red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Iraqis cannot vote for Dems and they are not black enough for libs to care what happens to them
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The War on Terror is a War for Oil in Disguise
- Thread starter Paul Revere
- Start date
Iraqis cannot vote for Dems and they are not black enough for libs to care what happens to them
- Sep 14, 2004
- 2,677
- 481
- 98
Almost $4/gal in San Francisco. The notion that we went to war in Iraq for oil is patently absurd. Iraq produces about $20 billion per year worth of oil. We have spent nearly $400 billion on Iraq since 2003. If we had purchased every drop of Iraqi oil since 2003, we'd have $300 billion left over. Stop with the war for oil baloney (not you Gunny; rather the premise of this thread); it is plain stupid.Really? Please post any evidence you have that the US is involved in privatizing Iraq's oil and we're somehow making a profit. Last time I looked, I"m still paying over $2.00 a gallon, and I've heard it's a lot worse on the coasts.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Almost $4/gal in San Francisco. The notion that we went to war in Iraq for oil is patently absurd. Iraq produces about $20 billion per year worth of oil. We have spent nearly $400 billion on Iraq since 2003. If we had purchased every drop of Iraqi oil since 2003, we'd have $300 left over. Stop with the war for oil baloney (not you Gunny; rather the premise of this thread); it is plain stupid.
Before you make the purchase, remember one thing. Taxes on a gallon of gas is about 60 cents. Funny how with rising prices, not one Dem is for lowering or repealing the tax to help the middle class and poor. Funny, how government will never go without - but we the people have to keep forking over those taxes no matter what
eots
no fly list
think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), wrote a letter to USA president Bill Clinton advising him to remove Saddam Husein from Iraq without mentioning moral reasons, human rights, or terrorism.
The PNAC describes itself as a "non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."
These authors became advisers to USA president George W Bush in 2000 and include Bush's current Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle; Richard Armitage, the number two at the USA State Department; John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, under-secretaries of state; Elliott Abrams, the presidential adviser for the Middle East and a member of the USA National Security Council; and Peter W Rodman, assistant secretary of defence for international security affairs, Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition; ex-director James Woolsey and Robert B Zoelick, the USA trade representative.
Part of the letter states: "We urge you to seize [the] opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the USA and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power."
In September 2000, The PNAC published a document called Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century. It clearly reveals that the USA has been planning to take more control of the region in around the Middle East (including the Gulf) even before the attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001. On page 26, the following paragraph appears:
"In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semi-permanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
On Page 29 we read:
"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S.interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."
There are many more revealing quotes from this document.
In the middle of 2002 the USA announced that it wanted to attack Iraq and change its government by removing its leader, Saddam Husein. The UK immediately fell into line closely following the arguments put forward by the USA.
In May 2003, USA Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, admitted in an interview with USA television station WABC that the USA had wanted to remove Saddam Hussein for several years: "If you go back and look at the debate in the Congress and the debate in the United Nations, what we said was the President said that this is a dangerous regime, the policy of the United States government has been regime change since the mid to late 1990s … and that regime has now been changed. That is a very good thing."
The USA Assistant Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, admitted that the decision to invade Iraq was made in September 2001: "To the extent it was a debate about tactics and timing, the President clearly came down on the side of Afghanistan first. To the extent it was a debate about strategy and what the larger goal was, it is at least clear with 20/20 hindsight that the President came down on the side of the larger goal."
In April 2004, the former UK ambassador to the USA, Sir Christopher Meyer, admited that USA President, George W Bush and UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair agreed to remove Saddam Hussein on 20 September 2001 at a dinner party in Washington, USA.
Ray McGovern, one of the CIA's most senior analysts admitted to journalist, John Pilger: "It was 95 per cent charade. And they all knew it: Bush, Blair, Howard."
UK government documents leaked in September 2004 show that, in the words of UK MP Robin Cook: "there was no legal justification for the war, and therefore they should use the UN to 'wrongfoot' Saddam". He adds that "the only reason for the war in Iraq was the Bush administration's obsession with regime change".
The documents show that the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, told USA National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice in March 2003 that he was fully signed up to toppling Saddam but would need a cover for any military action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Reasons Given
During 2002 and early 2003, a number of reasons for wanting this "regime change" were advanced. This essay attempts to show that the reasons given are spurious and that the real reason is oil and the economic, military and political benefits of controlling this region.
If it is established that it is a valid policy to attack a country because you think they may be a threat, what is to stop countries attacking the West because they feel threatened? This will lead to international anarchy.
Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was a Threat
This was a smokescreen to deceive public opinion and provide a reason for regime change....
Iraq had Violated UN Resolutions for 12 Years (1991 to 2003)
The USA has often used the United Nations to legitimise its actions around the world, ignoring its wishes when the international community disagreed with USA policy....
Iraq was not a Democracy
"Democracy" is one of those words used to rally support....
Iraq was Oppressing its own People (Especially the Kurds)
"Oppression" is another key word used to rally support. The Kurds are one of the most betrayed people in the world. After the end of World War 1, the UK and France split up the Turkish ruled Ottoman Empire among themselves. The Kurdish people ended up being split between four countries: Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq....
Iraq Used Torture
No doubt about it - but Iraq is not alone in this....
Iraq had Invaded its Neighbours
This is also true, but there are some qualifications to be made....
Iraq had Links to Al-Qaida and Supported Terrorism
This one can best be described as "scraping the barel". Remember, the USA was considering removing the current Iraqi regime long before Al-Qaida became an obsession. The USA has long supported terrorism. Saddam Husein and Al-Qaida have both been armed and financed by the USA....
Iraq Told Lies and Misled the World Community
This is no doubt correct but the following are just a small selection of the falsehoods and lies perpetrated by the USA. Other countries (including the UK, France and Israel) have also misled the world community....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Real Reasons?
Oil and Economic Control
The USA relies on oil to supply about 40% of its energy requirements, more than any other source. Of this, 55% is imported oil. This percentage is expected to rise to 65% in 2020 and to keep increasing. Much of the USA's oil comes from the Gulf region. This region also supplies oil to most of the world.
According to Michael T. Klare writing for the Interhemispheric Resource Center: "This dependency is [a weakness] for American power: unless Persian Gulf oil can be kept under American control, our ability to remain the dominant world power would be put into question." Additionally, "Whoever controls the Gulf automatically maintains a stranglehold on the global economy."
Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the Middle East. It has been estimated that the Iraqi oil reserves amount to $ 1,100,000 million's worth and can last for 130 years.
The table below from British Petroleum (BP) shows the estimated time that various countries' oil fields are expected to last (as of 2002).
