http://www.iran-bulletin.org/Attack%20on%20Iran/NO%20WAR%20ON%20IRAN.htm

Nice rhetorical distortion but that is not what I’ve stated. My point is that the left like yourself downplays and obscures the role racism(Zionism) plays in policy making. What you are doing is demagogic. You want to rhetorically distort my position as “Zionism rules”. Many on the left use that strawman position to then shout “antisemitism”. My point is that the “WAR FOR OIL” slogan is being used to obscure Zionism’s (racism) role in the current Middle East policy.

The “WAR FOR OIL” slogan is being used by the a number of folks on the left to say that the economic is the major narrative. What I’ve argued is that if “WAR FOR OIL ™” was the TRUE narrative then the U.S would be focusing its vast military to secure the oil in South America.

You say: (Chavez is a threat, but not in the same why that the Middle East is.) Your statement supports my premise. The middle east is not a threat to the U.S. It is however a threat to Israeli (Zionist) hegemony.

But you choose to skip over what I said about the oil from South America and Canada. Most of it is not threatened, and where it is (Venezuela) there has been intervention. it is an oversimplification to equate US South/Latin American policies with the Middle East; just because both have oil. US’s actions against Iraq is not an anlomaly; in fact it is a long pattern (remember the nearly 1,000 bases we occupy?)And you completely overlook the fact that I have repeatedly included Israel/Zionism as playing a role in the ME region with the US (in fact a significant role in some places, but not all). There is confluence in the region between the US and Israel. But Israel is not a world power (hopefully we can agree on that).

I would suggest you understand what is meant by “peak oil”. I won’t expound here. That said, the largest reserves in the Middle East are Iraq and Iran – even though Iran is not a major exporter (relative) to the US. To say there is no peak oil coming within the next 20-30 years (with some areas already showing peak) is like saying there’s no human made global warming.

Chavez may have reserves for 200 years; but his reserves are but a pitance of the world’s demand. And besides, that’s not even the point. ME consists of Algiers, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan. This is a central hub to the world’s oil. Also, it is not simply what the US gets in terms of oil imports (as I’ve stated) from these areas, but what the US controls (vis-a-vis the rest of the world – particularly China and India).

Still, I think you refuse to understand (I suspect you can) that Latin America is not an issue – Mexico is owned by the US and it is the largest exporter of oil to the US from Latin America. Chavez is a threat, but not in the same why that the Middle East is. It is just no way near as comparable. And even at that the US just tried to overthrow him. So, the US is not sitting idly. But fortunately, the US has its hands full with other things it sees (regardless of whether you see it or not) as more pressing. I am thankful for that because, so far, Chavez has demonstrated a third (and potent) way to capitalism and I’d like it to succeed for all of our sakes.

Understand imperialism, colonialism, neocolonialism and post-colonialism and your lens to the world will be enlightened – or you can just continue with the Zionism rules narrative.

I think I have explained this enough. The reason is obvious and in fact YOU made the point yourself. The U.S. derives most of its oil from Latin America. However the U.S. is committing BILLIONS if not TRILLONS to fighting a war in the middle east.

Also you are INCORRECT about “Peak oil”. Chavez himself states that Venezuela control as much IF NOT MORE OIL than Saudi Arabia. Chavez himself stated that they have enough reserves to last for 200 YEARS! There is NO PEAK OIL! However what Venezuela has is heavy oil that is more costly to refine. Therefore he’d like a guarantee price of $50/barrel for Venezuela to maintain profitability.

THEREFORE if there is going to be a WAR FOR OIL the U.S. would commit the billion of dollars of military resources against South America. Also those that say this is about military contractors their argument is weak. Military contractors would still make money as the U.S. has privatize the military and would get paid wherever the U.S. chooses to invade. So once again the question is why is the U.S. spending its resource fighting a war in the middle east?

Zionism (racism)

Ad hominum attacks are useless and baseless to this discussion unless obscurity is your goal.

(Where is the reason to invade Venezuela? Mr Bush doesn’t care about Venezuela. He has no business pals in Venezuela.)

You are WRONG. It’s been reported that Bush has ties in Ecuador. The issue is that the U.S. has much more vital INTEREST in Latin American (South America) than it has in the Middle East yet the U.S. is committing more of her resources to that region. This has caused a major riff in among the ruling class. Apparently many on the left seem to want to obscure the role racism (Zionism) is playing in U.S. commitments in the middle east.

