RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Unfolding Universe (discovery channel)

["(8?»" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Sorry about the links, several were long and ugly, so to increase 
legibility (in a non-Pine world, I know), I stuck them in as html. Also, 
thanks for the stimulating conversation. It isn't often enough, that my 
words and ideas are critiqued (constructively, at least). I also apologize 
if I've came off as a smartass at any time. Anything I've deleted from 
previous posts is stuff where we are in agreement.

Obviously we have a different view of reality (which I won't try to claim 
that either is 'true') You make good points about beliefs, ideals and 
national identity. I differ where causality of these traits are concerned. 
I see them as a tool used by the ruling class to implement control over the 
population. The people in Branson you speak of, were trained to react, and 
I'm sure some only participated out of fear (this is not the time to be 
seen as unpatriotic). This is systemic control.

Ya know, maybe if I used a different word, my ideas may seem a little more 
palatable. People may not necessarily dominate one another, but they do 
want to live in a safe secure world. In a world where the rule of law, is 
the law of rule, security comes from control . If you don't believe me, 
please read duh-bya's speech at West Point last week. He is intending to 
make the world safe for us by controlling those who might act against us. 
So instead of control, I'll use security from now on.

The problems you speak of in Iran follow a close parallel to Saudi Arabia. 
In both cases, US and Britain aided/installed leaders who were friendly to 
western interests, and oppressed their own people to maintain 'stability'. 
This included overthrowing Premier Mohammad Mossadeq of Iran in 1953 to 
reinstall the Shah (originally installed by Britain).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

The Shah maintained his power through US support, until the resistance was 
so great that it could not be contained. This is the scenario that Saudi 
Arabia (really the al-Saud family) is trying to avoid, by backing away from 
openly supporting the US.

The al-Saud family is allegedly the most oppressive government in 
existence, (now that the Taliban lost that title). They are only able to 
maintain this hold over the majority through US military aid and other 
support. It is this support for both countries that drives the oppression, 
which in turn leads to factional fighting you mentioned. I cannot believe 
that any small minority could maintain this control without US support 
(after all, the oil 'should' belong to the nation, not the ruling family). 
Which was the basis for my statement.


> > The Saudi royals are just as dependent on our protection, as we
> > are for their oil.
>
>Really, I guess my problem is that this misses so much and is the
>kind of conclusion that leads to no end of misunderstanding.  I am
>very likely over-reacting, but this is the kind of statement that
>has always struck me as defying argument or reason or discussion.
>I know you didn't mean it that way, but there you go.

Sorry, but I thought this relationship was obvious (although perhaps poorly 
stated).


>
> >
> > > > This same military purpose, also holds true for Argentina,
> > > > Venezuela, and Columbia. US "National Interest" dictates
> > > > that we will remain involved in these regions to prevent
> > > > US oil companies from losing control.  Especially
> > > > since the Saudi link started deteriorating last fall.
> > >
> > > This is just nonsense.  Of the 3 countries you have just
> > > mentioned, only Venezuela has petroleum reserves that are
> > > (at present) even a little bit interesting in terms of
> > > "controlling" world oil markets.  There is no doubt that
> > > oil and energy companies exert undue influence at home and
> > > abroad, but to claim that US oil interests have had anything
> > > like control over the situation is just silly.  I mean,
> > > unless you'd like to argue that they went out of their way
> > > to lose their shirts in the 80s when OPEC set production
> > > targets at a level where prices collapsed (to name one
> > > stupendous debacle).
> >
> > First, please realize that the majority of gov. officials in
> > this administration are from the OIL industry. They OWN our
> > government. So no, it isn't "the industry" that is controlling
> > policy, it is our oil administration.
>
>Well, gosh, if the first thing I have to do is realize that whatever
>you say is true, then I guess this will be a short argument, now
>won't it?  The big problem here is the notion that "they" speak in
>unison or that "they" can really implement any policy unilaterally
>here or abroad or that "they" even have an opinion on or ability to
>steer policy on anything but a small (albeit important) range of
>issues.

"They" do not have to speak in unison, as one of them is now the most 
powerful man in the world. "They" have a hierarchical structure, so 'he' 
dominates. 'Loyalty' is 'his' primary measuring stick in choosing those who 
surround him (my perspective, his words). Yes, there are many voices from 
other corporate sectors that makes unilateral policy difficult, but not 
impossible. "They" also aren't necessarily restricted to a small range of 
issues. For example, "they" haven't had any problems unilaterally building 
new military bases in the 'stans of the old USSR, which is national 
security/foreign policy, not energy policy (at least on the surface). These 
bases just happen to be near the preferred pipeline route from the Caspian 
Sea to Afghanistan. Sure, it could just be coincidence.


