Peanut Gallery: Disallusioned With The American Me Presence?

[Grandpa Harley]

"Perhaps they need a Clinton-like Balkan solution where territories are separated and power is shared?"

 

That is probably the most realistic solution I've seen...

[Vigile]

I think this is irrelevant.

 

I agree to a point. Where this is a relevant issue is when considering the solution for extraction. Should we trust the same group who lied to us to go there in the first place and the same group who made such a mess of things to then find a viable solution to extricate us?

[Grandpa Harley]

I think this is irrelevant.

 

I agree to a point. Where this is a relevant issue is when considering the solution for extraction. Should we trust the same group who lied to us to go there in the first place and the same group who made such a mess of things to then find a viable solution to extricate us?

 

God love you, but you're on a roll today...

[Vigile]

I do know one thing. I grow weary of those who have no suggestions and plenty of accusations.

 

I don't know. I find that critics are a necessary faction of a healthy democracy. It's not our fault someone knocked humpty off the wall. Just because we point our fingers of accusation at those who did should we then be required to also offer a solution how to put him back together again?

[Grandpa Harley]

Dammit, you're making me like you now!

[Vigile]

Dammit, you're making me like you now!

 

That's ok. My own grandfather was a bit of a curmudgeon - well, more than a bit - and he liked me to.

[Amanda]

Do ya mean like the Facts that there were No WMD's and it was a lie?

There were none found thus far, as far as I know. However, when there is a madman, recruiting any terrorists against the US and its allies... do we wait for them to get the nuclear bomb... then sit on our thumbs till we get the attack?

Or the Facts that Bin Ladin ends up had no connection to Saddam as Bin ladin considered Saddam an "Infidel", And Saddam considered Bin Ladin a religious zealot nutball. Or do you mean like the Facts that the supporters of this war would pull anything out of their ass to support their country right or wrong and ta hell with the bloodshed and ta hell with the truth?

I'll agree that Saddam was not bin Laden's first choice for his side kick, however, Saddam did embrace the fundamentalist Islamic position with fervor at one time. As for the rest of your assertions, please site your resources.

 

No, I would never support my country if I thought it was doing something wrong... like NOT defending us after 9/11. It's like, do we leave Charles Manson alone if he claims to live in his own house and did not do those murders himself? If he solicits, aids, supports, encourages those who do the actual killing and terrorizing, our courts find him culpable for the actions he chose to participate. Ditto Saddam Hussein. It seems to me, according to your philosophy, we should of just let the poor guy, Charles Manson and his ilk, alone.

I have to completely agree with the posts by Vixentrox, Niv and of course Vigle. All 3 have said it better then I could. Regardless of your long post about reasons, they are moot as it ends up it was all written based on a known lie. Posting the original lie doesn't make it right or any more noble.

That's fine with me that is your opinion, and you certainly have the right to it... even if it is different than mine. Although I have respect for every person to their right to their opinion, it would be interesting to see the resources upon which they base it.

What about the Huge fact that you keep ignoring about the hijackers AKA Terrorists coming from Saudi Arabia? What about the lack of women's rights there? What about the horrific abuse to the people there? Your double standards and head in the sand about this so called 'righteous war' are noted. The country that has one of the worst human rights records, is where most of the terrorist came from during the attack of 9/11 gets a free pass while the smaller less wealthy countries are being liberated from justice and peace by an occupying force who's propaganda states otherwise..

Please site your sources that the Saudi government is supportive of the 9/11 attacks.

My info here says this:

Bin Laden's increasingly strident criticisms of the Saudi monarchy led the government to attempt to silence him. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, "with help from a dissident member of the royal family, he managed to get out of the country under the pretext of attending an Islamic gathering in Pakistan in April 1991."[48] Hassan al-Turabi, leader of the National Islamic Front, had invited bin Laden to "transplant his whole organization to Sudan" in 1989. Bin Laden's agents had begun purchasing property in Sudan in 1990. When the Saudi government began putting pressure on him in 1991, bin Laden moved to Sudan. The Saudi government revoked his citizenship in 1994.

The desperate attempt to try to convince us all that Iraq is a terrorist hub which is the newest reason why we need to stay the course is ludicrous.

Who said that? My posts have indicated that we need a transition in strategy now. Even the current general there has suggested other tactics to secure the stability of the country from terrorism. If you think that country has a strict anti-terrorism position and is adequately restricting the terrorists' activities there, and gaurding their boundaries to protect them from such encroachment, with due respect... please site your resources.

[Amanda]

I'm in the small minority that thinks we should pull out completely.

I think if we do that now we'll have to face even larger problems down the road.

Such as and in what way?

