Email List
Most Popular This Week
- Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
- Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Algebra of Occupation
In 1805, the French army out maneuvered, outsmarted, and outfought the combined armies of Russia and Austria at Austerlitz. Three years later it would flounder against a rag-tag collection of Spanish guerrillas.
In 1967, it took six days for the Israeli army to smash Egypt, Jordan, and Syria and seize the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula. In 2006, a Shiite militia fought the mightiest army in the Middle East to a bloody standstill in Lebanon.
In 1991, it took four days of ground combat for the United States to crush Saddam Hussein's army in the Gulf War. U.S. losses were 148 dead and 647 wounded. After more than five years of war in Iraq, U.S. losses are approaching 4,000, with over 50,000 wounded; 2007 is already the deadliest year of the war for the United States.
In each case, a great army won a decisive victory only to see that victory canceled out by what T.E. Lawrence once called the "algebra of occupation." Writing about the British occupation of Iraq following the Ottoman Empire's collapse in World War I, Lawrence put his finger on the formula that has doomed virtually every military force that has tried to quell a restive population.
Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk has cited Lawrence to this effect: "Rebellion must have an unassailable base...it must have a sophisticated alien enemy, in the form a disciplined army of occupation too small to dominate the whole area effectively from fortified posts. It must have a friendly population, not actively friendly, but sympathetic to the point of not betraying rebel movements to the enemy. Rebellions can be made by 2 percent active in a striking force, and 98 percent passive sympathy. Granted mobility, security...time and doctrine...victory will rest with the insurgents, for the algebraical factors are in the end decisive."
Failures of Occupation
There is an inexorable trajectory to this process. An army vanquishes another army, only to find that wars don't always end when generals surrender and capitals fall. When a few locals take up arms because they object to being occupied by "aliens," the occupiers act like armies, which are designed to kill people, not to win their hearts and minds.
So the occupiers break down doors and search for weapons, terrorizing and humiliating people in the process. They call in air strikes, which kill innocent bystanders. They choke off commerce and impose curfews to teach the locals a lesson, lessons that are never learned. For over 800 years the English beat, imprisoned, transported, shot, and hung hundreds of thousands of Irish, and it made the natives not the slightest bit quieter or more respectful. Indeed it made them quite the opposite.
In this process of trying to get the occupied to accept defeat, a certain corruption of spirit begins to seep into the soul of an army, transforming it from a war-fighting machine into a kind of monster.
Listen to some of these voices.
Reporter Chris Hedges, who talked with solders, officers, and medical personnel in Iraq, said his interviews "revealed disturbing patterns of behavior by American troops: innocents terrorized during midnight raids, civilian cars fired upon when they got too close to supply columns. The campaign against a mostly invisible enemy, many veterans said, has given rise to a culture of fear and even hatred among U.S. forces, many of whom, losing ground and beleaguered, have, in effect, declared war on all Iraqis." Sgt. Camilo Mejia told Hedges that, as far as the deaths of Iraqis at checkpoints, "This sort of killing of civilians has long ceased to arouse much interest or even comment."
Except among the survivors and relatives, of course, who now know who their enemy is. "Our children are being killed. Our homes are being destroyed. We are bombed. What should we do?" asks Abdul Qader, who lost seven family members in a June 29 U.S. air strike that killed 60 people in southern Helmand Province, Afghanistan.
"The Americans are killing and destroying a village just in pursuit of one person [Osama bin-Ladin]," one man told The New York Times. "So now we have understood that the Americans are a curse on us, and they are here just to destroy Afghanistan."
Israeli psychologist Nofer Ishai-Karen and psychology professor Joel Elitzur interviewed 21 Israeli soldiers who served in the Occupied Territories. They found that the soldiers routinely engaged in murder, assault, threats and humiliation, and many of them enjoyed it.
"The truth is that I love this mess-I enjoy it. It is like being on drugs," one soldier told them. Another said, "What is great is that you don't have to follow any law or rule. You feel you are the law, you decide. Once you go into the Occupied Territories, you are God."
One soldier told a story about seeing a four-year-old boy playing in the sand in his front yard during a curfew in Rafah. The soldier says his officer "grabbed the boy. He broke his hand here at the wrist, broke his leg here. And started to stomp on his stomach, three times, and left. We are all there, jaws dropping, looking at him in shock...the next day I go out with him on another patrol, and the soldiers are already starting to do the same thing."
A few hours with the works of Goya will give one an idea of how the French army behaved in Spain.
Against All Enemies An occupation is not a war against an army, it is a war against all. There are no front lines and no distinguishing uniforms, only an ambush or a roadside bomb that strikes without warning.
