[Vision2020] War, Oil and Bush, etc.

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Paul-

The current US defense capability that we maintain continuously dwarfs that 
of any other nation on earth, and is the most fearsome war machine ever created 
by any nation in history.  We are continuously ready for global warfare and 
are now "either a) warring, b) preparing for war,or c)getting warred upon." as 
you put it.  

Given the global empire of the US, the attacks against us are not always on 
US soil.  But our interests economically, politically or militarily have been 
under threat or attack continuously since W.W.II, thus our need to control many 
nations on earth who might oppose our interests by devious or not so devious 
means: impose puppet governments, overthrow democratically elected 
governments, get other nations to conduct proxy wars (the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan who 
we supported with even Bin Laden rumored to have received CIA support in 
fighting the Soviets), support our favorite dictators who do our bidding, like our 
previous military support for Saddam in Iraq against Iran, etc.

For someone who obviously thinks and studies these issues seriously, you 
gloss over and oversimplify with ease.

Consider your reasoning here:

"But I don't consider Bush irrational.(!!!)
If you place the security of the United States as the paramount duty of 
the government and work with such logic,
his actions are reasonable"

As the anonymous 20 year CIA veteran author of the upcoming book "Imperial 
Hubris" is quoted as saying, "The invasion of Iraq was a Christmas gift to Bin 
Laden."  Assuming this logic, how is Bush's foreign policy "rational" in terms 
of the national security of the US?  

Bush's approach to the War on Terror has been a recruitment boon for Al 
Quada, and terror attacks world wide have increased.  I assert emphatically Bush's 
foreign policy in terms of protecting the national security of the US is not 
sensible or rational, but quite mad, and not exclusively driven by the goal of 
success in the War on Terror, which is sometimes used as an ideological tool 
to justify other agendas.

And your assessment that the invasion of Afghanistan "went off resonably 
well" means exactly what?  Afghanistan is still ruled by war lords who are as 
tyrannical and brutal as the Taliban, while our puppet leader Karzai only rules 
Kabul during the day.  Opium production has surged to record levels since the US 
invasion, jeopardizing overall economic development and fueling a criminal 
underground of massive proportions.  The Islamic fundamentalists who have 
support among the tribes along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan still 
operate militarily, and according to the best intelligence, continue to hide Bin 
Laden, who was ostensibly one of the main goals in our invasion.  Bush offered 
to not invade if the Taliban would give up Bin Laden.  It appears one of the 
main targets of the invasion of Afghanistan still remains elusive.  How does 
this current situation merit the description it "went off reasonably well?"

You also write:

"Can't say what exactly drives Bush with enviromental issues."

You must be joking.  Are you putting me on?  I hesitate to tackle this 
statement because anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Bush administration 
knows corporate oil and energy interests are in bed with Cheney and Bush, and 
what drives the environmental approach of these corporate interests.

Do you think if Iraq had not a drop of oil that we would have invaded?

It is well known that a crisis point is coming when oil reserves and the 
global demands upon them will become critical, and render the nations who control 
major oil reserves the ability to dictate to the world who will or will not 
get the oil, and thus power over the entire global economy.  And it will be very 
difficult to replace the cheap energy from fossil fuels with any alternative 
energy source.  Sure the Bush administration will offer token support to 
hydrogen fuel research. It makes his administration look like they are supporting 
technology friendly to the environment, is warm and fuzzy corporate welfare, 
while they push for oil drilling in ANWR, and refuse to demand legislation to 
increase the fuel efficiency of the current US fleet of oil powered vehicles.  
If Bush wanted to stop our dependence on middle east oil right now his 
administration would have pushed for major increases in fuel efficiency.  Why has this 
not happened?

"This is probably to reduce dependance on Arab/Muslim oil" you write about 
Bush support for hydrogen fuels.

Do you really believe Bush wants the US to not be dependent on middle east 
oil?  The invasion of Iraq was in part to allow the US to control middle east 
oil, not reduce our dependence.

And you must be aware of the financial ties between the Bush family and the 
Saudi Royals, which is another reason for Bush to not seriously seek reducing 
our dependence on Saudi oil. 

Ted Moffett


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20040801/0eb05443/attachment.htm