Country Years Country Years
Iraq 128.98 Romania 16.01
Kuwait 127.70 Trinidad and Tobago 15.34
United Arab Emirates 114.81 Other Asia Pacific 15.13
Saudi Arabia 85.13 Oman 14.77
Iran 67.25 Republic of Congo
(Brazaville) 14.34
Azerbaijan 67.02 Ecuador 14.18
Venezuela 63.58 Thailand 14.17
Qatar 55.57 Uzbekistan 13.77
Other South and
Central America 41.21 Australia 12.56
Nigeria 30.41 Turkmenistan 12.47
Kazakhstan 27.71 Denmark 11.81
Cameroon 24.69 Malaysia 11.40
Italy 24.42 Syria 10.99
Yemen 23.08 Egypt 10.72
Mexico 21.52 USA 10.52
Brunei 21.05 Indonesia 10.21
Gabon 19.97 Argentina 9.85
Angola 19.44 Norway 8.02
Russian Federation 19.25 Colombia 6.44
Algeria 18.25 Canada 6.20
Brazil 18.09 United Kingdom 5.94
Other Former
Soviet Union 16.05 Vietnam 5.85
The table below shows the major fields in Iraq.
Oil Field Contract Value
($ millions) Daily production
(Barrels)
Al-Ahdab 700 90,000
Amara 300 80,000
West Qurna Phase I 380 200,000
West Qurna DS 190 65,000
North Rumaila Mishrif 160 250,000
Khurmala 1,300 200,000,000
Suba-Luhais 200 100,000
Hemrin 1,300 200,000,000
Zubair Mishrif 150 60,000
The reason France and Russia were wary of military action is that they fear losing out on the post-Saddam oil bonanza.
A new regime would allow USA and UK oil companies concessions. James Woolsey, a former CIA director told the USA newspaper, the Washington Post: "It's pretty straight forward. France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government we'll do the best we can to ensure the new government and American companies work closely with them".
Note the assumptions that American influence will be strong enough to decide these matters, not the Iraqi government or people. The phrase "decent" government means "compliant" government.
Grant Aldonas told a business forum that a war in Iraq "would open up this spigot on Iraqi oil, which certainly would have a profound effect in terms of the performance of the world economy for those countries that are manufacturers and oil consumers".
Dr F J Chalabi, a former Iraqi deputy oil minister (now living in the UK) states that "the scenario exists whereby [the UK] and [the USA], by handling Iraq's oil resources a certain way, could carve out the ultimate 'strategic petroleum reserve'." He continues: " Iraq is the only country in the world that could, conceivably, replace Saudi Arabia as the guarantor of world oil price stability. Given [the USA's] feelings about Saudi Arabia right now, it is not hard to imagine how a [USA] backed government will deal with oil policy". He confirms the notion that Russia and France "may think that with a new government in Baghdad, they may lose the opportunity to have access to this really abundant and cheap oil".
The USA government is full of people with oil interests.
George W Bush (President): Received $2,800,000 from energy companies and another $2,300,000 from the car sector. Enron donated more than $1,000,000. Bush is a shareholder in General Electric, BP, Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Newmont Gold Mining Corporation, Pennzoil and Tom Brown, Inc.
Dick Cheney (Vice President): Used to head Halliburton (the world's biggest oil-services company worth $18,200 million). Since 1992, Halliburton has contributed $1,600 million to politicians. Was a co-sponsor to a measure to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and voted against the Clean Water Act which required industries to release their toxic emission records. Since 1998, Halliburton has completed $24 million's worth of repairs to Iraqi oil pipelines. Dick Cheney has stated that "energy security should be the priority of USA foreign policy".
Spencer Abraham (Secretary of Energy): Received donations from General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler.
Gale Norton (Secretary of Interior): Has received donations British Petroleum and Ford.
Condaleeza Rice (National Security Adviser): Spent 10 years on the board of oil giant Chevron Corporation. Chevron is involved in Nigeria where there is increasing USA military involvement, including training of Nigerian military to police the oil fields and secure pipelines.
Don Evans (Secretary of Commerce): Was Chief Executive and Chairman of Tom Brown Inc. (an oil company). He was also a board member of Sharp Drilling, an oil industry contractor.
Between 2000 and 2002, the oil and gas industry has given $ 50 million to USA political candidates.
On 12 September 2001, a day after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the USA Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, advised the USA president, George W Bush to invade Iraq immediately even though there was no evidence that Iraq was involved.
The USA Center for Public Integrity, reported that the top 100 officials in the USA administration (as of late 2002) have the majority of their personal investments in traditional energy and natural resources. The amount involved is almost $ 150 million.
On 11 October 2002, the USA newspaper New York Times published a story describing how the USA administration was planning to put a senior USA general in charge of Iraq during a planned lengthy occupation of the country. The USA could then gain control over Iraqi oil fields, representing 11% of the world output of crude oil.
In January 2003, the USA admitted it wanted to "take charge" of the Iraqi oil fields "in trust for the Iraqi people".
Richard Hardman, vice president from the oil consultancy, Exploration Amerada Hess, admitted on UK television (The Money Programme, BBC2 26 March 2003): "It is a war about oil because production is falling all over the world. Iraq has become crucial to the continuation of supply to the West and hence, the West's living standards".
After the invasion of Iraq, the oils wells in the north and south of Iraq, as well as the oil ministry in Baghdad were quickly secured by USA forces. At the same time, looters pillaged and burned other government buildings that contained documents that could have provided evidence of the crimes of the previous regime. The Baghdad Museum and some of the worlds most important archiological sites were looted as they stood unguarded. The theft and destruction of the treasures of Mesopotamia has been described as one of the greatest archiological disasters for 1000 years.
During May 2003, the USA began talks with the USA-backed Iraq National Congress to build an oil pipeline between Iraq and Israel. James Atkins (a former USA ambassador to Saudi Arabia) declared "There would be a fee for transit rights through Jordan, just as there would be fees for those using what would be the Haifa terminal. After all this is the new world order now. This is what things look like particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that this is all about oil, for the United States and its allies."
The plan was originally put forward by Henry Kissinger in 1975 and was revived by Donald Rumsfeld. The favoured company to build the pipeline is Bechtel, a heavy contributer to the Republican Party of USA President George W Bush.
On 19th September 2003, the USA governor of Iraq, Paul Bremer, enacted a new law called Order 39. This allows the privatisation of 200 state industries including electricity, telecommunications, engineering and pharmaceuticals. The law allows foreign companies 100% ownership of banks, mines and factories. All the profits could be taken out of Iraq. Trade tariffs were removed; the tax rate was reduced from 45% to 15%. Companies or individuals will be allowed to lease land for 40 years.
All these changes were in violation of Iraq's constitution. Under the 1907 Hague Convention (signed by the USA), an occupying country must respect "the laws in force in the country" It also states that the occupying power "shall be regarded only as an administrator".
The changes mean that profits from Iraq's resources will go to foreign (mainly USA) companies. Many of these companies are the same ones that cajoled the USA administration to invade Iraq in the first place.
The net effect is that the cost of the war is bourne by USA, UK (and other Western) tax payers, USA, UK (and other Western) troops and personel, and the thousands of Iraqi people killed and injured. The profits are taken by (mainly USA) multinational companies, most with close links to the USA administration.