And when one does, a veteran told Hedges, "people just open up." A roadside bomb in 2005 set off a massacre by U.S. Marines in Haditha that killed 24 civilians. On March 4, 2007, following a suicide bomb, Marines in Afghanistan went on a rampage that killed 12 civilians. Occupation is only possible if the occupied are reduced to a category that places them outside the boundaries of a shared humanity So the Iraqis becomes "Hajji," just as two generations ago the Vietnamese became "Slopes." The Israeli right routinely refers to the Palestinians as "cockroaches."
Soon, everyone becomes an enemy.
When U.S. helicopter gun ships killed 16 people October 23 in a small northern Iraqi village near Tikrit, military officials said the dead were insurgents, because many of them were "military-age males," a category that embraces about one-third of the population.
Not many "hearts and minds" were won this past October near Tikrit.
What Soldiers Do But "winning over the population," continues to be the illusion of every occupier. Testifying before Congress, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "Army soldiers can expect to be tasked with reviving public services, rebuilding infrastructure, and promoting good government."
And then there is the real world.
A survey conducted by the Office of the Surgeon General of the U.S. Army Medical Command found that only 38% of Marines and 47% of Army soldiers thought civilians should be treated with dignity. Some 45% Army solders and 60% said they would report the killing of innocent civilians.
A recent ABC/BBC poll found that 78% of Iraqis say things are going badly for the country as a whole, 47% support immediate U.S. troop withdrawal while 79% oppose the presence of coalition forces, and 57% support violence against coalition forces.
Those are the "algebraical factors" of occupation, and as Lawrence concludes, "against them perfections of means and spirit struggle quite in vain."
Conn Hallinan is a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist.
Copyright © 2007, Institute for Policy Studies
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

58 Comments so far
Show AllThis makes sense and it sounds like "simple karma" to me. In the "long run" domination will be repulsed. Am i missing something?
Peace,
Ken Hausle
Our rightwing Repub fundamentalists would no doubt say these atrocities are justified, as in their Old Testament scripture there are plenty of examples of God taking care of his chosen Israelites by leading them on to massacre whole populations of troublemakers and idol worshipers.
Marine Gen. Mathis in a recent speech in San Diego.
"It's fun to shoot some people".
I wonder if the drugged-up Blackwater boys enjoy it even more, and is that considered a job perk?
The sister article here on Tasers outlines the mentality of the people that become blackwater gaurds or cops.
The American version of Humanity for These People is devoid of any high culture. They lack education and refinement, and their entire psyche is geared towards the superiority of their phyiscal being. If they are encultured in the smallest way, it is on the fringes of their existence. They exist in small cocoons of Evangilism and Animal Objects, with Sex thrown in.
Please let me clarify- these are small section of people. Not every Evangelist, Meat Eater or Hunter falls into the same category as these folks. But if that is ALL you have, you may as well belong to this club. There are extremely succesful professionals, who are exposed to other cultures in spasms. Their outlook does not change, for some force in their aesthetic (the church?) frame limits them to the tips of their noses.
Take the armor,air support,tanks and whatever crap the occupiers hide behind and give them robes, would see the real beast then as the bullying cowards run for the nearest exit poste haste, but a fair playing field has never been on the agenda of any occupying army anywhere, typical bullies who crap their pants every time they pull a trigger or fire a weapon,drop a bomb etc,what a wonderful lot we will have let loose on the streets near you when they return
The problem with the above thesis is that T.E. Lawrence's arithmetic was formulated in the creation of a guerilla war, and in a time of more limited transportation and technology. In Iraq today, "hearts and minds" have little to do with anything. "Our" forces can secure the oil fields, safely staying within strong points, forts, airbases, aircraft carriers and continue to make Iraqi life a hell, as they have done for fifteen years. The theft of their petroleum will not need much Iraqi cooperation.
Dear jakenewton, We ordinary taxpayers, who overwhelmingly pay for the maintenence of our Armed Forces, have stolen their petroleum. We siezed a nationalized industry and privatized it, turning it over to our oil companies and those of our henchmen, thus guaranteeing that these billions of dollars of transactions will continue to be paid for in depreciating U.S. dollars, rather than Euros, Yuan or Yen.
War sometimes turns soldiers into criminals. This time the criminals enlisted.
...and in the end the cost of stealing the oil will by far exceed its value for the "american" People (this is a no-brainer isn't it)...
....thus, america will be a failed nation spiraling into an accelarating unstoppable downfall....and the random chaos we been "dishing out" on Iraq will be reciprocated. This is why we must retreat from Iraq and pay reparations if we hope to hold onto this country. Seems this way to me.
Peace is what we need.
Ken Hausle
I wonder how long our 'permanent' presence to 'assist the democratic Iraqi state' will last.
"The theft of their petroleum"
Who has taken petroleum without paying for it?
