Bush just wants the oil!!!

by dubla 88 Replies latest social current

dubla

Yes, they beat rhetoric anyday

this, coming from the guy who on this very thread topic can do nothing but repeat the standard rhetoric, lol.
aa
Simon

US offers Israel billions in aid
US military aid is a fashion accessory in Tel Aviv
The US has offered $10bn (£6.4bn) to Israel, to bail it out of the worst economic crisis in its history.
Israel's Finance Ministry said the package consisted of $1bn (£640,000m) in direct military aid and $9bn in loan guarantees.
The 30-month-long Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation and the global economic slowdown have plunged the country into its third year of recession.
Israel - the biggest recipient of US aid worldwide - initially asked for $4bn (£2.5bn) in military aid and $8bn in loan guarantees.
The US will deduct from the loan guarantees any Israeli expenditure on settlement activities in Palestinian areas.
The package, which is part of President George W Bush's war budget, still needs approval by the US Congress.
Economic troubles
US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice pledged the aid to Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday.
"Rice told Netanyahu that the (Bush) administration decided to raise the amount of the guarantees by $1bn over what had been planned because the Americans were impressed by the economic plan that has been presented to the government," Israel's finance ministry said in a statement.
Israel's economy contracted by 1% in 2002 after a 0.9% fall in 2001 and the budget deficit is running at 6%, twice the forecast for 2003.
Mr Netanyahu on Monday announced government spending cuts and reductions in the public sector wage to rein in the budget deficit.
Israel already receives $3bn a year from the US, mostly as military aid.
Simon

That was from the BBC today
$1bn in direct military aid
Israel - the biggest recipient of US aid worldwide - initially asked for $4bn (£2.5bn) in military aid and $8bn in loan guarantees.
Israel already receives $3bn a year from the US, mostly as military aid
A lot of money ... and none of it genuine "Aid" as people know the term. Again, most of the money will go right back to the USA / Companies in the form of Arms sales.

Simon

http://www.wri.org/media/schmidheiny.html

Missing the Boat on Foreign Aid

WRI Perspectives

by Stephan Schmidheiny, President of the AVINA Foundation, and founder of the Business Council for Sustainable Development

February 2000

U.S. foreign aid in 1997 -- at less than one-tenth of one percent of gross domestic product -- has not only reached its lowest level ever, but is also the lowest in relation to GDP of any developed nation. I know that the citizens of the United States do not need me, or anyone else from abroad, to lecture them on how to spend their money. But, as a European observing the present debate over foreign aid in the United States, I am struck by how the debate in this country ignores an important set of American values and skills. Leaving aside the fact that it is not in the best interest of the United States to appear ever more stingy and selfish, I am struck by how easily the principal argument often raised against foreign aid can be countered, and with truly American ideas. After all, the main argument against foreign aid is not that it costs too much nor that the USA presently could not afford it. Rather, the critics argue that it encourages waste by bloated aid agencies and corrupts third-world governments. Since aid has accomplished so little, the critics claim, there is no need to continue it.

To see that foreign aid can effectively improve the lot of the world’s poorest, the United States does not have to look far. All that needs to be done is to apply to the foreign aid sector some of the same business principles that have made the United States the leading economy of the world: individual initiative, entrepreneurship, creativity, incentives -- and market rules.

Remarkably, applying these features to the world’s poorest countries does not mean one should no longer invest in foreign aid. It rather means working with different partners and applying different concepts. What —or whom -- should one focus on? Not governments, but the "civil society" growing all over the world. Millions of women and men outside of government take the initiative to play public leadership roles in improving their own livelihoods, and that of their fellow citizens, for a better future. Let's help these folks to accomplish their plans -- and, in American style, do it better, bigger, faster, broader. To this end, give them the instruments to do better work: management know-how, fundraising capacity, and access to empower their efforts.

I find it very strange that so many in the United States overlook using these principles as an instrument to shape foreign aid. After all, around the world, they are viewed as central to the U.S. way of accomplishing things. These concepts are the real reason why the United States is the leading nation in the world. The world looks up to the United States in so many areas because it pioneered the ideas of limited government and "civil society" -- ideas which, in the post Cold-War era, must clearly be the organizing principles of any successful society.