(Mr Bush’s friends desire the Middle East, so Mr Bush desires the Middle East. The history of mucking about there already exists.)

Thanks liquified for making my point. Many of Mr. Bush’s friends are committed Zionist (racists).

([a whole bunch of ad hominums])

Liquified, your REACTION proves my point about how many on the left (assuming that you are) are extremely REACTIONARY and try to obscure the discussion of racism in the United States and especially among the left.

On your last pionjt, I guess you haven’t been reading the left blogs if you think Zionism hasn’t been front and center.)

I’ve read several Left blogs and among the most popular ones Dissident Voice and CounterPunch are the two that tackle the topic of Zionism head on. However among the anti-war movement UFPJ split with ANSWER primarily over ANSWER’s emphasis of racism and Zionism when dealing with Middle East policy. Also Zionism in the U.S. is virtually an unmentioned topic. Once again, I bring up Petras and also Jeffrey Blankfort as having the courage to address this issue.

(My “logic” is also not the point. This is not about syllogisms, it’s about how the world, and specifically US imperialism works (or doesn’t). So, you think Israel and Zionism is the most important element in US Middle East policies. I think it’s major, but not central. But I think AIPAC/Lieberman/Zionists would agree with you.)

Let’s examine how U.S. Imperialism worked over the past 30 years. It was called “neocolonialism”. Meaning rather than fighting major wars directly it was done by proxy using corrupt locals clients and agents. You had such activities like the Schools of the Americas train locals to brutalize their citizens. Why was this approached preferred — simple because it was effective, covert and less costly to the imperial project.

The U.S has now been engaged in a major costly war in the Middle East for the past four years (with no end in sight) and how did this war advance U.S. interest? There is NO oil flowing from Iraq and Afghanistan. However the destruction of those countries infrastructure certainly benefits Israel.

One can argue that the U.S invaded Iraq because Huessian wanted to convert to the Euro. However if the U.S. maintained at best normal relation with Iraq, Huessain could have been bribed or coax to retain the dollar hegemony. However throughout the ’90′s the U.S posture towards Iraq was belligerent. Now similarly the U.S. has the same tone with Syria and Lebanon and Iran. There is NO oil in Syria and Lebanon.

Max, you have yet to back up your premise with any specifics. You argue from obscured generalities like many on the left who want to obscure Zionism(racism) role in U.S. policy.

The U.S. is spending billions each day on a war in the Middle East to destroy the infrastructure of these nations and to inhibit their economic development. Once again Petras analysis does more to tie these behavior together than “war for oil”.

I think we’re saying much the same thing. The discussions always seem to come down to 2 camps – Israeli zionist bashing those who bash Israeli zionist as if the context of world history was so mypoic.

US imperialism is deep, though the US is only a few hundred years old. She was inculcated with the Anglo-Saxon mother empire’s means, methods and ends. Zionism is but a pin point in time. While Israel is a chip off the old Western imperialist block (and its affects horrific for those indigenous peoples around it) it is really just a small bit of a chip.

Imperialist power is brutal, even when it cloaks itself in liberalism. The mob is a microcosm of how it works. The Israelis are clearly on the outside of this mob family of imperialism.

But there are greater forces at work. It is so easy to downplay oil. Oil is literally life itself for imperial capitalism. Never underestimate its importance and to what lengths it will go, not only to ensure access, but to control access (vis-a-vis China/India accesses). Never go near a hungry dog’s bone (oil). This is why Iran poses a threat (and Saddam did as well). However exaggerated, they were/are viewed as jeopardizing that bone (oil). There is nothing of value to capitalism and the mass consummer market that is not first and foremost oil. Nothing.

South America was once a cluster of colonies held by various European nations. Once they left, the Monroe doctrine was turned into a US neo-colonial manifeso. The racism of US imperialism and shakles of “free trade” kept the South slaves to US resource needs. Today’s Venezuela is a major threat to US Latin American imperialism. All propaganda about Chavez must be watched carefully. He has taken socialism down a path like no other before him. His is truly a great liberating experiment for the South. He made sure first, that democracy and worker’s democracy had roots, before he nationalized the oil. Watch him and the people of Venezuela.