Military Bases
The USA has military bases in 120 of the world's 189 countries. This table lists the details of military bases and aid to countries in the Middle East.
Country Military Bases Aid Details
Bahrain USA Navy (5th Fleet): 1,200 sailors. Shares $300 million with 14 other countries.
Djibouti Camp Lemonier: 1,300 troops. Shares $300 million with 14 other countries.
Egypt 900 troops (peace keeping). $1,300 million in 2004 plus $300 million supplement.
Israel 600 manning Patriot missile batteries. $3,000 million per year.
$1,000 million extra (2003 war aid).
$9,000 million in loan guarantees.
Jordan 3,000 special forces. $460 million in 2004 plus $700 million economic aid.
$406 million (2003 war aid).
Kuwait More than 100,000 None.
Oman Base for 10 B-1 bombers;
10 support aircraft and their crews Shares $300 million with 14 other countries.
Qatar USA Central Command at Doha: 1,000.
al-Udeid airbase. None.
Saudi Arabia 10,000 troops; 42 fighter planes;
2 Patriot missile batteries. None.
Turkey Incirlik: 4,000 airmen and 2,000 troops. $255 million in 2004 plus $1,000 (2003 war aid).
United Arab Emirates al-Dahtra: 500 airmen. None.
Yemen Hundreds of special forces soldiers. $30 million in 2002.
After the invasion the USA has talked about setting up military bases in the country that would enable the USA to rely less on Saudi Arabia.
USA military officials admitted to the USA newspaper, New York Times, that they wanted "access" to four military bases in Iraq. These bases would be at Baghdad International Airport, Tallil (near Nasariya), an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert, and Bashur in the Kurdish north.
This essay is dedicated to the people of Iraq.
© 2004 KryssTal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KryssTal Related Pages
Iraq: 2003 to 2005
Detailed reports about the USA and UK invasion and occupation of Iraq between 2003 and 2005....
Iraq War 2003 to 2005: The Costs
The economic, military and human costs of the 2003 war in Iraq and subsequent occupation.
USA - Iraq Quotes
Quotes from and about the USA involving the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its subsequent occupation.
USA - PNAC Quotes
Quotes from the document Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century in which USA policy around the world is discussed.
Iraq-USA Wars: Photo Galleries
Photos from the Iraq-USA Wars of 1991, 2003 and the occupation in 2004.
(Some of these may disturb the viewer)....
Kurdistan: Photo Galleries
A map of historical Kurdistan; photographs of the massacres of the Kurds by the Weste's ally Turkey and the West's enemy Iraq (Halabja, 1988 - using poison gases supplied by Western companies and governments).
Why The USA?
Why is the USA so frequently the victim of resentment around the world? Several tables examine USA foreign policy around the world (eg USA Backed Coups, Interventions in other countries affairs, The use of the USA United Nations Veto, Nuclear and Chemical attacks and issues, Civilian victims of USA foreign policy, etc). The tables link to further details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External Links
These links will open in a separate window
Stop The War Coalition
Information about planned world wide demonstrations occurring against the threatened USA and UK war in Iraq.
The Iraq Crisis
A detailed analysis of the Iraq crisis.
The Debate
Debate about war and the USA role in the world. Includes a petition.
Diary From Baghdad
BLOGSPOT Diary from a resident of Baghdad.
The Enemy
Excellent USA web site with grusome photos of the effects of USA warfare on Iraqi children.
Order 17
How the USA made themselves and their mercenaries immune from Iraqi laws.
Resource Wars
How the USA wants to control the vital resources of the world, by force if necessary.
KryssTal : USA: Why IraqUSA - PNAC Quotes. Quotes from the document Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century in which USA policy around the ...
www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa_iraq.html - 45k - Cached
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
The PNAC describes itself as a "non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."
These authors became advisers to USA president George W Bush in 2000 and include Bush's current Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle; Richard Armitage, the number two at the USA State Department; John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, under-secretaries of state; Elliott Abrams, the presidential adviser for the Middle East and a member of the USA National Security Council; and Peter W Rodman, assistant secretary of defence for international security affairs, Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition; ex-director James Woolsey and Robert B Zoelick, the USA trade representative.
Part of the letter states: "We urge you to seize [the] opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the USA and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power."
In September 2000, The PNAC published a document called Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century. It clearly reveals that the USA has been planning to take more control of the region in around the Middle East (including the Gulf) even before the attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001. On page 26, the following paragraph appears:
"In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semi-permanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
On Page 29 we read:
"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S.interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."
There are many more revealing quotes from this document.
In the middle of 2002 the USA announced that it wanted to attack Iraq and change its government by removing its leader, Saddam Husein. The UK immediately fell into line closely following the arguments put forward by the USA.
In May 2003, USA Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, admitted in an interview with USA television station WABC that the USA had wanted to remove Saddam Hussein for several years: "If you go back and look at the debate in the Congress and the debate in the United Nations, what we said was the President said that this is a dangerous regime, the policy of the United States government has been regime change since the mid to late 1990s … and that regime has now been changed. That is a very good thing."
The USA Assistant Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, admitted that the decision to invade Iraq was made in September 2001: "To the extent it was a debate about tactics and timing, the President clearly came down on the side of Afghanistan first. To the extent it was a debate about strategy and what the larger goal was, it is at least clear with 20/20 hindsight that the President came down on the side of the larger goal."
In April 2004, the former UK ambassador to the USA, Sir Christopher Meyer, admited that USA President, George W Bush and UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair agreed to remove Saddam Hussein on 20 September 2001 at a dinner party in Washington, USA.
Ray McGovern, one of the CIA's most senior analysts admitted to journalist, John Pilger: "It was 95 per cent charade. And they all knew it: Bush, Blair, Howard."
UK government documents leaked in September 2004 show that, in the words of UK MP Robin Cook: "there was no legal justification for the war, and therefore they should use the UN to 'wrongfoot' Saddam". He adds that "the only reason for the war in Iraq was the Bush administration's obsession with regime change".
The documents show that the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, told USA National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice in March 2003 that he was fully signed up to toppling Saddam but would need a cover for any military action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Reasons Given
During 2002 and early 2003, a number of reasons for wanting this "regime change" were advanced. This essay attempts to show that the reasons given are spurious and that the real reason is oil and the economic, military and political benefits of controlling this region.
If it is established that it is a valid policy to attack a country because you think they may be a threat, what is to stop countries attacking the West because they feel threatened? This will lead to international anarchy.
Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was a Threat
This was a smokescreen to deceive public opinion and provide a reason for regime change....
Iraq had Violated UN Resolutions for 12 Years (1991 to 2003)
The USA has often used the United Nations to legitimise its actions around the world, ignoring its wishes when the international community disagreed with USA policy....
Iraq was not a Democracy
"Democracy" is one of those words used to rally support....