Now, at long last, many poor countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia are truly embracing the ideas of the 200-year old American Revolution. More and more people in those countries understand that it is only through their own efforts, in organizations of their own creation, that they can improve their lives and the lives of their fellow citizens. This surely is not the time to cut off the aid flow -- it is the time to redirect it. It would be a sad irony indeed if the Americans -- of all people -- turned their backs on the world-wide movement toward adoption of American principles of efficiency and accountability.

The ever-broader interest in applying business principles to not-for-profit causes has even reached the top halls of management sciences. The most recent issue of the Harvard Business Review carries an article by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer arguing for this approach. Beyond academia, there is an ever-wider understanding that, just because an organization is not-for-profit -- and just because a cause is good -- is no reason to suspend the principles of efficiency, openness and accountability. That is the lesson that needs to be applied to foreign aid.

My own work in philanthropy in Latin America has convinced me that there are dedicated individuals and groups who can use more resources. These people -- mainly involved in creating the institutions of civil society in these countries -- have innovative and effective approaches to community building, education, and nature conservation. As a business entrepreneur and philanthropist, I expect accountability and results -- and get them. In my experience, aid can help to transform societies as its supporters have always wished, provided it is directed at the right people, and accompanied by a tough-minded insistence on results.

In contrast, cutting off aid now is a rather perverse way of "rewarding" those who are finally adopting U.S. principles of governance. Having attained a measure of democracy and accountability, these countries find themselves liable for the huge loans taken out, and wasted, by the previous dictators. We in the West certainly should bear some of the responsibility for these loans. We knew the previous leaders of these countries did not represent their people, and in many cases we could suspect that much of the aid was not helping those it was intended to help. I find it hard to understand why some American politicians prefer forcing newly democratic regimes to pay off the debts of their corrupt authoritarian predecessors. Do they not understand how much this endangers the continuation of democracy in these countries?

At present, U.S. foreign aid payments are truly rather small. The 1997 total of $6.9 billion in non-military aid was about the same as the current stock market capitalization of Unicom, a Chicago-based utility company. With 16,000 employees, Unicom can boast of ranking just about in the top 350 U.S. companies. In other words, 350 U.S. companies are each worth more than what the United States is willing to provide for poor countries each year, representing the majority of world’s population.

In conclusion, employing the very same forces that made -- and make -- the United States great, the country should take a fresh look at new opportunities in co-operating with the poorer people of our world. The world’s leading nation surely wishes to be viewed as more than just the country of military might, arms sales, and business deals. There are constructive partners who, given the right resources, can help improve the lot of millions of people -- making the world a better place for all of us.

dubla

realist-
but after the fact becomes apparent its too late!!! we are talking about the lives of thousands of peope here for christ sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i said i would be willing to admit it if it becomes apparent. what does my opinion have to do with the lives of thousands of people though? this war was going to take place regardless of my views.....your logic is a bit off here. also, for it to become apparent that it was all for profit, a few things would have to take place. 1) we find no wmd anywhere in iraq, 2) saddam is never at anytime in the future solidly linked to any terrorist groups, 3) the u.s. takes and keeps control of the money generated from iraqs oil fields. as xander put it, errr, i kinda doubt those things will happen. im guessing item 1 will clear up alot of issues for everyone. i have been wrong before though, and like i said, im not above admitting it if this actually does become apparent.
aa
sf