Regardless of whether all of the "dotted-lines" have been signed (personally i hope the Sovereign Iraqi Government refuses to sign), the bottom line is that the cost of this imperialistic invasion and subsequent occupation has all been borne by the american public.
Reminds me of that "great sucking sound" Ross Perot said something about.
This occupation has clearly shown for all to see just how close this country is to being spiritually bankrupt. DC certainly is.
If the us of a doesn't start making reparations soon, it is just going to get worse for the us of a. Don't you think?
Peace,
Ken Hausle
List the names of the oil companies who now own that industry please.
And a citation would be nice. Thank you.
KERNEL: Right on!
The I CHING looked at the vast majority of issues and conundrums that face the human condition centuries ago. Human nature has not changed much, nor have the relative lessons that confront us when we take on bodies. Its wisdom is therefore timeless. In kua/hexagram 43 (Interestingly enough, that number designated this delightful president) the NATURE of evil is briliantly illumined. The I ching explains that NEVER can a war with evil be won. Quite simply it is the nature of evil to "think up" new ends that forever embroil its opponent. Furthermore, there is every likelihood that in any attempt to vanquish evil directly, the "good" party takes up evil's own ways and means. Warfare in general fits this description, and the Iraqi debacle, particularly the disgusting comments listed in the above article, ring the I ching truths to the heavens in a pained call for higher justice.
Dear jakenewton, Would you be content with "control" rather than "steal"? Given what our current regime does with anything that it controls, I am content with using "steal". Whatever, it was Iraqi national property, seized at the point of a gun.
sneaker, your link describes *sales* of oil to oil companies, I would hardly call a sales deal looting or theft.
"Any "deal" signed in favor of the aggressor/invader/war criminal is theft."
The article, short on detail, does mention that the Russians were shut out due to less favorable price. As to your comment, I would like to see you demonstrate that the oil companies mentioned were aggressors in war. That would have been the US government and it's military.
Tony, thanks for your reply, and let me first clarify my intent is to get under what is meant by the often repeated "we went to war to steal the oil". I think it's a fair question.
"Would you be content with "control" rather than "steal"? "
Perhaps, I expected it might go to a question of semantics. In any case I would be interested in getting terms defined for starters. For "steal", I would say "taking something without receiving something in return by agreement". For "control", that's a little trickier. My first thought is security around the existing infrastructure for the business of getting oil into pipelines and tankers. My understanding is that this has not always been up to capacity, due in large part to incidents of sabotage. In light of this I wonder how much control there really is in that sense.
" Whatever, it was Iraqi national property, seized at the point of a gun."
You had first implied that private oil companies had somehow gotten new assets applied to their books without some corresponding payment or other concession. Having not responded to my follow up question on that, I assume you have backed off on that specifically. So then, exactly how has Iraq's national property been seized? AFAIK, the Iraqi government is receiving a concession on each barrel of oil produced, just like other OPEC nations do. Is that not the case?
Iraqis are not free to sell their oil to whomever they want. Iraqi's are not able to get Americans to leave. Iraqi's want their oil nationalized. The Bush administration is doing everything in its power to prevent that. Doesn't sound like 'mutual consent' to me. If someone sells something below market value and under stress, does that still represent a legitimate transaction? Hardly.
Also the reason that the U.S. government sent troops into Iraq is directly related to the fact that they were elected because of the best financed campaign in which oil companies were the largest donors to the GOP. The entire administration have oil ties prior to seeking public office. Arbusto? Haliburton? Chevron (Coni has a Chevron oil tanker named after her!)? Not to mention United Defence Technologies (makers of the Bradley fighting vehicle) in which George H.W. is on the board of directors along with a host of other MIC companies that have been touting an imperial (Pan-America) agenda for decades.
Perhaps some believe that it's the Sierra Club or the American Dental Association that ultimately tweaks the political arena. Yeah... right! Let's run those tree huggers and tooth pullers out of D.C!
Great article!
Methinks jakenewton is really Karl Rove....
jakenewton: I 'take your point', but its meaningless [in context].
OilCo's have pretty-much stolen 'nothing'...but these (and Defense) monopolistic-Interests (and their enabling shareholders/etc.) have taken their absurdly-high profits over many-generations, and 'invested them' in buying undue/massive influence within a government sworn to insure the Peoples'-Interests -- not just those wealthy enough to 'make yet-more Profits'.
Using these subtle¬-so-subtle influences, OilCo's (partnered with Defense/manufacturing/etc.) all but directed this government into military-'adventures' and false-flag 'defense' to not-only control Iraq/area-Oil, but to permanently/securely install a huge and 'reliable' military-presence in the heart of the ME.
