Sharon...
Kuwait will never veto or subscribe to an oil embargo v USA.
Saudi is most unlikely to go against the Bush family - but they have form and the Wahabbi's extreme Islamic interpretation is also under regular attack. Saudi is in urgent need of the oil money to keep their huge number of unemployed and restive inhabitants quiet. Saudis also hate Iran and VV - see Iran Iraq war!
Iran guards the gates to most ME oil - shipped out via Strait of Hormuz - and has Shebab missiles capable of hitting Israel's nuclear sites.
If Bush wins and continues to blow the same way - expect USA conscription? Bombing cannot guarantee Iraq will not manage to make a nuke. Half a job done will prove far worse than none - expect a nuke in a container on route to USA...
Best USA tactic is to get Israel to bomb Iran and pretend to be neutral. Iran will probably hit Israel and then try to sink any ships leaving the Gulf. This would draw the UN in to intervene as the world screamed for oil - allowing USA to bomb Iran at will without putting troops on the ground.
This brilliant plan is so obvious that it won't work but it might succeed in drawing in the French and Germans who won't be happy that their oil supply is also hit.... which is why the French are so adamantly refusing to help in Iraq. They don't want peace there too soon as it will release the USA's attention and allow it to hit Iran and Syria. The French don't want the USA and UK to succeed in Iraq, they want a high US body count and a US withdrawal to it's own borders so they can rule the world instead. From a lot of people's perspectives, the longer and more bloody the Iraq business is the less likely the USA is to start any more world re-structuring projects.
If Kerry wins, the French may be forced to help in Iraq - this would be bad news for the French strategy.
All this would be quite fun if it was only a board game.
The neo-cons have already identified their desired targets in the ME - Syria and Iran. Black and white propaganda is already in full flow -
Syria supposedly trying out WMD in Sudan on the black Christians; Syria - get out of Lebanon; Syria stop backing terror in Israel; Syria stop sending fighters into Iraq; Syria - the repository for the missing Iraqi WMD; Syria the protector of missing Iraqi Baathists; Syria the ally of Iran; Syria secret nuke research...
Iran - mad mullahs holding down liberal Persians; Iran - nukes well on the way; Iran - ignoring/blocking UN; Iran - $14 billions spent on nuke research bases; Iran - underground nuke research; Iran - backing insurrection in Iraq; Iran anti Israel; Iran - largest supporter of international terror... Iran mullahs paranoid (understandably); Iran surrounded by USA troops... Perfect time to get stuck in as the kits there already....
Israel has recently been boasting the ability of its missile defence system.
Both Bush and Blair have made it clear they do not want atomic mullahs - hence the thread on who will bomb Iraq - Bush or Sharon...
Kuwait will never veto or subscribe to an oil embargo v USA.
Saudi is most unlikely to go against the Bush family - but they have form and the Wahabbi's extreme Islamic interpretation is also under regular attack. Saudi is in urgent need of the oil money to keep their huge number of unemployed and restive inhabitants quiet. Saudis also hate Iran and VV - see Iran Iraq war!
Iran guards the gates to most ME oil - shipped out via Strait of Hormuz - and has Shebab missiles capable of hitting Israel's nuclear sites.
If Bush wins and continues to blow the same way - expect USA conscription? Bombing cannot guarantee Iraq will not manage to make a nuke. Half a job done will prove far worse than none - expect a nuke in a container on route to USA...
Best USA tactic is to get Israel to bomb Iran and pretend to be neutral. Iran will probably hit Israel and then try to sink any ships leaving the Gulf. This would draw the UN in to intervene as the world screamed for oil - allowing USA to bomb Iran at will without putting troops on the ground.
This brilliant plan is so obvious that it won't work but it might succeed in drawing in the French and Germans who won't be happy that their oil supply is also hit.... which is why the French are so adamantly refusing to help in Iraq. They don't want peace there too soon as it will release the USA's attention and allow it to hit Iran and Syria. The French don't want the USA and UK to succeed in Iraq, they want a high US body count and a US withdrawal to it's own borders so they can rule the world instead. From a lot of people's perspectives, the longer and more bloody the Iraq business is the less likely the USA is to start any more world re-structuring projects.
If Kerry wins, the French may be forced to help in Iraq - this would be bad news for the French strategy.