Iraq was Oppressing its own People (Especially the Kurds)
"Oppression" is another key word used to rally support. The Kurds are one of the most betrayed people in the world. After the end of World War 1, the UK and France split up the Turkish ruled Ottoman Empire among themselves. The Kurdish people ended up being split between four countries: Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq....
Iraq Used Torture
No doubt about it - but Iraq is not alone in this....
Iraq had Invaded its Neighbours
This is also true, but there are some qualifications to be made....
Iraq had Links to Al-Qaida and Supported Terrorism
This one can best be described as "scraping the barel". Remember, the USA was considering removing the current Iraqi regime long before Al-Qaida became an obsession. The USA has long supported terrorism. Saddam Husein and Al-Qaida have both been armed and financed by the USA....
Iraq Told Lies and Misled the World Community
This is no doubt correct but the following are just a small selection of the falsehoods and lies perpetrated by the USA. Other countries (including the UK, France and Israel) have also misled the world community....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Real Reasons?
Oil and Economic Control
The USA relies on oil to supply about 40% of its energy requirements, more than any other source. Of this, 55% is imported oil. This percentage is expected to rise to 65% in 2020 and to keep increasing. Much of the USA's oil comes from the Gulf region. This region also supplies oil to most of the world.
According to Michael T. Klare writing for the Interhemispheric Resource Center: "This dependency is [a weakness] for American power: unless Persian Gulf oil can be kept under American control, our ability to remain the dominant world power would be put into question." Additionally, "Whoever controls the Gulf automatically maintains a stranglehold on the global economy."
Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the Middle East. It has been estimated that the Iraqi oil reserves amount to $ 1,100,000 million's worth and can last for 130 years.
The table below from British Petroleum (BP) shows the estimated time that various countries' oil fields are expected to last (as of 2002).
Country Years Country Years
Iraq 128.98 Romania 16.01
Kuwait 127.70 Trinidad and Tobago 15.34
United Arab Emirates 114.81 Other Asia Pacific 15.13
Saudi Arabia 85.13 Oman 14.77
Iran 67.25 Republic of Congo
(Brazaville) 14.34
Azerbaijan 67.02 Ecuador 14.18
Venezuela 63.58 Thailand 14.17
Qatar 55.57 Uzbekistan 13.77
Other South and
Central America 41.21 Australia 12.56
Nigeria 30.41 Turkmenistan 12.47
Kazakhstan 27.71 Denmark 11.81
Cameroon 24.69 Malaysia 11.40
Italy 24.42 Syria 10.99
Yemen 23.08 Egypt 10.72
Mexico 21.52 USA 10.52
Brunei 21.05 Indonesia 10.21
Gabon 19.97 Argentina 9.85
Angola 19.44 Norway 8.02
Russian Federation 19.25 Colombia 6.44
Algeria 18.25 Canada 6.20
Brazil 18.09 United Kingdom 5.94
Other Former
Soviet Union 16.05 Vietnam 5.85
The table below shows the major fields in Iraq.
Oil Field Contract Value
($ millions) Daily production
(Barrels)
Al-Ahdab 700 90,000
Amara 300 80,000
West Qurna Phase I 380 200,000
West Qurna DS 190 65,000
North Rumaila Mishrif 160 250,000
Khurmala 1,300 200,000,000
Suba-Luhais 200 100,000
Hemrin 1,300 200,000,000
Zubair Mishrif 150 60,000
The reason France and Russia were wary of military action is that they fear losing out on the post-Saddam oil bonanza.
A new regime would allow USA and UK oil companies concessions. James Woolsey, a former CIA director told the USA newspaper, the Washington Post: "It's pretty straight forward. France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government we'll do the best we can to ensure the new government and American companies work closely with them".
Note the assumptions that American influence will be strong enough to decide these matters, not the Iraqi government or people. The phrase "decent" government means "compliant" government.
Grant Aldonas told a business forum that a war in Iraq "would open up this spigot on Iraqi oil, which certainly would have a profound effect in terms of the performance of the world economy for those countries that are manufacturers and oil consumers".
Dr F J Chalabi, a former Iraqi deputy oil minister (now living in the UK) states that "the scenario exists whereby [the UK] and [the USA], by handling Iraq's oil resources a certain way, could carve out the ultimate 'strategic petroleum reserve'." He continues: " Iraq is the only country in the world that could, conceivably, replace Saudi Arabia as the guarantor of world oil price stability. Given [the USA's] feelings about Saudi Arabia right now, it is not hard to imagine how a [USA] backed government will deal with oil policy". He confirms the notion that Russia and France "may think that with a new government in Baghdad, they may lose the opportunity to have access to this really abundant and cheap oil".
The USA government is full of people with oil interests.
George W Bush (President): Received $2,800,000 from energy companies and another $2,300,000 from the car sector. Enron donated more than $1,000,000. Bush is a shareholder in General Electric, BP, Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Newmont Gold Mining Corporation, Pennzoil and Tom Brown, Inc.
Dick Cheney (Vice President): Used to head Halliburton (the world's biggest oil-services company worth $18,200 million). Since 1992, Halliburton has contributed $1,600 million to politicians. Was a co-sponsor to a measure to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and voted against the Clean Water Act which required industries to release their toxic emission records. Since 1998, Halliburton has completed $24 million's worth of repairs to Iraqi oil pipelines. Dick Cheney has stated that "energy security should be the priority of USA foreign policy".
Spencer Abraham (Secretary of Energy): Received donations from General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler.
Gale Norton (Secretary of Interior): Has received donations British Petroleum and Ford.
Condaleeza Rice (National Security Adviser): Spent 10 years on the board of oil giant Chevron Corporation. Chevron is involved in Nigeria where there is increasing USA military involvement, including training of Nigerian military to police the oil fields and secure pipelines.
Don Evans (Secretary of Commerce): Was Chief Executive and Chairman of Tom Brown Inc. (an oil company). He was also a board member of Sharp Drilling, an oil industry contractor.
Between 2000 and 2002, the oil and gas industry has given $ 50 million to USA political candidates.
On 12 September 2001, a day after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the USA Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, advised the USA president, George W Bush to invade Iraq immediately even though there was no evidence that Iraq was involved.
The USA Center for Public Integrity, reported that the top 100 officials in the USA administration (as of late 2002) have the majority of their personal investments in traditional energy and natural resources. The amount involved is almost $ 150 million.
On 11 October 2002, the USA newspaper New York Times published a story describing how the USA administration was planning to put a senior USA general in charge of Iraq during a planned lengthy occupation of the country. The USA could then gain control over Iraqi oil fields, representing 11% of the world output of crude oil.
In January 2003, the USA admitted it wanted to "take charge" of the Iraqi oil fields "in trust for the Iraqi people".
Richard Hardman, vice president from the oil consultancy, Exploration Amerada Hess, admitted on UK television (The Money Programme, BBC2 26 March 2003): "It is a war about oil because production is falling all over the world. Iraq has become crucial to the continuation of supply to the West and hence, the West's living standards".
