[video=youtube_share;7pfGRSDZs1M]http://youtu.be/7pfGRSDZs1M[/video] After World War II, the United States took over much of the former British colonies which included the Middle East. A British diplomat in Washington told Foreign Secretary Bevin on 9 August 1945 that Mr. Bevin said: British officials denounced: The Financial Times observes that: US imperial system in the Middle East outlined in the internal documents In a staff discussion, President Eisenhower observed that: The reasons for this "campaign of hatred" were explained by the National Security Council: Furthermore, the NSC acknowledged that the perception is correct: The "conservative groupings" serving US interests: An NSC Memorandum identified "Arab nationalism" as "inimical to U.S. interests," declaring that: The NSC warned of the dangers of Arab nationalism, observing that: However: As a last resort, the National Security Council advised that: Thus explains the basic US imperial designs for the Middle East- a system which is now "disintigrating in between our eyes."
There is also, "Petroleum Policy of the United States," Memorandum of U.S. Department of State, April 11, 1944, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1944, Vol. V ("The Near East, South Asia, Africa, The Far East"), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965, pp. 27-33. An excerpt (p. 30):
Wait, so did we actually come out ahead in oil with Libya or did he just make that up so the situation fit his narrative where any violent dictator that hates the US is good and therefore any policy against them is the evil triumvate or whatever in action for purely class warfare related concerns?
McClatchy Newspapers: WikiLeaks cables show that it was all about the oil in Libya [video=youtube;O6NZNyQMq08]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6NZNyQMq08&feature=player_embedded[/video]
Um. Look, I know you're all in on this one and on this issue your perceptions are completely locked. But we're here essentially as recreation right? And nobody else here seems to be willing to watch your video or discuss it. So for the sake of argument and my curiosity if we actually gained any kind of oil edge out of this, can you notice that even the people in the video say that's speculation, as opposed to actually showing anything. There are some things acknowledging that we know there is oil in Libya, and seperate things saying we're trying to use diplomacy to keep Russia from having a monoploy on European energy pipelines. Which, considering how Russia has use threats of cutting off energy as a weapon against Europe isn't unreasonable at all. And if I remember the pic from the vid correctly the pipeline Russia wanted didn't even go through Libya. And again that doesn't relate to how things came out. I recal hearing something about China setting up shop there for instance.
Ok: http://www.politicalforum.com/warfare-military/260527-total-victory-libya.html And no. They dont say it's "speculation." They say "those who say it's not about oil arent reading Wikileaks." "It is all about oil." If this was about an official enemy, you would not hesitate to perceive the obvious.
This is the repeating pattern: Popular leftist leader/group in foreign country gains political influence, usually through representative democracy When they threaten the status quo of imperialist exploitation and looting, the US gets concerned CIA uses sabotage, torture, violence, - pretty much whatever it takes - and with the help of giant corperations and the country's military overthrows the government. They install a "business-friendly" dictator and help to set up their secret police network and institutions of repression Dictator gains more and more influence, then finally decides to cut ties with the US for their own gain The mainstream media has a miraculous (*)(*)(*)(*)ing amnesia and forgets that the western governments are the ones who set up the regime, suddenly they are repressive dictatorships and not a "valued ally"
I don't concur that Gadafalanistani(*)(*)(*)(*)face was a good person. He killed his own people to silence dissent. His opposition to the United States was justifiable in my own views as well. He had Oil and virtually no foreign debt other than a small stock of spending cash. So the USA got involved where it had no business to. I imagine if America would be more diplomatic with the Middle East we would have gotten a lot more returns on the Oil we need. Either that or we would have something else to fuel our cars by now... The point is, Islamism is growing. They where pushing for this in the Arab World for years and I imagine they won't stop till the Caliphate is restored. If we had a problem with Libya we should have had the same problem with Islamists in Libya and Egypt and Syria as well and stay the hell out of it. End foreign aide to every nation immediately. It's counterproductive and any assertion otherwise is not correct and not based in fact.
On a note of the speech he actually got me looking into the whole Saddam peace offer in the first gulf war thing. Which was suprisingly full of crap. I say surprising because usually Comsky is just putting his spin on things. He could find class warfare in a birthday party if he felt inclined to. But usually he's fairly factual, and the only freakish part is when he pretends various dictorial regimes and wonderful so long as they don't like the US and calls totalitarian communists states "successful independent development". Now, Iraq did put out "peace" offers where he'd get to keep stuff. However there wasn't a need for a peace offer on his part. The UN Security council document authorizing war gave him about a month and a half to get out of Kuwait. This wasn't like in Gulf II or Afganistan where in principle the governments might have had a hard time meeting all demands immediately. In the first war all he had to do was have his forces leave in time. Instead he hunkered down and all indications I can find are that he though the US was too cowed by vietnam to actually try it and stick with a war. That's just their general statement at the end, about everything on the planet it seems. Try the section where they're talking about the actual content. Now to be fair I do think our country remembers where oil is. And I think geopolitical factors influence when we'd like to get more involved and when countries actually do so. I just think you're moving priorities around. On the subject of the Total thing, that's actually more interesting, though that's the French. And I'd be much more interested in what actually happened company wise than photo's of supposed documents. Although even then, there is cause that if you're going to get inovlved you might want to try and get a sweet deal, but a primary oil motive driven by a particular company is something the French ought seriously think about. Just to get a feel for who I'm talking to, how warm and cuddly do you find the USSR? Do you think that if the US had just been nicer, the USSR would not have rolled tanks into neighboring countries? We played harder than people would have liked during the cold war. And we did have some guys that were "our bastards". Still a bit of that lingering, especially in the middle east. In any case, if somebody goes crazy than you've got to deal with the situation as it is.
No, you're wrong. Nah, every country involved in the war. You didnt read it right. Im really tired of this USSR copout. Millions of people are dead because of this pretext. Moscow said they had to intervene in Eastern Europe to stop the spread of American influence. Nazi Germany said they had to conquer Russia out of self defense. All lies and it's no different for the United States. Empires always claim their actions are defensive. Just as all empires promise to bring freedom to the conquered.
What are you even proposing that I'm wrong about in there? The UN security council resolution authorizing military force unless Sadam got out of Kuwait by January 15th? That should be pretty easy for you to verify. I'm operating off of the quote you linked of If everybody involved got a cut like that Libya wouldn't have anything left for itself. Ok, can you not see that you slid into crazy there at the end? Now, I'm not sure if Germany at some point threw something defensive into their rhetoric or if the USSR ever bothered. But there have been Empires for thousands of years. They are pretty well documented, and typically they didn't need any excuse and were pretty straightforward with their conquering.
I already addressed this in the military section. They're all working to get a cut, including the US. From the article: "European nations, meanwhile, are eyeing U.S. efforts to extend the activity of American companies that has steadily grown in Libya over the past decade." Adolph Hitler offers pretext for invading Russia [video=youtube_share;6Tcj-ggUpuI]http://youtu.be/6Tcj-ggUpuI[/video]