I was sent this the other day:
'U.S. hasn't been told truth...Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. push years-old agenda'
[[ President Bush has given Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to get out of town or face war. But the reasons battle is now at hand have nothing to do with Sept. 11, 2001, even though President Bush, in pressing his case for an attack, mentioned the terrorists' attacks several times during his March 6 news conference. It's not about ties to al-Qaida because, no matter how much the Bush wants it so, no hard or even soft evidence exists to suggest an Iraq alliance with Osama bin Laden's group. And, it's not about weapons of mass destruction, either.
These have been convenient excuses for advocating the ouster of Saddam by military action. But, what is being advanced now is a policy formulated at least five years ago, before Sept. 11, 2001, before al-Qaida became a household name, before inspections resumed, before Mr. Bush was elected. And the keys to understanding the effort to get Saddam lie in oil, Israel and, if not global domination, at least global egotism that only the United States knows what's best for the world.
Let's start with some familiar justifications for war:
-- "We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power."
-- "We can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades U.N. inspections."
-- "It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard."
-- "The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
-- "We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing U.N. resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interest in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the U.N. Security Council."
These excerpts come, not from the current debate over war against Iraq, but from a letter sent to President Clinton on Jan. 26, 1998, by the Project for the New American Century (www.newamericancentury.org). Among the signers, and their current job titles:
-- Elliott Abrams, special assistant to the president and senior director for Near East and North African affairs.
-- Richard L. Armitage, deputy secretary of state.
-- John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.
-- Paula Dobriansky, undersecretary of state for global affairs.
-- Zalmay Khalilzad, White House special envoy and ambassador at large for free Iraqis.
-- Richard Perle, chairman, Defense Policy Board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon.
-- Peter W. Rodman, assistant secretary of defense, international security affairs.
-- Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense.
-- Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense.
-- Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. trade representative.
There may yet surface a legitimate reason for military action against Iraq, but, thus far, the ones being cited by the Bush administration are meant to whip up emotions and not appeal to logic.
The American public is being asked to support a devastating war against Iraq and America's sons and daughters have been placed in harm's way, not because Iraq has links to Sept. 11, 2001, or ties to al-Qaida, or weapons of mass destruction. Instead, a clique of conservatives decided more than five years ago that the toppling of Saddam should be the aim, above all, of American foreign policy and as a first step toward making their beliefs and their way of life the only relevance in the world.
As the Project for the New American Century's statement of principles, dated June 3, 1997, points out, "We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity and our principles."
In short, they alone must rule the world.
Oh, among the signers of the 1997 statement of principles are two other familiar names: Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush. ]]
sKally
Gamaliel
sf,
I really thought that website was just a bit too convenient. That it might have been set up recently to embarrass Bush and the pro-attack party. I have been cross-checking names on the site with other sites to see if anything comes up fishy.
If anyone else wants to do this, here is where the above letter is found on the site:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
So far, it all looks legitimate. It's been indexed in the search engines long enough to be legit. And it's not so terribly different in content than common newsstand magazines like "New Republic". Of course, it's also what Zinn and Chomsky have been saying all along. (Which also seems to check out completely so far, in spite of right-wing ridicule.)
I found an article in the Sunday Herald (Scotland) that discusses it: I stopped quoting when it got to Southeast Asia. ( http://www.sundayherald.com/27735 )
Gamaliel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President
By Neil Mackay
A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: '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.'
The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.
This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.
The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.
The PNAC report also:
refers to key allies such as the UK as 'the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership';
describes peace-keeping missions as 'demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations';
reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA;
says 'even should Saddam pass from the scene' bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as 'Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has';
spotlights China for 'regime change' saying 'it is time to increase the presence of American forces in southeast Asia'. This, it says, may lead to 'American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratisation in China';
etc... etc...
see http://www.sundayherald.com/27735 for the rest of it.
Edited to try to fix the bullets.
dubla

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

lol, right. as if this "blueprint" would just conveniently find its way into the medias hands. dont you think the administration would be pretty careful with a SECRET plan for "global domination"?? hilarious. i hear every day that americans are spoon-fed lies from the media, and i wonder if these same people realize that they too are being fed propaganda at every turn, and buying it hook line and sinker.
aa
sf

Gamaliel,
[ ]
Glad you enjoyed the 'meal'. Tasty, uh?
I just can't wait for 'dessert'!
sKally
Simon
ThiChi
To try and explain why things like GDP/GNP is used as a fairer measure rather than just raw number, let's use an anlogy ... suppose we took:
... the number of murders in the USA compared to other countries - it proves Americans are the most evil people in the world
... the number of robberies in the USA compared to other countries - it proves Americans are the most lawless people in the world
... the number of JWs in the USA compared to other countries - it proves Americans are the most gullible people in the world
and so on ...
Now, you would claim, quite rightly, that it was unfair taking the raw figure for these as you are a big country and are bound to have higher numbers. Instead we should take the rate per head of population.
This is exactly the same situation with aid. I would not expect Norway to give as much as the USA as the USA economy dwarfs Norways BUT in relative terms, they give a lot more.
( and who would ever have thought I would use the Norwegians as an example of how things should be done! )

Bush just wants the oil!!!

Missing the Boat on Foreign Aid

Share this