All this would be quite fun if it was only a board game.
- nigel
by Viper » Mon 20 Sep 2004, 11:22:49
Lets make this a lot more simple without all the conspiracy, oil, mad mula theories.
For the sake of its own security, Israel WILL NOT ALLOW Iran to possess nuclear weapons and will do ANYTHING to keep them from getting them.
The only real question is whether the US will have to involve itself, since it would be a lot less messy and much less bloody if the US does the work instead of Israel. Israel does not see this as a political, economic, or territorial issue. As far as Israel is concerned, if Iran gets nukes, there is no tomorrow. The belief in Israel is that the same day Iran gets nukes, Iran launches them.
If you had Israel's perspective, what would you do?
(And no, it doesn’t matter what the US says to Israel. If a man had a gun to your wife's head, would you listen to the cop who told you not to shoot him?)
-Viper
For the sake of its own security, Israel WILL NOT ALLOW Iran to possess nuclear weapons and will do ANYTHING to keep them from getting them.
The only real question is whether the US will have to involve itself, since it would be a lot less messy and much less bloody if the US does the work instead of Israel. Israel does not see this as a political, economic, or territorial issue. As far as Israel is concerned, if Iran gets nukes, there is no tomorrow. The belief in Israel is that the same day Iran gets nukes, Iran launches them.
If you had Israel's perspective, what would you do?
(And no, it doesn’t matter what the US says to Israel. If a man had a gun to your wife's head, would you listen to the cop who told you not to shoot him?)
-Viper
-
Viper - Peat
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Sat 05 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: MO
by nigel » Mon 20 Sep 2004, 12:18:20
Viper - if only things were as simple and as easy as you imagine...
http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/n ... ngiran.pdf
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watc ... 03/762.htm
Unfortunately, they are not.
http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/n ... ngiran.pdf
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watc ... 03/762.htm
Unfortunately, they are not.
- nigel
by Chicagoan » Tue 21 Sep 2004, 02:42:14
In one word, no.
The Iraq war can no longer be won, I am afraid. The American Empire has entered a period of imperial overstretch. The insurgency can not be destroyed because the people of Iraq are willing to fight for their freedom. Insurgents are blowing up the oil pipelines. We are using more oil to "control" Iraq then we are getting out of it. The war is an energy sink.
Empires do not fall easily, and America is the mightiest empire in history. I am expecting a return of the draft after November. But the more we tighten our grip, the more dedicated the Iraqis will become. This war will drag on for years. Enter the perfect economic storm. The dollar plummets. Empire begins to consume a larger and larger portion of the federal budget. At some point, it will no longer be politically viable to maintain.
The Iraq war can no longer be won, I am afraid. The American Empire has entered a period of imperial overstretch. The insurgency can not be destroyed because the people of Iraq are willing to fight for their freedom. Insurgents are blowing up the oil pipelines. We are using more oil to "control" Iraq then we are getting out of it. The war is an energy sink.
Empires do not fall easily, and America is the mightiest empire in history. I am expecting a return of the draft after November. But the more we tighten our grip, the more dedicated the Iraqis will become. This war will drag on for years. Enter the perfect economic storm. The dollar plummets. Empire begins to consume a larger and larger portion of the federal budget. At some point, it will no longer be politically viable to maintain.
- Chicagoan
- Lignite
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Sat 19 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
by lowem » Tue 21 Sep 2004, 03:14:31
Anyone knows what the Russians are up to? Last I heard, they were on rather friendly terms with the Iran folks. Is that one reason why "GI Joe" isn't already there yet? I wonder, might Iran be the next "tripwire" territory (Germany no longer!).
-
lowem - Expert
- Posts: 1901
- Joined: Mon 19 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Singapore
by nigel » Tue 21 Sep 2004, 07:29:56
Viper - Unfortunately, some people in power appear to agree with you!
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=6290470
It all seems so simple - drop a few bombs and it's all over. You'd have thought they'd learn from the Iraq fiasco. Unless the mullahs are totally removed from power then a mullah bomb now seems inevitable. If you read the stuff I posted you'll see the experts think that there's nothing much short of complete invasion that can stop secret manufacture of nukes now they have reached this stage. Delay is the best they could hope for using bombs alone.