The US is tied up in Afganistan and Iraq. The US has more empire problems than it can possibly handle. And with these is the possibility of a perfect storm: peak oil, collapsed economy due to war debt, and global warming Katrina storms ripping apart our coasts. Isreal is a pimple on the ass of a rat compared to these looming crises.

The history of US interventionism in South and Latin America has been plentiful and persistent for decades (overturning governments and assassinations – some failed and some successful, Contras, supporting mass murder militias, and much more).

Chavez is a special case. He has worked with and cultivated a crass-root democratic populism unlike any before him (Morales may be another example of a Bolivarian revolution). Venezuela is not Cuba, it is an experiment of workers cooperatives, and growing institutional transformation. This will not simply vanish as evidenced by Chavez’s 3 democratic wins, and return to power post-coup because hundreds of thousands of people were in the streets demanding it.

If it is not about oil, explain Somalia.

If you can.

The truth: Mr Bush’s Empire rests on 3 legs, it’s a tripod-supported world…

1) Oil
2) Defense spending
3) General govt contractor profiteering (i.e. Rummy’s Big Pharma, Cheney’s H-KBR)

Israel is not about religion or Zionism.

Zionism is a mask for militarism, for spending on defense and related services and goods.

Israel is how the USA and UK practice their defense accounting and defense spending without actually having a war ongoing elsewhere in the world.

The reason the UK put Israel where it did was to create eternal friction.

Sheesh.

Invade Venezuela.

What a fantasy.

Where is the reason to invade Venezuela? Mr Bush doesn’t care about Venezuela. He has no business pals in Venezuela.

Mr Bush’s friends desire the Middle East, so Mr Bush desires the Middle East. The history of mucking about there already exists.

I suggest you take your “political scientist” style of analysis and use it in the George Lakoff Fan Club forum, wherever that may be, wherever it is that people talk about senseless pointless factless theory that serves only to stroke the ego of he who offers that ridiculous theory.

On your last pionjt, I guess you haven’t been reading the left blogs if you think Zionism hasn’t been front and center.

My “logic” is also not the point. This is not about syllogisms, it’s about how the world, and specifically US imperialism works (or doesn’t). So, you think Israel and Zionism is the most important element in US Middle East policies. I think it’s major, but not central. But I think AIPAC/Lieberman/Zionists would agree with you.

That would appear contradictory logic. Cutting deals is clearly a much less disruptive approach than the quite uncertainty war. That is why the oil company were not in agreement with Bush’s plan. Therefore this factor cannot be easily dismissed.

(But this is really question of emphasis. We can emphasize the oil or we can emphasize US overall imperialistic policies or we can emphasis Israel influence on US policies, or we can emphasis U.S./British history in the region.)

Emphasis is important especially if that emphasis is being use to obscure an uncomfortable topic especially for the left — Zionism and racism as a factor in U.S. Policy. To restate, this very emphasis split the anti-war movement on the left. This isn’t just about “expanding markets”. What was happening in Lebanon with the Senora government before last summer was “imperialistic” using a more neoliberal /economic approach. However the total destruction of the Lebanese infrastructure was not based on “easy access to oil” but on the racist intent of rolling back years of progress whereby Lebanon struggle to rebuild their society to the dislike of Zionists.

Again if we take a look at where the U.S is committing resource, Canada and Latin America is where the U.S. obtain most of its oil so therefore logically more resource should be committed to maintain both. As we are seeing in Latin America, there is now a much greater challenge to U.S. influence there than in the Middle East.

The issue is not that the U.S. in not “in” Venezuela. Wherever there is an embassy the U.S. in “in”. The point is that resource committed to best serve U.S. “interest” has being diverted elsewhere. This is the reason why there is a riff among the ruling class over Bush’s policies. Even Reagan spent more time “securing” Latin America than he spent in the Middle East. That IS the point and why Petras’ analysis emphasizes the issues that logically ties the policy together and the conclusion ain’t “war for oil”. In other words Petras offers clarity rather than obscurity that many on the left offer.

(I think Israel and specifically Zionism is an aggressive beast in the ME region, and AIPAC/Lieberman have their sway. But US policies are not made by these snoots; they’re bit players (at best).)

