Bhutto assassination: CIA plot?

[Arraya]

“Unwarranted attack against Iraq”. Hmmm. Curious. Would you explain your reasoning on this one?

Yes, it was warrented we needed the oil. Geez, everybody knows that. Unfortunately we are still about 500K bbl per day under pre-war production levels so it do not help with the price that much.

Check out the speech from cheney when he was chairman of Halliburten. I’m sure oil was not on their mind at all when planning to go to Iraq. Not so much oil for profits but oil to maintain our way of life. We can’t seem to get much more the 85 million barrels per day out of the ground and the number will soon be decreasing. Some people think that is a monumental problem and Bush and Cheney are some of those people.

http://www.peakoil.net/Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

“Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow.

By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves.That means by 2010 we will need n additional 50 million barrels per day.”

Cognitive dissonance is our national condition….

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: No argument from me on this one. However, “unwarranted attack” is generally code for “neocon” in left wing parlance. Your use of the phrase cognitive dissonance is especially appropriate here, in that the Clinton Administration rattled the saber quite loudly when it came to Iraq and Hussein, but always stopped short of outright war.

Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the various and sundry speeches of Albright, Berger and Co. about the need for regime change, the heavy bombings (Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq; a fact never commented on by most), etc.

Instead, the Iraq War is parlayed into some Bush family plot to avenge Daddy’s honor.

The US has made it a point of policy to prop up whatever governments in the region keep the oil spigot open. This included the Shah of Iran before he was deposed. It included Saddam before we had to take him off of his high chair. And it includes the Saudis, which will probably be the next group to go.

It is not a development that has emerged during the last two terms of this administration, however. The US clearly understood the need for oil many years ago, and that in order to keep the machinery running, we would need a lot of it. Our policy in the region reflects that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: No argument from me on this one. However, “unwarranted attack” is generally code for “neocon” in left wing parlance. Your use of the phrase cognitive dissonance is especially appropriate here, in that the Clinton Administration rattled the saber quite loudly when it came to Iraq and Hussein, but always stopped short of outright war.

Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the various and sundry speeches of Albright, Berger and Co. about the need for regime change, the heavy bombings (Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq; a fact never commented on by most), etc.

Instead, the Iraq War is parlayed into some Bush family plot to avenge Daddy’s honor.

The US has made it a point of policy to prop up whatever governments in the region keep the oil spigot open. This included the Shah of Iran before he was deposed. It included Saddam before we had to take him off of his high chair. And it includes the Saudis, which will probably be the next group to go.

It is not a development that has emerged during the last two terms of this administration, however. The US clearly understood the need for oil many years ago, and that in order to keep the machinery running, we would need a lot of it. Our policy in the region reflects that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: No argument from me on this one. However, “unwarranted attack” is generally code for “neocon” in left wing parlance. Your use of the phrase cognitive dissonance is especially appropriate here, in that the Clinton Administration rattled the saber quite loudly when it came to Iraq and Hussein, but always stopped short of outright war.

Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the various and sundry speeches of Albright, Berger and Co. about the need for regime change, the heavy bombings (Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq; a fact never commented on by most), etc.

Instead, the Iraq War is parlayed into some Bush family plot to avenge Daddy’s honor.

The US has made it a point of policy to prop up whatever governments in the region keep the oil spigot open. This included the Shah of Iran before he was deposed. It included Saddam before we had to take him off of his high chair. And it includes the Saudis, which will probably be the next group to go.

It is not a development that has emerged during the last two terms of this administration, however. The US clearly understood the need for oil many years ago, and that in order to keep the machinery running, we would need a lot of it. Our policy in the region reflects that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: No argument from me on this one. However, “unwarranted attack” is generally code for “neocon” in left wing parlance. Your use of the phrase cognitive dissonance is especially appropriate here, in that the Clinton Administration rattled the saber quite loudly when it came to Iraq and Hussein, but always stopped short of outright war.

Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the various and sundry speeches of Albright, Berger and Co. about the need for regime change, the heavy bombings (Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq; a fact never commented on by most), etc.

Instead, the Iraq War is parlayed into some Bush family plot to avenge Daddy’s honor.