Troops on the ground would require USA conscription. Would Americans really go along with an all out war on Iran? (ie. put their children's bodies on the line).
Stop the world, I want to get off.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=6290470
It all seems so simple - drop a few bombs and it's all over. You'd have thought they'd learn from the Iraq fiasco. Unless the mullahs are totally removed from power then a mullah bomb now seems inevitable. If you read the stuff I posted you'll see the experts think that there's nothing much short of complete invasion that can stop secret manufacture of nukes now they have reached this stage. Delay is the best they could hope for using bombs alone.
Troops on the ground would require USA conscription. Would Americans really go along with an all out war on Iran? (ie. put their children's bodies on the line).
Stop the world, I want to get off.
- nigel
by Barbara » Tue 21 Sep 2004, 08:24:24
I absolutely don't believe that, if and when Iran gets nukes, they'll launch them on Israel. It would be such a stupid move, and Iran leaders are not stupid at all... they proved it lately, after all. A nuke over Israel would mean a nuke over their own country, and they know that. Would you go to nuke a nuke country? Never!
And about Germany and France "wanting to rule the world"... well, that's really the biggest joke I've ever heard!
And about Germany and France "wanting to rule the world"... well, that's really the biggest joke I've ever heard!
**no english mothertongue**
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.
- Barbara
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1121
- Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Zoorope
by nigel » Tue 21 Sep 2004, 10:48:02
Chirac is on record as wanting what he quaintly describes as a 'multi-polar' world. ie one where France has a hand in running a large part of it - hopefully with the USA withdrawing to isolationist policies after having been badly singed in Iraq. He hates the Anglo-Saxon ways..
As to Iran nuking Israel - who said that? They would be annihilated by the USA in a flash. The fear is that Iran will be able to release the stuff to proxy attackers who will disguise their links with Iran. How could USA know who had attacked it if a nuke went off in LA for example? North Korea? Iran? WHo would they retaliate against? This has been the problem with terror attacks on planes. Many doubt Libya alone was behind Lockerbie and that fingers pointed to Iran.
I think one has to accept that Iran will get/may soon have the BOMB. They can then learn all about MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. The politics of MAD make having the things worse than not.
Iran could then arm its pal Syria to immunize it against attacks by Israel.
Religious zealots with the bomb and looking more to the hereafter than the here and now.. Maybe the self-restraining logic of MAD wouldn't apply?
As to Iran nuking Israel - who said that? They would be annihilated by the USA in a flash. The fear is that Iran will be able to release the stuff to proxy attackers who will disguise their links with Iran. How could USA know who had attacked it if a nuke went off in LA for example? North Korea? Iran? WHo would they retaliate against? This has been the problem with terror attacks on planes. Many doubt Libya alone was behind Lockerbie and that fingers pointed to Iran.
I think one has to accept that Iran will get/may soon have the BOMB. They can then learn all about MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. The politics of MAD make having the things worse than not.
Iran could then arm its pal Syria to immunize it against attacks by Israel.
Religious zealots with the bomb and looking more to the hereafter than the here and now.. Maybe the self-restraining logic of MAD wouldn't apply?
- nigel
by nero » Tue 21 Sep 2004, 11:53:55
I think it should be pointed out that Israel has already lived for quite some time with the threat of WMD in the form of chemical attacks. While a chemical attack on Israel would not be as devastating as a nuclear attack, it could be just as damaging economically due to the likelyhood that it wouldn't be a one time event. Also the threshold for terrorists getting chemical weapons is much much lower than for them getting a nuclear weapon. I'm kind of suprised that it hasn't already occured.
-
nero - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1433
- Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Ottawa, Ontario
by PhilBiker » Tue 21 Sep 2004, 13:58:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a') chemical attack ... would not be as devastating as a nuclear attack
I have done some investigation as to the damages that a chemical attack is capable of and I don't agree with this assessment. Chemical agents like Mustard gas can cause the same kind of genetic mutations and problems that radiation does. Start mixing different chemical agents like Saddam Husseing liked to do against the Iranians andf Kurds and you've got some really bad stuff.
The problem with chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists is one of delivery methods. A suitcase nuke would be much easier for a freelance terrorist to deploy than a large qualntity of mustard or nerve gas or whatever.
- PhilBiker
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1246
- Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00