Much of this seemingly 'mad' and/or 'ill-advised' Chaos was instituted not to directly 'steal' anything, but to insure that the Profits/Pricing for already-controlled Oil would skyrocket (as, surely, all have noticed happened 'just as planned'). Later, and now that permanent 'unrest' is assured and permanent increased-pricing is 'accepted', the controlled/new and "even slightly-better than just paying OPEC" rates/access will yield-fortunes (while presumably looking 'innocent-enough'), and control of 'flow' for their other-purposes of manipulating points re: spot-market/speculative-pricing in-future will be easy&direct...
There is amazing-Profit involved...and just in the 'margins' of these ploys. And, the 'playas' involved self-Justify their hijinks by imagining that the redoubling-and-more in their profit-taking is helping 'warming' by slowing your greedy-consumption, and even 'patriotic' in-that it steers more market towards American-Enterprises (and aligned-'friends'). [A 'win/win'...]
More than just 'how to steal oil' was discussed in Cheney's "energy-meetings" with OilCo's in early-2001 -- they had to plot-together, the Industry and their-Government, on how-best to exploit Iraq/Americans WITHOUT looking too-damn-obvious/guilty while doing-so. [Why they make 'the big-bucks', I'd guess...]
jakenewton,
How do you explain the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq?
Energy is as-important to the American-Public as Education and Health-Care and Law-Enforcement and Highways/Public-Works/Defense/etc. And, unfortunately, has evolved into THE most-profitable 'business' in this modern-age.
Therefore, America's biggest-mistake (since re-adopting a 'central-bank', i.e. -- the FedReserve) was in not-Nationalizing all-the-above for it's Public-Good -- particularly after the obvious potential for monopolistic-abuse had been set by JDR/StandardOil back in the late-1800's...
Some things are just TOO profitable and TOO damn-important to entrust to 'Private Interests'...PERIOD. There really-is a 'reason' for having a Government (and 'No' -- it is NOT just for a Military/Defense).
Whenever some asshole discusses "making government small-enough to drown in a bathtub" -- be-afraid, no -- be very-afraid [he intends to also-drown YOU!].
These same soldiers are returning to the U.S. proven able to kill civilians. It takes only a propaganda campaign of dehumanization to convince them that some U.S. Citizens are expendable.
"How do you explain the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq?"
Regarding the stated reasons, and without benefit of hindsight, my general feeling at the time was one of "I sure hope they know what they are doing". My skeptical and cynical side speculated on the idea of a more permanent military presence as opposed to anything else, and that of course relates in part to the oil in the area. But I would not characterize this as anything like stealing, rather more like trying to stabilize an important source for strategic purposes. That's not the same as taking something without paying for it though.
Later, I read "The Pentagon's New Map" by Stephen Barnett, which I recommend. That book helped to confirm in part some of my feelings above.
I tend to dismiss overly simplistic ideas like "it's all about oil" or "part of the war on terrorism".
This is the reason I think there is only one solution left...bring the troops home! I might could understand them staying if they were actually doing something constructive. But, at this point, I think they are doing more harm than good. We are creating still bigger enemies in the middle east with behavior like this. So where is Bush's supposed 'War on Terror' being helped????? When all he is doing is creating another generation of terrorist's out to kill us. Sadly, who can blame them. These people are humans just like we are and deserve better treatment. We are the ones who started the mess and should held responsible for the mess we created. It's obvious we have lost the war period. There isn't anyway these people are going to become a Democratic nation now. If this is what Democracy represents. So other than Bush hasn't accomplished his goal of stealing Iraqi's riches what has he accomplished??????
"Using these subtle¬-so-subtle influences, OilCo's (partnered with Defense/manufacturing/etc.) all but directed this government into military-'adventures' and false-flag 'defense' to not-only control Iraq/area-Oil, but to permanently/securely install a huge and 'reliable' military-presence in the heart of the ME."
The general idea may be somewhat true. I am interested in specifics though.
"Much of this seemingly 'mad' and/or 'ill-advised' Chaos was instituted not to directly 'steal' anything, but to insure that the Profits/Pricing for already-controlled Oil would skyrocket (as, surely, all have noticed happened 'just as planned'). Later, and now that permanent 'unrest' is assured and permanent increased-pricing is 'accepted',"
I would take issue with your idea that instability in oil producing areas is something desired by oil companies. This goes against all normal business and economic thinking. In "The Prize", Daniel Yergin makes a convincing case that it is long term stability that the oil companies want. I recommend the book if you don't mind 1000 pages extremely dry history.
"There is amazing-Profit involved…"
Oil companies are typically showing a profit margin of around 10%.
"More than just 'how to steal oil' was discussed in Cheney's "energy-meetings" with OilCo's in early-2001 — they had to plot-together, the Industry and their-Government, on how-best to exploit Iraq/Americans WITHOUT looking too-damn-obvious/guilty while doing-so. "
Any references concerning the above would be appreciated.