After the invasion of Iraq, the oils wells in the north and south of Iraq, as well as the oil ministry in Baghdad were quickly secured by USA forces. At the same time, looters pillaged and burned other government buildings that contained documents that could have provided evidence of the crimes of the previous regime. The Baghdad Museum and some of the worlds most important archiological sites were looted as they stood unguarded. The theft and destruction of the treasures of Mesopotamia has been described as one of the greatest archiological disasters for 1000 years.
During May 2003, the USA began talks with the USA-backed Iraq National Congress to build an oil pipeline between Iraq and Israel. James Atkins (a former USA ambassador to Saudi Arabia) declared "There would be a fee for transit rights through Jordan, just as there would be fees for those using what would be the Haifa terminal. After all this is the new world order now. This is what things look like particularly if we wipe out Syria. It just goes to show that this is all about oil, for the United States and its allies."
The plan was originally put forward by Henry Kissinger in 1975 and was revived by Donald Rumsfeld. The favoured company to build the pipeline is Bechtel, a heavy contributer to the Republican Party of USA President George W Bush.
On 19th September 2003, the USA governor of Iraq, Paul Bremer, enacted a new law called Order 39. This allows the privatisation of 200 state industries including electricity, telecommunications, engineering and pharmaceuticals. The law allows foreign companies 100% ownership of banks, mines and factories. All the profits could be taken out of Iraq. Trade tariffs were removed; the tax rate was reduced from 45% to 15%. Companies or individuals will be allowed to lease land for 40 years.
All these changes were in violation of Iraq's constitution. Under the 1907 Hague Convention (signed by the USA), an occupying country must respect "the laws in force in the country" It also states that the occupying power "shall be regarded only as an administrator".
The changes mean that profits from Iraq's resources will go to foreign (mainly USA) companies. Many of these companies are the same ones that cajoled the USA administration to invade Iraq in the first place.
The net effect is that the cost of the war is bourne by USA, UK (and other Western) tax payers, USA, UK (and other Western) troops and personel, and the thousands of Iraqi people killed and injured. The profits are taken by (mainly USA) multinational companies, most with close links to the USA administration.
Military Bases
The USA has military bases in 120 of the world's 189 countries. This table lists the details of military bases and aid to countries in the Middle East.
Country Military Bases Aid Details
Bahrain USA Navy (5th Fleet): 1,200 sailors. Shares $300 million with 14 other countries.
Djibouti Camp Lemonier: 1,300 troops. Shares $300 million with 14 other countries.
Egypt 900 troops (peace keeping). $1,300 million in 2004 plus $300 million supplement.
Israel 600 manning Patriot missile batteries. $3,000 million per year.
$1,000 million extra (2003 war aid).
$9,000 million in loan guarantees.
Jordan 3,000 special forces. $460 million in 2004 plus $700 million economic aid.
$406 million (2003 war aid).
Kuwait More than 100,000 None.
Oman Base for 10 B-1 bombers;
10 support aircraft and their crews Shares $300 million with 14 other countries.
Qatar USA Central Command at Doha: 1,000.
al-Udeid airbase. None.
Saudi Arabia 10,000 troops; 42 fighter planes;
2 Patriot missile batteries. None.
Turkey Incirlik: 4,000 airmen and 2,000 troops. $255 million in 2004 plus $1,000 (2003 war aid).
United Arab Emirates al-Dahtra: 500 airmen. None.
Yemen Hundreds of special forces soldiers. $30 million in 2002.
After the invasion the USA has talked about setting up military bases in the country that would enable the USA to rely less on Saudi Arabia.
USA military officials admitted to the USA newspaper, New York Times, that they wanted "access" to four military bases in Iraq. These bases would be at Baghdad International Airport, Tallil (near Nasariya), an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert, and Bashur in the Kurdish north.
This essay is dedicated to the people of Iraq.
© 2004 KryssTal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KryssTal Related Pages
Iraq: 2003 to 2005
Detailed reports about the USA and UK invasion and occupation of Iraq between 2003 and 2005....
Iraq War 2003 to 2005: The Costs
The economic, military and human costs of the 2003 war in Iraq and subsequent occupation.
USA - Iraq Quotes
Quotes from and about the USA involving the 2003 invasion of Iraq and its subsequent occupation.
USA - PNAC Quotes
Quotes from the document Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century in which USA policy around the world is discussed.
Iraq-USA Wars: Photo Galleries
Photos from the Iraq-USA Wars of 1991, 2003 and the occupation in 2004.
(Some of these may disturb the viewer)....
Kurdistan: Photo Galleries
A map of historical Kurdistan; photographs of the massacres of the Kurds by the Weste's ally Turkey and the West's enemy Iraq (Halabja, 1988 - using poison gases supplied by Western companies and governments).
Why The USA?
Why is the USA so frequently the victim of resentment around the world? Several tables examine USA foreign policy around the world (eg USA Backed Coups, Interventions in other countries affairs, The use of the USA United Nations Veto, Nuclear and Chemical attacks and issues, Civilian victims of USA foreign policy, etc). The tables link to further details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External Links
These links will open in a separate window
Stop The War Coalition
Information about planned world wide demonstrations occurring against the threatened USA and UK war in Iraq.
The Iraq Crisis
A detailed analysis of the Iraq crisis.
The Debate
Debate about war and the USA role in the world. Includes a petition.
Diary From Baghdad
BLOGSPOT Diary from a resident of Baghdad.
The Enemy
Excellent USA web site with grusome photos of the effects of USA warfare on Iraqi children.
Order 17
How the USA made themselves and their mercenaries immune from Iraqi laws.
Resource Wars
How the USA wants to control the vital resources of the world, by force if necessary.
KryssTal : USA: Why IraqUSA - PNAC Quotes. Quotes from the document Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century in which USA policy around the ...
www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa_iraq.html - 45k - Cached
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
You must be late taking your meds - please take them and get some rest
eots
no fly list
so what your saying is there is no such document as pnac ? and its just a conspiracy ? wow you got a lot of conspiracy theory's ,please inform me more on the non existence of pnac
Project for the New American Century
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a neo-conservative US think tank based in Washington, DC. Co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, the group was established in early 1997 as a non-profit organization. The PNAC is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project, a 501(c)(3) organization that has been funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation.[1]
PNAC was a major advocate for the United States' 2003 invasion of Iraq. The invasion formed a centerpiece of the group's neoconservative agenda. Complications with the invasion have contributed to PNAC's decline, along with the decline of the larger neoconservative foreign policy movement. PNAC now only has one employee and is seen as nearly defunct.[2]
Critics allege that the controversial organization proposes military and economic space, cyberspace, and global domination by the United States, so as to establish and maintain a Pax Americana, a US dominance in world affairs. Some have argued the US-led invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 was the first step in furthering these plans.