I suspect that the result will be not only civil war but a conflict that will expand across the entire Middle East. I think that it may largely be a conflict between Arabs and Persians. It's just a suspicion.

 

Here dated 4/25/07, can give everyone a bit more of an idea what will happen in Iraq if we just put up the white flag and go home, as it says:

Referring to bin Laden, Dadullah told the Arab-language network al-Jazeera, "Praise be to God he is still alive, and we have information about him and praise be to God he orchestrates plans in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

"You may remember the martyrdom mission in Bagram which targeted a very important American official. No Afghan can reach the Bagram base.

 

"This operation was a result of his blessed planning. He's the one who planned the details of this operation and guided us and the operation was successful," Dadullah said.

 

Bagram is about 40 miles (60 kilometers) north of the capital, Kabul.

 

On March 1, Dadullah told Britain's Channel Four that his forces were poised for a spring offensive against NATO-led coalition troops in Afghanistan, and that he was maintaining a regular line of communication with bin Laden.

[Legion]

Thanks Vigile. I've grown to respect you also. So it's mutual.

 

What to do next? Man, this is an area where I have no opinion. I'm sure that surprises a few here since I'm generally so opinionated. Like you said, I agree, we have created a power vacuum and pulling up stakes will leave the ME with a level of instability that I don't think we or the world can easily live with. At a minimum, I don't think we will be able to, nor should we force a government on them the way we did Japan and Germany to a lesser extent. Perhaps they need a Clinton-like Balkan solution where territories are separated and power is shared?

Well, at least that is a suggestion. Let me try and think about its implications for a while.

 

Do you think that our efforts in Japan and Germany failed? It seems to me that these nations could now be the envy of many. I mean, I'm under the impression that these governments serve the needs of their citizens more fully now.

[Japedo]

There were none found thus far, as far as I know. However, when there is a madman, recruiting any terrorists against the US and its allies... do we wait for them to get the nuclear bomb... then sit on our thumbs till we get the attack?

 

 

Amanda, You must have your eyeballs buried in Faux Nooze. Where have you been?

 

Inspector: Iraq had no WMD before invasion

 

From the article above

 

< snip >

U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he had found no evidence that Iraq produced weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein’s weapons capability weakened, not grew, during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.

< snip >

 

Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made it clear that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, his report said.

 

 

If If's and buts were Beer & Nuts what a party we'd have going on. What gave anyone any inclination that the UN was going to lift sanctions? Typical CYA statement.

 

 

 

CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq

[Japedo]

I'll agree that Saddam was not bin Laden's first choice for his side kick, however, Saddam did embrace the fundamentalist Islamic position with fervor at one time. As for the rest of your assertions, please site your resources.

 

 

I'm astounded by your ignorance and lack of education on a war you so strongly seem to support on selected/omitted/ cherry picked facts on basic knowledge of Saddam. He was hated by surrounding Islamic states because he was not a Islamic government, Women had rights, could get educations, drive and many other things that the Islamic states detested. Osama being one that hated him most of all. And publicly denounced Saddam as an "Infidel socialist"

 

Saddam detested fanatical Islamic run countries which is why the US propped him up to begin with. I find it funny you want me to do all your learning for you, but I digress. It's clear you argue from bullet points posted on Faux and cling to those 'faux facts' as your rational reasons for supporting such an illegal occupation.

 

Saddam an Important Symbol in the Arab World

 

 

From the above article:

 

Like other secular Arab leaders, Saddam despised and feared the growing popularity of Islamic movements. He was especially leery of the Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq, whom he feared might launch an Islamic revolution like the one that took over neighboring Iran.

 

Even before Saddam's downfall, many Arabs had abandoned the movement he represented. Their secular leaders had proved to be despots, more concerned about holding on to power, enriching their cronies and crushing all efforts at democracy. Their powerful patron, arms supplier and role model, the Soviet Union, had collapsed.

 

--------------------------

 

In the eyes of many Arabs, their secular leaders had become little more than puppets of successive foreign powers, from the British colonialists to the Soviets to the American invaders.

 

Increasingly, Arabs turned to a new movement to redress their grievances: militant Islam.

 

After Saddam's defeat in the first Persian Gulf War, he tried to recast himself as a born-again Muslim, summoning the faithful to support him in his self-proclaimed jihad against Western imperialism. The pose won him little support from devout Muslims, who didn't believe that the same Saddam who had brutally crushed religious parties and routinely violated nearly every principle of Muslim life had suddenly become a defender of Islam.

 

 

 

 

No, I would never support my country if I thought it was doing something wrong... like NOT defending us after 9/11.

