Hello Steve,

>SA>Oils ain't just oils, they're to die for
>SA>May 16, 2004

>SA>It is its citizens' need for oil that drives the US's crusade in the
>SA>Middle East, Margo Kingston writes.

>SA>For reader reaction and more information, see Deputy PM confirms oil
>SA>crisis. ( http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/16/1084646068795.html )

>SA>Most Europeans have never been in doubt that Iraq is an oil war. As
>SA>the latest ludicrous excuse for the war lies in ruins - that it is a
>SA>selfless American crusade to civilise the Middle East - perhaps we can
>SA>finally start to think about the real issues and what our
"leaders"
>SA>are doing about them in our name.

>LL>The idea of Iraq being a war about oil made sense during the first
>LL>Persian Gulf War, when George H.W. Bush was prez.  After all, Iraq
>LL>had invaded America's main oil depot, Kuwait.  But the present war
>LL>in Iraq is not about oil. It is more like an obsession of George W.
>LL>Bush to invade Iraq.  Apparently, it had nothing to do with WMD or
>LL>any other excuse given by GWB.  The only thing I can reasonably
>LL>come up with is that it was an obsession of GWB to invade Iraq.
>LL>IOW, Bush is insane.

SA>I don't think Bush is insane. I do, however, think he is deluded. The
SA>"American crusade to civilise the Middle East" is probably closer to
SA>the mark than Margo can see, though of course access to Iraqi oil is
SA>a strong motivator for the PNAC / Rumsfeld / Perle / Wolfowitz push.

If America wanted oil from Iraq, it would have been far less expensive
to simply buy it.  Therefore, the true motive could not have been oil.

SA>I feel that Bush is deluded into believing that he is on a mission
SA>from God or a "higher power" to bring peace and freedom to the
SA>Middle East, and indeed the world - that freedom is a right bestowed
SA>by the Creator etc etc.

Bush said as much during his commencement address to graduating
students at LSU.  And it appears that he honestly believes what he
says.  That is what is so scary.

SA>I can expand on that, or provide examples, but will move on:

SA>There are those who feel that Bush is being manipulated by
"neo-cons",
SA>such as the PNAC members above, but it is more likely that Bush and
SA>the "neo-cons" are better described as "New
Agers", more aligned
SA>with David Spangler, Marilyn Ferguson, Alvin Toffler and John Naisbitt
SA>than "judeo-christian" "conservatism".

I am somewhat familiar with the works of Alvin Toffler and
John Naisbitt, whose writings form the basis for the ideology
of many neoconservatives.  "War and Anti-War", by Alvin and
Heidi Toffler best expresses this view.

SA>Bush, Rumsfeld, and the Pentagon have adopted a transformation program
SA>for the Department of Defense, and for whole of the United States.

The use of contractors in war zones in Rumsfield's idea, being an
effort to lessen the cost of war.

SA>If you have been employed by a largeish employer (eg a telco, bank,
SA>government department) in the last 20 years, there is a good chance
SA>that you have been involved in a management-initiated
"change" process,
SA>such as those done by consultants like the "Pacific Institute". They
SA>generally take a number of employees off on external courses for a
SA>few days, abseiling, "trust falling", "possibility
thinking" etc,
SA>distribute lots of glossy posters & giveaways, thinking up "vision
SA>statements", "mission statements" etc etc.

Conducting war on the cheap seems to be the policy of the Bush
administration.  However, it is not actually war on the cheap, but
rather conducting war by doing now, paying later.  That is why Bush
is trying to hide the true cost of war until after the election.
That is why Bush is trying to hide pictures of flag-draped coffins
from being shown on television, etc.  That is why Bush is trying to
hide the fact that a military draft will be instituted after the
election.

SA>This is the type of transformation that is happening in the US military,
SA>Homeland Security, UN Security Council etc etc. They are hoping to
SA>spread "the light of transformation". It is the agenda the Beast 666
SA>is likely to follow, and through it destroy many.

For the first time in history, one nation controls the entire world.
And that nation is America.  The Greeks had an empire, but that
empire stretched only to present-day Pakistan and India.  The Romans
had an empire, but that empire only controlled the Mediterranean.
And likewise all subsequent empires, which only controlled certain
sections of the world.

Like all empires, The American Empire will one day come to an end.
Which country will replace The American Empire with its own?  Probably
China.  Fortunately, the Chinese prefer to stay where they are.  At
least for now.

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * Back Up My Hard Drive? I Can't Find The Reverse Switch!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5