Contents [hide]
1 Members
2 Core views and beliefs
2.1 PNAC report: Rebuilding America's Defenses
2.2 Position on the Iraq invasion and occupation
3 Controversy
4 Criticisms of position on the Iraq invasion and occupation
5 Bush administration
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
8.1 Analysis of PNAC
[edit] Members
Many of the organization's ideas, and its members, are associated with the neoconservative movement. PNAC, at one point, had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors. It now has one full-time staffer.
Current members include William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Bruce P. Jackson, Mark Gerson, Randy Scheunemann, Ellen Bork, Gary Schmitt, Thomas Donnelly, and Reuel Marc Gerecht.[3]
Former members include prominent members of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, including George W.Bush, Karl Rove, Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Richard Perle, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.
Other former members include:
Gary Bauer, former presidential candidate, president of American Values
James B. Borow, former deputy director of the NSA, co-founder of the Illinois Center for Core Values
Rudy Boschwitz, former US Senator from Minnesota
Eliot A. Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University
Steve Forbes, multi-millionaire publisher of Forbes Magazine, former presidential candidate
Aaron Friedberg, director of the Center of International Studies
Frank Gaffney, columnist, founder of Center for Security Policy
Fred Ikle, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. ambassador
Charles Krauthammer, conservative columnist
Christopher Maletz
Daniel McKivergan
Norman Podhoretz, Hudson Institute
Dan Quayle, former vice-president
Stephen Rosen, Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs, Harvard University
Henry Rowen, former president of Rand Corporation
Abram Shulsky, former Director of Office of Special Plans
Vin Weber, Minnesota congressman
George Weigel, Roman Catholic theologian and political commentator
R. James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency for President Bill Clinton, vice-president at Booz Allen Hamilton
[edit] Core views and beliefs
The PNAC web site states the group's "fundamental propositions":[4]
"American leadership is both good for America and good for the world."
"such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle"
"too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."
The PNAC also made a statement of principles at their 1997 inception.[5]
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
The PNAC advocates "a policy of military strength and moral clarity" which includes:
A significant increase of US military spending.
Strengthening ties with US allies and challenging regimes hostile to US interests and values.
Promoting the cause of American political and economic power outside the US.
Preserving and extending an international order friendly to US security, prosperity and principles. .[6]
The PNAC has long called for the United States to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the US and the former Soviet Union, from which the US withdrew in 2002. It also proposes controlling the new "international commons" of outer space and "cyberspace" and paving the way for the creation of a new military service — U.S. Space Forces — with the mission of space control. .[7][citation needed]
[edit] PNAC report: Rebuilding America's Defenses
In September 2000, the PNAC issued a 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For A New Century,[8] proceeding "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." The report has been the subject of much analysis and criticism.
The group states that when diplomacy or sanctions fail, the United States must be prepared to take military action. PNAC argues that the current Cold War deployment of forces is obsolete. Defense spending and force deployment must reflect the post-Cold War duties that US forces are obligated to perform. Constabulary duties such as peacekeeping in the Balkans and the enforcement of the No Fly Zones in Iraq have put a strain upon, and reduced the readiness of US forces. The PNAC recommends the forward redeployment of US forces at new strategically placed permanent military bases in Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia. Permanent bases ease the strain on US forces, allowing readiness to be maintained and the carrier fleet to be reduced. Furthermore, PNAC advocates that the US-globalized military should be enlarged, equipped and restructured for the "constabulary" roles associated with shaping the security in critical regions of the world.
[edit] Position on the Iraq invasion and occupation
In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to US interests.
The 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report recommends improved planning. The report states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".
One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;"[9] After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States invaded Afghanistan because Osama bin Laden had taken refuge there and the administration held him responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks. In March 2003, the United States invaded Iraq citing multiple grounds. 2003 invasion of Iraq
[edit] Controversy
The PNAC has been the subject of considerable criticism and controversy, both among members of the left and right. Critics dispute the premise that US "world leadership" is desirable for the world or even for the United States itself. The PNAC's harshest critics claim it represents a disturbing step towards total world subjugation by the United States, motivated by an imperial and globalist agenda of global US military expansionism and dominance. Critics of the United States' international relations take issue with the PNAC's unabashed position of maintaining the nation's privileged position as sole world superpower. Some critics even assert that the fall of the Soviet Union indicates an end to the era of 'superpowers' and therefore any concept of military hegemony or ascendancy is overrated. Military might is not power in itself, say the critics; it requires huge financial commitments, strong domestic and international support, plus skillful management to be considered worthwhile.[10][11] PNAC position papers and other documents contain few references on building or maintaining any of these requirements.[12]
Supporters of the project reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different from past conservative foreign policy assessments. US conservatives have traditionally favored a militarily strong United States, and advocated the country take aggressive positions when its interests are threatened. Supporters thus see the PNAC as the target of conspiracy theories, mainly motivated by the left.[citation needed]
A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000) famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor (PDF)".[13] This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts”.[14] The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor." Some have used this quote as evidence for their belief the US government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. (See the article 9/11 conspiracy theories for further information on this topic.)
Critics will often quote another excerpt from the document, "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool", as evidence of a violently racist lean[citation needed]; since certain populations (i.e. Iranian Muslims vs. Saudi Arabs) will carry higher frequencies of a certain genotype[15], a biological weapon that is only active in that particular genotype will target one race over another. This occurs via "race-specific elicitors" produced by the pathogen which are only operational in certain host genotypes.[16][17] Both Israel[18] and South Africa before the end of apartheid also researched such race-specific biological weapons, without success.
[edit] Criticisms of position on the Iraq invasion and occupation
Many critics of the US-led invasion of Iraq claim the US' "bullying" of the international community into supporting the 2003 Iraq war, and the fact that the war went ahead despite much international criticism, stem from the positions of prominent conservatives in the Bush administration. Some critics of the Bush administration see the 1998 letter to President Clinton as a "smoking gun",[19] showing that the invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. These critics see the letter as evidence of Rumsfeld's, Wolfowitz's and Richard Perle's opinions, five years prior to the Iraq invasion. Other signatories of the letter include John Bolton and Zalmay Khalilzad, as of this writing the United States' ambassadors to the United Nations and Iraq, respectively. Rory Bremner, citing the letter, said "that's what they want — regime change — and nothing, not Blair, not the UN, not Hans Blix, not France, Germany, Russia, China, not the threat of terrorism, or Arab reservations, or lack of evidence, or the Peace March, not even our own brave Jack Straw is going to stand in their way."[20] George Monbiot, citing the letter, said "to pretend that this battle begins and ends in Iraq requires a willful denial of the context in which it occurs. That context is a blunt attempt by the superpower to reshape the world to suit itself."[21]
[edit] Bush administration
After the 2000 election of George W. Bush, many of the PNAC's members were appointed to key positions within the new President's administration:
Project for the New American Century
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a neo-conservative US think tank based in Washington, DC. Co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, the group was established in early 1997 as a non-profit organization. The PNAC is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project, a 501(c)(3) organization that has been funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation.[1]
PNAC was a major advocate for the United States' 2003 invasion of Iraq. The invasion formed a centerpiece of the group's neoconservative agenda. Complications with the invasion have contributed to PNAC's decline, along with the decline of the larger neoconservative foreign policy movement. PNAC now only has one employee and is seen as nearly defunct.[2]
Critics allege that the controversial organization proposes military and economic space, cyberspace, and global domination by the United States, so as to establish and maintain a Pax Americana, a US dominance in world affairs. Some have argued the US-led invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 was the first step in furthering these plans.