"Iraqis are not free to sell their oil to whomever they want. Iraqi's are not able to get Americans to leave. Iraqi's want their oil nationalized. The Bush administration is doing everything in its power to prevent that."
Please show how this is true.
"Methinks jakenewton is really Karl Rove…."
Given the nature of this forum, one has to admire the extraordinary courage it sometimes takes. I much prefer those contributors who make an honest effort to advance the discussion.
JAKE NEWTON - I would hope that you're honestly interested in open discussion, but please also consider that in appears that you want ALL of us to do "your homework".
Just above you request "Please show how this is true.", and I know that I've read several articles on CD that directly discuss the privatization of IRAQ and the transition team's strategies to literally steal IRAQ from the natives, and force profiteering policies that transfer addition billions of dollars into the multinationals.
May I suggest that it isn't everyone else's job to prove anything for you, as "one can lead a horse to water ..." suggests. Perhaps you might go to the CD archive page a serch for those articles yourself?
And yes, it does take courage to be open and exposed herein, but also time and effort to respond to so many questions - so if you realize that, you might consider quid pro quo, as when you provided me a dismiss911 URL, which although thought provoking is hardly definitive and takes issues conflicting with original report and waves it's hand that both are true - yeah right. Please see my discussion about Null-A (non-Aristotelean logic) here.
Namaste
__ __ __ __ We must be the change
__ __ __ __ we wish to see in the world __ Gandhi
"Just above you request "Please show how this is true.", and I know that I've read several articles on CD that directly discuss the privatization of IRAQ and the transition team's strategies to literally steal IRAQ from the natives, and force profiteering policies that transfer addition billions of dollars into the multinationals."
That you read some articles that I missed isn't "doing homework" for you or anyone. Not completely anyway. That these articles may exist is not the same as them actually containing good facts and reasoned thinking.
"May I suggest that it isn't everyone else's job to prove anything for you, as "
I'm sorry, but if someone says "we stole their oil" they have to state why, it is incumbent on them to substantiate such a thing.
jakenewton - what is your agenda? It is a fair question because i have no idea who you are yet you keep asking these questions and making these statements that suggest you are trying to defend the unprovoked, pre-emptive Iraq attack that any free-thinking individual can now essentially definitively recognize as "murder for oil". People have died there because of the oil. People have been killed because of the oil. It is called murder. Murder is even worse the theft (don't you think), but both are happening and they usually go together. Have you had your head in the sand?
Who are you defending? What are you trying to say? Tell us a little more about yourself, and then perhaps it might be worth responding to what you are trying to get across. So far it seems to me like you are trying to obfuscate. And please don't argue semantics with me because the time for posturing is over.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
Sorry, no they don't have to "state why, it is incumbent on them to substantiate such a thing.".
Maybe to look good in your eyes, they might consider it, but most of the posters herein read the articles and have an understanding of where the preponderance of facts point -- whereas you appear to me to act as if you're nearly completely clueless (when clearly not), while often being very contrary to stated beliefs and ideas of other posters.
There is always the need for some yeast in the mix, and most posters are much more generous than you toward others of differing ideas. Why are you so antagonistic and even zealous? If you have an agenda to convince us otherwise, then burden of proof is incumbent upon you, not others. There are no evidentuary rules or winners or losers herein, other than what is TRUE. And we all should know that that result is transient or even illusionary, and at best always incomplete.
My advice, for whatever that's worth: LIGHTen up. Walk in someone else's shoes for a couple of laps. Passion is preferred to zealousness for those of open minds.
Namaste
__ __ __ __ We must be the change
__ __ __ __ we wish to see in the world __ Gandhi
"jakenewton - what is your agenda? It is a fair question because i have no idea who you are"
It's not a fair question, just by asking it's a veiled attack on the arguer while ignoring the argument. You should brush up on what "Ad Hominem" means. It's an established fallacy of logic and a beginner's mistake.
" any free-thinking individual can now essentially definitively recognize as "murder for oil". People have died there because of the oil. People have been killed because of the oil."
No, the above point is debatable, and if you are so sure about it you should be able to easily state why with a cogent argument. If you are unable, you should then ask yourself why. If you are unwilling, I don't care.
"Tell us a little more about yourself, and then perhaps it might be worth responding to "
In deciding whether or not it is worth your time, I would suggest you just forget who or what you think I am because it is irrelevant to the substance of the discussion. This is basic as I stated above. My questions remain on the table, do what you like.
