Michael Wiik mwiik@messagenet.com wrote:
The reason is so that the U.S. will control the oil fields. It's not
about terrorism, it's about oil. It's always about oil. Who cares if we
destablize S.A., or cause resentment among the world islamic population
just for being there. Sure, some americans may die in terror attacks but
this is as nothing compared to profits for the oil companies. The U.S.
military will sweep the Saudi military aside quickly enough should it
come to war.
The struggle against terrorism will take years because it will take that
long to establish large secure bases surrounding the oil-rich areas of
the middle east. This is american power projection at it's finest, and
now using the 9/11 events as an excuse, we can pretty much blackmail
many of the countries in the region into accepting an american military
presence.
And with the destablizing effects this will have thruout the region,
why, it's a good thing we're there in force, ready to protect legitimate
governments from the anger of their own people, isn't it?
World domination, american style. What do you think?
-Mike Wiik
Of course it is about oil, but it is also about support for America's
unofficial ally, Israel. The American State Department career officers have
been saying since 1948 that our national interest is twofold: 1) free flow
of oil at market prices, and 2) geopolitical influence that is as broad as
possible. In the cold logic of nations, this analysis is flawless. However,
in the feelings of many people in America and elsewhere, the only morally
correct action after the Nazi holocaust against the Jews was and is to
support Israel against the Arabs who have always opposed Israel's existence.
As a practical matter in American politics, this is also a necessity due to
the way political campaigns are funded, and the way that many journalists
write about the candidates and their policy positions.
If the pragmatists at State had had their way, the USA would have sided with
the Arabs in 1948 and since, which would have virtually guaranteed our
access to oil and the friendship of the world's nearly one billion Muslims.
But that's not the policy we pursued. Therefore, we are in the precarious
position of still needing that oil but of not having the support of most of
the Arabs who own it, nor of their fellow Muslims from Indonesia to Tunisia.
And if you think Americans are in a tough position, just consider the
position Israelis are in. They need oil too. But even more, they need peace,
in pursuit of which they have made enormous concessions to the Palestinians.
What have they got in exchange? Ever increasing demands, and no peace;
suicide bombers instead of peaceful borders.
There is no simple solution to the problems of the Middle East or of the
current dependence of industrial society on petroleum. Casting the situation
as one of naked US imperialism is certainly too simplistic for this complex,
morally ambiguous situation.
Regards,
Michael LaTorra
mike99@lascruces.com
mlatorra@nmsu.edu
Member:
Extropy Institute: www.extropy.org
Alcor Life Extension Foundation: www.alcor.org
Society for Technical Communication: www.stc.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:41:00 MDT