>  > In Columbia (7th largest US source in 2000) , Bush has proposed
> > providing $98M in aid to create a brigade to protect the oil
> > pipeline owned by Occidental Oil.
>
>Fine, but now tell me how much we are spending there on drug
>interdiction or other programs.  It's not that the special favors
>don't bug me, it's just that I don't see that they are the sole
>or even predominant factors in this particular relationship.

I believe that the 'war on drugs' is merely a pretense for military 
activity to protect oil interests. There are other pretenses as well, I 
just don't believe any of the justifications are intended to solve any 
social problems here (basic supply/demand argument).


>  > Argentina may not be as large a player, but still are big enough
> > to attract the IMF/World Bank capital. Which, is a system
> > designed to suck all the wealth of a country into the pockets of
> > multi-national corps.  Gas and oil are a prime target.
>
>Well, I see just a little bit of under-supported over-simplification
>going on here...


That was why I included the link to the IMF/Worldbank Oil and Gas project 
page. Of course, if you believe that the IMF is anything but  another 
version of economic colonialism, it would take yet another thread to 
clarify the simplification. Instead, if you want more information, I would 
suggest Googling for a bit.


> > We hear the administration talk of controlling the world's oil
> > supply daily, they just use the phrase "national interest".
> > Currently every other part of the world economy is dependent on
> > oil, and they are doing their damndest to keep it that way.
>
>OK, so I'll let you in on this secret that is actually not very
>secret.  Yes, oil companies have an unhealthy interest in expanding
>or boosting their presumed importance in the big scheme of things.
>Yes, they do unfairly wield undue influence on policy.  But at the
>end of the day, people who see them as some all-controlling
>illuminati miss the pretty important point that control over
>physical commodities (and oil is just one of a bunch) is just not as
>important as most people assume.  Yes, this is counter-intuitive,
>but I would argue that it is true.  The biggest non-US oil producers
>are places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Nigeria, Indonesia, Mexico,
>Russia, Norway, the UK...pretty much *not* a list of world powers
>these days (apologies to those from Russia or the UK).  It is
>absolutely convenient for the US to ensure that there are no sudden
>changes in oil production, and very profitable for US oil companies
>that they have a "most favored industry" status in this country. But
>when petroleum one day has the kind of background importance that
>commodities like lumber or iron ore have now, we really will have
>moved on.


You are making my point here (at least as I see it). Oil is one commodity 
that lies at the foundation of our society. I cannot think of a single 
transaction in the world economy that does not rely on oil. You are 
inferring that being an oil producing country should lead to a strong 
economy. The reason that most of them are not world powers is that the 
country doesn't receive the wealth generated by their oil, it all goes 
west, with the exception of what it takes to payoff those who are 
safe-guarding it for us.

The importance of oil was apparently not lost on Roosevelt during WWII 
either (I've recently learned of this, so I won't try to pretend I know too 
much, and don't yet have complete substantiating documentation.). In any 
war, maintaining supply lines is critical. Once the allies were able to 
stop the flow of oil to the axis, it sealed their fate.

After the war, Roosevelt sought to control/influence the world's oil supply 
to allow the US to maintain its security. This became a policy focus of the 
post-war era. The Conference at Bretton Woods established the IMF, to 
promote peace through fair trade among nations. Now whether one chooses to 
believe that the intent was as stated, or as I've theorized, is irrelevant, 
because we can see the outcome. The IMF has done nothing but made cheap raw 
materials to multi-national corps, while the country receiving the 'aid' 
goes into decline.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1944/440722a.html


>US policy in the former Soviet Union has been frankly very weird for
>sometime now, but the one constant aspect has been the US preference
>for *somebody* to have lots of power (whether it's Gorbachev,
>Yeltsin, or Putin doesn't seem to have been hugely important despite
>obvious differences between these 3 leaders), just as long as that
>somebody can prevent the remainder of the former Soviet armed forces
>from being a completely rogue element, and keep some semblance of a
>lid on the spread of nuclear arms and technology throughout the
>world.

I agree, we like to have a *somebody*. It is much easier to maintain 
security if we have to deal with fewer people. It also makes it easier to 
point out an enemy. I'm afraid the lid you speak of though is a 
facade.  Depending on who's numbers you believe, Bush has actually 
decreased aid to Russia to protect its stockpiles. From what I've seen, it 
is hard to tell, as some funds are 'transferred' from other funds/depts, 
instead of being new appropriations. Will take some more digging.

Yikes, I've gone on too long, gonna have to work late tonight.



--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/