"My advice, for whatever that's worth: LIGHTen up. "
Thanks, and my response is that if you can't show that oil has been stolen then lighten up yourself simply by backing off that position.
jakenewton - Please don't preach legalese to me. It makes you sound pompous, which i suspect you are. I have never seen your name here before (i know that doesn't mean you weren't here, but i've been participating in discussions for around six months or so and have gotten to know many of the familiar names). So best i can tell you haven't been here long and you come in throwing all sorts of questions around. My response was informed by that. Obviously i will do "what i like" and to the best of my knowledge your questions were not directed at me, so i will not waste my time trying to respond.
Also, let me say, it may be true that knowing you is irrelevant, but if i know where you were coming from, i might be better able to judge your character. For now, i would say you character is lacking. Sorry buddy, but who said you get to ask all the questions.
Ken Hausle
jakenewton - Please don't preach legalese to me. It makes you sound pompous, which i suspect you are. I have never seen your name here before (i know that doesn't mean you weren't here, but i've been participating in discussions for around six months or so and have gotten to know many of the familiar names).
So best i can tell you haven't been here long and you come in throwing all sorts of questions around. My response was informed by that. Obviously i will do "what i like" and to the best of my knowledge your questions were not directed at me, so i will not waste my time trying to respond.
Also, let me say, it may be true that knowing you is irrelevant, but if i knew where you were coming from, i might be better able to better assess the origin and merit of your questions. For now, i would say your character appears to be lacking, but i know you don't give a diddily what i thing.
Sorry buddy, but who said you get to ask all the questions?
Ken Hausle
"Please don't preach legalese to me."
Ken, it's logic, not legalese. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"So best i can tell you haven't been here long and you come in throwing all sorts of question around. My response was informed by that."
Fair enough. I was perhaps unfair with the "Beginner's" comment, but I think you will find the article of some interest.
"to the best of my knowledge your questions were not directed at me, so i will not waste my time trying to respond."
The questions are out there for anyone.
P.S. Sorry for the double-post -- it is editing in action. Oh well. See, now you know a bit about me.
Jake - i still don't know squat about you and for me that matters.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
JAKE NEWTON - It's your time and investment in posting that is in question now, issues aside.
Perhaps most reasonable people might consider that if two respondents say essentially the same thing at the same time, directly to YOU, that that of itself might convince them to listen.
But perhaps, your posture of 'reasonableness' and other contexts are only a flawed temperament, but reasonable people might be interested if other people want to continue to read someone's posts.
As far as denying any need for us to know about who you are, your respond that "you just forget who or what you think I am because it is irrelevant to the substance of the discussion" implies that you really don't care about the people herein, just issues.
To the extent that you want to live in a closeted life devoid of interactive human contact, good luck with that (being on your own).
"Perhaps most reasonable people might consider that if two respondents say essentially the same thing at the same time, directly to YOU, that that of itself might convince them to listen."
I tend to think instead that they don't know what to do about the upsetting of the self indulgent aggreement festival they had going.
Why don't you want to defend your positions? "sneaker" tried, but I don't think the article he linked to had any smoking gun. "MeAlsoToo" did pretty good I thought, notwithstanding some issues I had with his contribution.
Near synchronous postings (each unseen by the other) hardly qualifies as "self indulgent aggreement festival they had going".
And frankly, I'm no longer qualified to use shoe laces for either purpose, preferring velco instead.
As far as wanting to "defend our positions", it is through opposition that one solidifies the other's position, while pursuit of knowledge is hardly about winning some illusionary battle of minds.
As far as your background, the qualifications of one's position and respect of others comes more from conTEXT than conTENTs, so go pitch all the tents you wish - just be prepared to (usually) be lonely.
nspire, how about you continue to obsess over how lonely you think I am while I wait for answers to the questions I posed for the group. Agreed?
It is difficult to prove that the US attacked Iraq for it's oil because this administration is very secretive and we don't have access to its internal papers. And I will agree that most administrations are secretive about their wars, so don't bother to point that out. This administration is more secretive. Cheney was taken to the Supreme Court to release the Energy Talks papers, but he went hunting with Scalia and didn't shoot him in the face, so we still don't know what went on behind closed doors.
Just about everyone in the world could figure out that the US attacked Iraq for the oil, so Bremer left oil out of the original dismantling of Iraqi assets. But in my opinion, it was in the plan for later, after a compliant Iraqi government was put into power.
It may be taking longer than they planned, because there is some resistance to the oil law by the lawmakers. But they will get access to that oil.
It seems twisted to me to believe that paying people for their oil means you're not stealing it. If you went in and made a business deal with them on equal footing, then you can say it's not theft.
But to invade a country, kill 1,000,000+ people, destroy the infrastructure, occupy their country, place puppets into the government and force an oil law that gives your companies a higher percentage by far than any other country gives, and then say "we're not stealing it" is so ridiculous that most Common Dreamers probably feel it's not worth arguing about.