Contents [hide]
1 Members
2 Core views and beliefs
2.1 PNAC report: Rebuilding America's Defenses
2.2 Position on the Iraq invasion and occupation
3 Controversy
4 Criticisms of position on the Iraq invasion and occupation
5 Bush administration
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
8.1 Analysis of PNAC
[edit] Members
Many of the organization's ideas, and its members, are associated with the neoconservative movement. PNAC, at one point, had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors. It now has one full-time staffer.
Current members include William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Bruce P. Jackson, Mark Gerson, Randy Scheunemann, Ellen Bork, Gary Schmitt, Thomas Donnelly, and Reuel Marc Gerecht.[3]
Former members include prominent members of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, including George W.Bush, Karl Rove, Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Richard Perle, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.
Other former members include:
Gary Bauer, former presidential candidate, president of American Values
James B. Borow, former deputy director of the NSA, co-founder of the Illinois Center for Core Values
Rudy Boschwitz, former US Senator from Minnesota
Eliot A. Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University
Steve Forbes, multi-millionaire publisher of Forbes Magazine, former presidential candidate
Aaron Friedberg, director of the Center of International Studies
Frank Gaffney, columnist, founder of Center for Security Policy
Fred Ikle, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. ambassador
Charles Krauthammer, conservative columnist
Christopher Maletz
Daniel McKivergan
Norman Podhoretz, Hudson Institute
Dan Quayle, former vice-president
Stephen Rosen, Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs, Harvard University
Henry Rowen, former president of Rand Corporation
Abram Shulsky, former Director of Office of Special Plans
Vin Weber, Minnesota congressman
George Weigel, Roman Catholic theologian and political commentator
R. James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency for President Bill Clinton, vice-president at Booz Allen Hamilton
[edit] Core views and beliefs
The PNAC web site states the group's "fundamental propositions":[4]
"American leadership is both good for America and good for the world."
"such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle"
"too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."
The PNAC also made a statement of principles at their 1997 inception.[5]
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
The PNAC advocates "a policy of military strength and moral clarity" which includes:
A significant increase of US military spending.
Strengthening ties with US allies and challenging regimes hostile to US interests and values.
Promoting the cause of American political and economic power outside the US.
Preserving and extending an international order friendly to US security, prosperity and principles. .[6]
The PNAC has long called for the United States to abandon the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the US and the former Soviet Union, from which the US withdrew in 2002. It also proposes controlling the new "international commons" of outer space and "cyberspace" and paving the way for the creation of a new military service — U.S. Space Forces — with the mission of space control. .[7][citation needed]
[edit] PNAC report: Rebuilding America's Defenses
In September 2000, the PNAC issued a 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For A New Century,[8] proceeding "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." The report has been the subject of much analysis and criticism.
The group states that when diplomacy or sanctions fail, the United States must be prepared to take military action. PNAC argues that the current Cold War deployment of forces is obsolete. Defense spending and force deployment must reflect the post-Cold War duties that US forces are obligated to perform. Constabulary duties such as peacekeeping in the Balkans and the enforcement of the No Fly Zones in Iraq have put a strain upon, and reduced the readiness of US forces. The PNAC recommends the forward redeployment of US forces at new strategically placed permanent military bases in Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia. Permanent bases ease the strain on US forces, allowing readiness to be maintained and the carrier fleet to be reduced. Furthermore, PNAC advocates that the US-globalized military should be enlarged, equipped and restructured for the "constabulary" roles associated with shaping the security in critical regions of the world.
[edit] Position on the Iraq invasion and occupation
In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to US interests.
The 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report recommends improved planning. The report states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".
One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;"[9] After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States invaded Afghanistan because Osama bin Laden had taken refuge there and the administration held him responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks. In March 2003, the United States invaded Iraq citing multiple grounds. 2003 invasion of Iraq
[edit] Controversy
The PNAC has been the subject of considerable criticism and controversy, both among members of the left and right. Critics dispute the premise that US "world leadership" is desirable for the world or even for the United States itself. The PNAC's harshest critics claim it represents a disturbing step towards total world subjugation by the United States, motivated by an imperial and globalist agenda of global US military expansionism and dominance. Critics of the United States' international relations take issue with the PNAC's unabashed position of maintaining the nation's privileged position as sole world superpower. Some critics even assert that the fall of the Soviet Union indicates an end to the era of 'superpowers' and therefore any concept of military hegemony or ascendancy is overrated. Military might is not power in itself, say the critics; it requires huge financial commitments, strong domestic and international support, plus skillful management to be considered worthwhile.[10][11] PNAC position papers and other documents contain few references on building or maintaining any of these requirements.[12]
Supporters of the project reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different from past conservative foreign policy assessments. US conservatives have traditionally favored a militarily strong United States, and advocated the country take aggressive positions when its interests are threatened. Supporters thus see the PNAC as the target of conspiracy theories, mainly motivated by the left.[citation needed]
A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000) famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor (PDF)".[13] This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts”.[14] The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor." Some have used this quote as evidence for their belief the US government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. (See the article 9/11 conspiracy theories for further information on this topic.)
Critics will often quote another excerpt from the document, "...advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool", as evidence of a violently racist lean[citation needed]; since certain populations (i.e. Iranian Muslims vs. Saudi Arabs) will carry higher frequencies of a certain genotype[15], a biological weapon that is only active in that particular genotype will target one race over another. This occurs via "race-specific elicitors" produced by the pathogen which are only operational in certain host genotypes.[16][17] Both Israel[18] and South Africa before the end of apartheid also researched such race-specific biological weapons, without success.