The point I’m making is there is a general deemphasis among the left to deemphasize U.S. Zionism and the role it plays in determining ME policy making. This is vastly different than saying “Israel controls U.S. foreign policy” and IMO this racism plays an “irrational” role in determining ME policy that overlaps the economic role that you choose to “emphasize”. This very situation is what is creating riff within ruling circles.

I’m very familiar with Petras and understand his perspective. Whether “oil companies” favor military action, is not the point. What they desire is free and easy access. (We all know that Bush couldn’t pull this off.)

But this is really question of emphasis. We can emphasize the oil or we can emphasize US overall imperialistic policies or we can emphasis Israel influence on US policies, or we can emphasis U.S./British history in the region.

I think all (and more) play a role, Deadbeat; but the predominate one is oil. We are not in Venezuela primarily because we are in Iraq and Afganistan. While it may seem logical to simply hit every nation on earth with oil (how about Canada?) it is not where the greatest single source is. But not being “in” Venezuela, does not mean the US has not intervened – coupe, assassination, and other efforts to undo the elected leader.

“2) Why would the U.S. commit so much of its resource to this region when they derive more of their resource from Latin America.”

If you mean oil, I think I’ve provided a response. If you mean resources in general, you have to look more carefully at the total South American policies, they are uneven to be sure, but until 1998 (Chavez election) South American was under the neo-colonial yoke of the US. Many (look at the piece on NAFTA and Mexico) still are deeply oppressed by US hegemony in the South.

The empire’s policies differ depending on location and geopolitics.

I think Israel and specifically Zionism is an aggressive beast in the ME region, and AIPAC/Lieberman have their sway. But US policies are not made by these snoots; they’re bit players (at best).

I have not hit all your points, Deadbeat, and I apologize if I’ve mis-stated your postion. Hopefully I have made clear my own.

Simple, if it was about oil the U.S. would invade Venezuela. Also, if you read James Petras, the oil companies were not in favor of the war to begin with. Also in the destruction Lebanon and the belligerency directed towards Syria, , oil played no role as well.

Clearly one can say that the U.S. wants to control the oil in the region to hold Europe and Japan hostage but since the U.S. is “loosing control” in its own back yard it seems simply that the U.S. imperialistic focus seems to be “misdirected”.

(Why, specifically, do you think that Israel is in control of US Middle East foreign policy? Because Lieberman is?)

I never said that “Israel is in control of U.S. Foreign Policy”. That’s your commentary. What I am pointing out is the role Zionism (racism) plays in determining U.S. policy and the attempts by the left to alter focus away from that aspect. It is NOT all about “war for oil”. The reason I believe the left refuses to bring up the racism aspect is because that means having to DEAL WITH RACISM (ZIONISM) right here at home TODAY rather than “racism of the past”. As we have seen this very topic split and weakened the “anti-war/peace” movements on the left.

(I think there is every reason to believe that Zionist/Israel are an extension of Western imperialism)

“Western imperialism” is an antiseptic term. To apply logical analysis to the term then you come up with a number of contradictory conclusions:

1) Why would Europe support the U.S. takeover the oil they are
dependent upon.

2) Why would the U.S. commit so much of its resource to this region when they derive more of their resource from Latin America.

The question then becomes, why does the U.S. commit so much military resource to the Middle East? Clearly it is not just about “Imperial Capitalism” because Zionists won’t tolerate any economic rivals in the middle east.

IMO you can achieve a much better understand of U.S. Policy in the middle east from a “racist” lens than you can from an “economic” lens.

Clearly it is not so obvious and needs to be directly pointed out. Labeling it as “Western Imperialism” does more to dilute the issue than it does to raise awareness.

Why do you think that US need for oil is not sufficient to warrent its desire to occupy Iraq?

Why, specifically, do you think that Israel is in control of US Middle East foreign policy? Because Lieberman is?

I think there is every reason to believe that Zionist/Israel are an extenion of Western imperialism. I also, agree that Hezbollah was a pretext for destruction of Lebanon – such a brutal attack on a country, knowing that Hezbollah would not be touched by such an attack is a dead giveaway to Israel’s intent. The same is true of the use of Hamas to dominate Palestinians, and Abbas is falling right into the llittle trap (idiot and impotent that he seems to be).

But to ignore the resource that becomes ever more precious to the American way of life ( in every material and substantive way) is too put far too much in the hands of facile ideology. This is a winner take all game.