And remember that, after the purple finger public relations coup, the US pretended that Iraq had a democracy.
But the Dems and the Repubs kind of blew the cover when they kept talking about the "benchmarks" that the government had to meet to conform to American desires. Maybe they forgot that a sovereign government doesn't have to kowtow to a foreign government.
And gee, one of the benchmarks was an oil law.
"force an oil law that gives your companies a higher percentage by far than any other country gives,"
The link "sneaker" provided seems to say the opposite.
Recall, jn, that I never implied anyone was motivated to 'steal-oil' (however, I do recall Wolfowitz deliberately lying to the Public with the claim that "Iraq's oil will virtually pay for this short/cheap war", misleading an unwary-public/Congress who did NOT at-the-time object to the 'notion', whatsoever -- and I can link you to many reliable-sources stating the countless-barrels of oil in Iraq that is 'disappearing daily', but this apparently is NOT being stolen by OilCo's [although I'd not swear to their not having-hand-in]).
Also, I do not rely upon 'ad hominem arguments' myself, but never point-out/accuse others of doing-so rather than simply addressing their obvious-points (finding such a dodge 'boorish', dated, and somewhat 'ivory-tower').
As to other-points:
"Using these subtle¬-so-subtle influences, OilCo's (partnered with Defense/manufacturing/etc.) all but directed this government into military-'adventures' and false-flag 'defense' to not-only control Iraq/area-Oil, but to permanently/securely install a huge and 'reliable' military-presence in the heart of the ME."
The general idea may be somewhat true. I am interested in specifics though.
'May be true, somewhat'?! What, pray-tell, do you need me to 'specify' for you to concede/stipulate this obvious-Point&Given? [Our similar history/actions in Saudi-Arabia, the obvious long-term nature and scale of our many-bases now in Iraq, our stated-intentions over-years to do-such in the ME, our dealings to-date with our Puppet-government there in these-regards -- do I need to 'count the ways'?]
"Much of this seemingly 'mad' and/or 'ill-advised' Chaos was instituted not to directly 'steal' anything, but to insure that the Profits/Pricing for already-controlled Oil would skyrocket (as, surely, all have noticed happened 'just as planned'). Later, and now that permanent 'unrest' is assured and permanent increased-pricing is 'accepted',"
I would take issue with your idea that instability in oil producing areas is something desired by oil companies. This goes against all normal business and economic thinking. In "The Prize", Daniel Yergin makes a convincing case that it is long term stability that the oil companies want. I recommend the book if you don't mind 1000 pages extremely dry history.
While it 'goes against normal practice', it most-certainly DOES suit so-called 'scarce'/in-demand Commodities to unsettle the market, short-sell, hide/transfer assets/supplies, and otherwise manipulate spot/general-markets rife with supposedly 'independent-speculators/middle-men'. OilCo have been world-class 'experts' in these practices (and Deregulating for their rising to 'fine art') since JDR's-days -- review more of this 'dry-history', and how government (BEFORE it was composed of sycophants and OilCo lick-spittles engaged-actively in government/industry revolving-doors). Chaos and speculation (and, recently, even the fanned-fears of an 'attack on Iran' [like that'll happen]) always jacks-up the pricing of oil-products -- and even a few-cents over short-periods is HUGE-profits (unearned-Profit, I might-add).
"There is amazing-Profit involved…"
Oil companies are typically showing a profit margin of around 10%.
Please...in '71, when per-barrel was 19. and gas was 17.9 per-gallon, THEN it may have been '10%' (in those days before even Arthur Andersen was corrupted). And that was way-back when Oil-Interests were actually still investing in refinery-capacity, still-building pipelines for cheap-deliveries, and prior to all the lobbied-garbage related to multi-grading, additive-bs, and state/local-'blending' -- AND they were spending-large on both research&exploration, in a much-more competitive-market. Since they no-longer have MOST of those overhead-expenses today, and production-methods.refinement is FAR more-efficient and blessed with 'economy of scale', explain to Me why 5-times-greater per-barrel cost doesn't now-equal 5-times-17.9 -- at 'the pump'.
In a word, the difference is due to "huge-profits". So much-so that giant Exxon is now buying-back all of their own-stock -- so that they needn't bother explaining yet-more and endlessly-'record' quarterly-profits.
"More than just 'how to steal oil' was discussed in Cheney's "energy-meetings" with OilCo's in early-2001 — they had to plot-together, the Industry and their-Government, on how-best to exploit Iraq/Americans WITHOUT looking too-damn-obvious/guilty while doing-so. "
Any references concerning the above would be appreciated.