[edit] Criticisms of position on the Iraq invasion and occupation
Many critics of the US-led invasion of Iraq claim the US' "bullying" of the international community into supporting the 2003 Iraq war, and the fact that the war went ahead despite much international criticism, stem from the positions of prominent conservatives in the Bush administration. Some critics of the Bush administration see the 1998 letter to President Clinton as a "smoking gun",[19] showing that the invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. These critics see the letter as evidence of Rumsfeld's, Wolfowitz's and Richard Perle's opinions, five years prior to the Iraq invasion. Other signatories of the letter include John Bolton and Zalmay Khalilzad, as of this writing the United States' ambassadors to the United Nations and Iraq, respectively. Rory Bremner, citing the letter, said "that's what they want — regime change — and nothing, not Blair, not the UN, not Hans Blix, not France, Germany, Russia, China, not the threat of terrorism, or Arab reservations, or lack of evidence, or the Peace March, not even our own brave Jack Straw is going to stand in their way."[20] George Monbiot, citing the letter, said "to pretend that this battle begins and ends in Iraq requires a willful denial of the context in which it occurs. That context is a blunt attempt by the superpower to reshape the world to suit itself."[21]
[edit] Bush administration
After the 2000 election of George W. Bush, many of the PNAC's members were appointed to key positions within the new President's administration:
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Your shrink must be making a fortune off you
eots
no fly list
thats the best you can do you ? certainly cant counter with any facts
all you got is grade school dumb comments give it up fool
all you got is grade school dumb comments give it up fool
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
thats the best you can do you ? certainly cant counter with any facts
all you got is grade school dumb comments give it up fool
I am glad to counter facts - not liberal hysteria
Superlative
Senior Member
- Mar 13, 2007
- 1,382
- 109
- 48
Really? Please post any evidence you have that the US is involved in privatizing Iraq's oil and we're somehow making a profit. Last time I looked, I"m still paying over $2.00 a gallon, and I've heard it's a lot worse on the coasts.
Halliburton pushed Iraq's oil production back to prewar levels of 2 million bbl. a day in December, three months ahead of schedule, and delivered 1.8 billion liters of fuel via 700 trucks on the road daily in Iraq and Kuwait.
They've been accused of doubling the price of barrels going into the region vs that heading to North America.
You're paying $2.00 a gallon. I think that Halliburton may be making some profit.
eots
no fly list
I'm not a liberal but i believe the Republicans are no better and America needs to clean house...so pnac is a fact whats your take on it ?
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Halliburton pushed Iraq's oil production back to prewar levels of 2 million bbl. a day in December, three months ahead of schedule, and delivered 1.8 billion liters of fuel via 700 trucks on the road daily in Iraq and Kuwait.
They've been accused of doubling the price of barrels going into the region vs that heading to North America.
You're paying $2.00 a gallon. I think that Halliburton may be making some profit.
Considering the taxes on a gallon of gas add about 60 cent to the price, there is not much of a margin of profit
Oil companies make about 10 cents profit per gallon
Superlative
Senior Member
- Mar 13, 2007
- 1,382
- 109
- 48
Considering the taxes on a gallon of gas add about 60 cent to the price, there is not much of a margin of profit
Oil companies make about 10 cents profit per gallon
BP PLC's $7.27 billion profit meant that the British oil giant made $55,000 a minute during the quarter.
By comparison, Exxon's profit per minute during the quarter amounted to $79,000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072700383.html
eots
no fly list
ya you got to admire all those non profit americain oil intrest,
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
BP PLC's $7.27 billion profit meant that the British oil giant made $55,000 a minute during the quarter.
By comparison, Exxon's profit per minute during the quarter amounted to $79,000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072700383.html
again the profit is ten cents a gallon for oil companies
government makes about 60 cents a gallon
who is gouging who?
Superlative
Senior Member
- Mar 13, 2007
- 1,382
- 109
- 48
again the profit is ten cents a gallon for oil companies
government makes about 60 cents a gallon
who is gouging who?
Well then it would seem the US is greatly profiting from this war isnt it?
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Well then it would seem the US is greatly profiting from this war isnt it?
Yes, by fight the killers over there and not here.
William Joyce
Chemotherapy for PC
think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), wrote a letter to USA president Bill Clinton advising him to remove Saddam Husein from Iraq without mentioning moral reasons, human rights, or terrorism.
The PNAC describes itself as a "non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."
These authors became advisers to USA president George W Bush in 2000 and include Bush's current Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle; Richard Armitage, the number two at the USA State Department; John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, under-secretaries of state; Elliott Abrams, the presidential adviser for the Middle East and a member of the USA National Security Council; and Peter W Rodman, assistant secretary of defence for international security affairs, Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition; ex-director James Woolsey and Robert B Zoelick, the USA trade representative.
Part of the letter states: "We urge you to seize [the] opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the USA and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power."
In September 2000, The PNAC published a document called Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century. It clearly reveals that the USA has been planning to take more control of the region in around the Middle East (including the Gulf) even before the attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001. On page 26, the following paragraph appears:
"In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semi-permanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
On Page 29 we read:
"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S.interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."
There are many more revealing quotes from this document.
In the middle of 2002 the USA announced that it wanted to attack Iraq and change its government by removing its leader, Saddam Husein. The UK immediately fell into line closely following the arguments put forward by the USA.
In May 2003, USA Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, admitted in an interview with USA television station WABC that the USA had wanted to remove Saddam Hussein for several years: "If you go back and look at the debate in the Congress and the debate in the United Nations, what we said was the President said that this is a dangerous regime, the policy of the United States government has been regime change since the mid to late 1990s … and that regime has now been changed. That is a very good thing."
The USA Assistant Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, admitted that the decision to invade Iraq was made in September 2001: "To the extent it was a debate about tactics and timing, the President clearly came down on the side of Afghanistan first. To the extent it was a debate about strategy and what the larger goal was, it is at least clear with 20/20 hindsight that the President came down on the side of the larger goal."
In April 2004, the former UK ambassador to the USA, Sir Christopher Meyer, admited that USA President, George W Bush and UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair agreed to remove Saddam Hussein on 20 September 2001 at a dinner party in Washington, USA.
Ray McGovern, one of the CIA's most senior analysts admitted to journalist, John Pilger: "It was 95 per cent charade. And they all knew it: Bush, Blair, Howard."
UK government documents leaked in September 2004 show that, in the words of UK MP Robin Cook: "there was no legal justification for the war, and therefore they should use the UN to 'wrongfoot' Saddam". He adds that "the only reason for the war in Iraq was the Bush administration's obsession with regime change".
The documents show that the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, told USA National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice in March 2003 that he was fully signed up to toppling Saddam but would need a cover for any military action.
Short translation: The war was launched to advance Israel's interests in the Middle East.
red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
Short translation: The war was launched to advance Israel's interests in the Middle East.
so now it is the Jews fault?
where have we heard that before?
Superlative
Senior Member
- Mar 13, 2007
- 1,382
- 109
- 48
Yes, by fight the killers over there and not here.
WTF? do you have some kind of rolodex of White House G.W. BUSH spin shit that you just refer to when someone makes a point?
You are so good at mindless regurgitation its appalling.
You just framed the issue in defence of the American Government, the same way they do.
Justifying their profit from oil in this war by stating "at least we dont have terrorists here"
Similar threads
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 153
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 617
- Replies
- 154
- Views
- 7K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 128
- Views
- 503
- Replies
- 111
- Views
- 372
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 13
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-