The US has made it a point of policy to prop up whatever governments in the region keep the oil spigot open. This included the Shah of Iran before he was deposed. It included Saddam before we had to take him off of his high chair. And it includes the Saudis, which will probably be the next group to go.

It is not a development that has emerged during the last two terms of this administration, however. The US clearly understood the need for oil many years ago, and that in order to keep the machinery running, we would need a lot of it. Our policy in the region reflects that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

arraya: No argument from me on this one. However, “unwarranted attack” is generally code for “neocon” in left wing parlance. Your use of the phrase cognitive dissonance is especially appropriate here, in that the Clinton Administration rattled the saber quite loudly when it came to Iraq and Hussein, but always stopped short of outright war.

Operation Desert Fox, the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, the various and sundry speeches of Albright, Berger and Co. about the need for regime change, the heavy bombings (Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq; a fact never commented on by most), etc.

Instead, the Iraq War is parlayed into some Bush family plot to avenge Daddy’s honor.

The US has made it a point of policy to prop up whatever governments in the region keep the oil spigot open. This included the Shah of Iran before he was deposed. It included Saddam before we had to take him off of his high chair. And it includes the Saudis, which will probably be the next group to go.

It is not a development that has emerged during the last two terms of this administration, however. The US clearly understood the need for oil many years ago, and that in order to keep the machinery running, we would need a lot of it. Our policy in the region reflects that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

This photo was taken during the waning days of WWII (February 1945). It shows FDR and ibn Saud (later King Abdul Aziz) meeting aboard a US Navy destroyer (USS Quincy) on the Great Bitter Lake. [img_assist|nid=6027|title=FDR and ibn Saud|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=466]

[Allan from Fallbrook]

This photo was taken during the waning days of WWII (February 1945). It shows FDR and ibn Saud (later King Abdul Aziz) meeting aboard a US Navy destroyer (USS Quincy) on the Great Bitter Lake. [img_assist|nid=6027|title=FDR and ibn Saud|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=466]

[Allan from Fallbrook]

This photo was taken during the waning days of WWII (February 1945). It shows FDR and ibn Saud (later King Abdul Aziz) meeting aboard a US Navy destroyer (USS Quincy) on the Great Bitter Lake. [img_assist|nid=6027|title=FDR and ibn Saud|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=466]

[Allan from Fallbrook]

This photo was taken during the waning days of WWII (February 1945). It shows FDR and ibn Saud (later King Abdul Aziz) meeting aboard a US Navy destroyer (USS Quincy) on the Great Bitter Lake. [img_assist|nid=6027|title=FDR and ibn Saud|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=466]

[Allan from Fallbrook]

This photo was taken during the waning days of WWII (February 1945). It shows FDR and ibn Saud (later King Abdul Aziz) meeting aboard a US Navy destroyer (USS Quincy) on the Great Bitter Lake. [img_assist|nid=6027|title=FDR and ibn Saud|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=466]

[NotCranky]

Allan,

I have theory that Israel was created just much as a western show of dominance in the oil rich, middle east and to have an unfaltering, allied, standing army there as well, which was also perfect divide and conquer strategy.

I never understood the part about Israel shooting at English ships just shortly after the country was formed.
Can you help?

[NotCranky]

Allan,

I have theory that Israel was created just much as a western show of dominance in the oil rich, middle east and to have an unfaltering, allied, standing army there as well, which was also perfect divide and conquer strategy.

I never understood the part about Israel shooting at English ships just shortly after the country was formed.
Can you help?

[NotCranky]

Allan,

I have theory that Israel was created just much as a western show of dominance in the oil rich, middle east and to have an unfaltering, allied, standing army there as well, which was also perfect divide and conquer strategy.

I never understood the part about Israel shooting at English ships just shortly after the country was formed.
Can you help?

[NotCranky]

Allan,

I have theory that Israel was created just much as a western show of dominance in the oil rich, middle east and to have an unfaltering, allied, standing army there as well, which was also perfect divide and conquer strategy.

I never understood the part about Israel shooting at English ships just shortly after the country was formed.
Can you help?

[Author]

Posts