I suggest you read both-side's Briefs related to the Supreme Court case intended (unsuccessfully, obviously) to force Cheney to disclose these "closed-door/top-secret' Energy-meetings of early-2001. [I would also like 'more info' -- other than the reports concerning laid-out maps of Iraqi oil-fields and untapped-'pools', and the Headings and 'big joke' on many papers referring to "Operation Iraqi Liberation" (anagram for 'OIL', something these sick-bastards considered 'hilarious' until it leaked to the Press).]
If inclined to read-further, just scan the entirety of PNAC's-site. They brag, publicly, regards writing Clinton and urging him to invade-Iraq back in '96 (the signers of all that PNAC-absurdity -- including plans for 'de-Regiming' up-to 31-nations and fighting 'three-Theater wars', simultaneously, and how they yearned for a "new Pearl Harbor" to 'dissuade the American-public of their squeamishness regards taking the reigns and welcoming their world-dominance and destiny' -- are ALL the same/damned assholes who walked back-or-into Power with boy-Bush -- several years later.
Just read-there...then attempt sounding like a 'disinterested/moderate/temperate-observer' who 'poo-poo's Wild Speculation' while treading middle-of-road...
"While it 'goes against normal practice', it most-certainly DOES suit so-called 'scarce'/in-demand Commodities to unsettle the market, short-sell, hide/transfer assets/supplies, and otherwise manipulate spot/general-markets rife with supposedly 'independent-speculators/middle-men'"
Thanks for your response. I don't see how *generalized* instability in an oil producing area reliably helps anyone's particular side of a given deal, there are far too many other factors involved. Then I am no commodites expert, you may certainly fill me in if you wish, I would appreciate it. As to wrongful "hiding" or "manipulating", you seem to suggest this a the norm, is it? And if yes, how do we know it's true? I've only heard of isolated cases that have come to light.
"Please…in '71, when per-barrel was 19. and gas was 17.9 per-gallon, THEN it may have been '10%' "
What is it about the quarterly report of say, Exxon that you seem to dispute? They report a record profit for sure, and everyone accepts that and points to that as scandelous and they run with it, but are you then just ignoring the record expenses that are also reported? The margin in these reports have been around ten percent over the past few years, plain and simple.
"I suggest you read both-side's Briefs related to the Supreme Court case intended (unsuccessfully, obviously) to force Cheney to disclose these "closed-door/top-secret' Energy-meetings of early-2001."
I'll try and check, thank you. Regarding PNAC I don't see how you can characterize that they "yearned" for a New Pearl Harbor. Also, I checked for the quote 'dissuade the American-public of their squeamishness regards taking the reigns and welcoming their world-dominance and destiny' you provided and it doesn't seem to be anywhere in PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenceses" document, where did that come from exactky?
This is a bit of a rambling post, but oh well.....we are just talking here right.....and of course, you can always just skip over the post. Anyhow....
I think i am the one on this thread who first mentioned "stealing oil", and i'm sticking with that sentiment. It seems ridiculously obvious to me. If we want to decide whether or not it could be proven in a court of law, that is one thing, but this thread is not a courthouse.
I'm sure i can be accused of "over-generalizing" when i say this, but i think many folks in the legal profession have a tendancy to lose touch with human intuition in favor of strict dogmatic logic and procedure, and that is why (in my opinion) lawyers are at particular risk of "losing their humanity". Aren't there more lawyers in the US of A than the rest of the world combined (i'm pretty sure i read this somewhere). Well, that tells you something about what america has become. There are too many damn lawyers and not enough teachers. In my experience, the corporate lawyers (both in-house and outside firms used by the corporations) are the worst of the sleezy bunch.
Lastly, i'm pretty sure this article is about how occupations ultimately are rebuffed. The article states:
"Rebellions can be made by 2 percent active in a striking force, and 98 percent passive sympathy. Granted mobility, security…time and doctrine…victory will rest with the insurgents, for the algebraical factors are in the end decisive."
This has already occurred in Iraq (has it not?), and in the end, it is the People of the US of A that will ultimately pay the price all the while Exxon and the rest profit handsomely in the short-run. As a citizen of the US of A, all i can say is this SUCKS, and i want some of these corprations to bear the responsibility.
I would also say this -- it is not a stretch to argue that all of these corporations now in essence are "occupying" the entire planet. Just as the algebraic factors ultimately work to defeat an occupying army, so can they work to defeat the corprations that are so dangerous for humanity's future sustainability. And to think - it only takes active resistance from 2% or so.
If i was a corporate CEO today, i would be thinking long and hard about how i could endear the company to the public, because otherwise, there will come a time, when resistance will overcome domination. Either that or there won't be anyone around to even sell the ill-gotten wares to.
Peace everyone.
Ken Hausle
Charlotte, NC
May I recommend Michael Parenti's "History as Mystery" (City Lights 1999), which examines obfuscation as a means of controlling popular perception of events.