 

IRAQ had nothing to do with 9/11... so this statement is irrelevant. This was not a defense, it was an attack on a nation that had zero to do with 9/11. Why do you keep insisting on linking the two? Does it make your conscious feel better? Because it's certainly not the truth.

 

It's like, do we leave Charles Manson alone if he claims to live in his own house and did not do those murders himself? If he solicits, aids, supports, encourages those who do the actual killing and terrorizing, our courts find him culpable for the actions he chose to participate. Ditto Saddam Hussein. It seems to me, according to your philosophy, we should of just let the poor guy, Charles Manson and his ilk, alone.

 

 

Amanda, You Keep making hypothetical assumptions then using that to defend an already taken action. "what IF's" can be used to Justify any horrific action or genocide and what if's are not facts. America is suppose to be founded on Justice and Truth. Absolutes not some hodgepodge of what if's and might bes. Waging war and actually killing peoples on What if's is evil to the core.

 

For you to try to bootstrap my strong opposition to the war to supporting Charles Manson is bullshit in a word and far reaching the realm of reality. WTF does Charles Manson have to do with the IRAQ WAR. WTF... Was Charles Manson a world leader? Are thousands of People maimed and Murdered because Charles Manson was arrested and Charged? Charles Manson was an Individual who stood in a court of law and was charged and convicted on his soul actions WTF does this have to do with Waging a war on Foreign soil? I suppose by your own ludicrous conclusions because Mason was the ring leader all family members of the cultists (Regardless if directly or indirectly associated to, either by marriage or blood) should be killed for his crimes as well. After all they had a 'potential's of being actual Cult members too, and Might be they could have done something if not killed first!!! What a pant-load.

[Jubilant]

So much for me bowing out! LOL

 

Couldn't help but wonder then if we couldn't justify killing people in neighborhoods were gangs are prevalent because *maybe* people in those neighborhoods will eventually join a gang that terrorizes innocent people, kills innocent people in crossfire, as well as wage gang *wars* against rival gangs. Why not just kill off the whole neighborhood just to be *safe* and *ensure* that no one eventually *joins* a violent gang.

[Japedo]

So much for me bowing out! LOL

 

Couldn't help but wonder then if we couldn't justify killing people in neighborhoods were gangs are prevalent because *maybe* people in those neighborhoods will eventually join a gang that terrorizes innocent people, kills innocent people in crossfire, as well as wage gang *wars* against rival gangs. Why not just kill off the whole neighborhood just to be *safe* and *ensure* that no one eventually *joins* a violent gang.

 

 

I love when you give your opinion and become disappointed when ya bow out!! Your post is exactly what some don't realize they are saying.

[Grandpa Harley]

So much for me bowing out! LOL

 

Couldn't help but wonder then if we couldn't justify killing people here in the US without trial in neighborhoods where gangs are prevalent because *maybe* people in those neighborhoods will eventually join a gang that terrorizes innocent people, kills innocent people in crossfire, kills police, as well as wage gang *wars* against rival gangs. Why not just kill off the whole neighborhood just to be *safe* and *ensure* that no one eventually *joins* a violent gang.

to amplify what Jubliant is saying here... it reminds me of the idea of the Dark Judges, from parallel universe where it was realised that the only people who committed crime were living ones... thus, cut out the middle man and make being alive a crime punishable by death... that way you're certain you've got them all...

[Ouroboros]

I suspect that the result will be not only civil war but a conflict that will expand across the entire Middle East. I think that it may largely be a conflict between Arabs and Persians. It's just a suspicion.

Maybe that's what the terrorists wanted? From the ashes of war will some new "strong" leader take over and rule more countries.

 

Unfortunately we lit the fuse to the barrel of gun powder, and we can't make it un-lit. It doesn't matter if we stay or if we leave. Sometimes decisions and actions are made that can't be undone, regarless how much everyone wish they could be.

[Grandpa Harley]

But can anyone say WHY in the end 'The Justice League' or what ever GWB calls his patsys are really there for in the first place? They knew before anyone dropped a bomb there that there were no NBCs there... so why lie to get us into a war that they blinked at fighting in 1991. Schwartzkopf was at the gates of Baghdad... and they realised that to move forward to finish the job would unleash hell in the area since there was no one to replace Saddam that anyone outside the ME could work with. In some respects the view was he's a bloody handed dictator, but he's our bloody handed dictator... He had no love of radical Islam... hell, one of his ministers was a Catholic for crying out loud... As secular went, he wasn't bad at the deal... however, there was a cult of personality that one finds in that sort of dictatorship.

 

In 2000 GWB Bush stated unequivocally that the US would no longer be the police of the world. in 2003 he's on more Middle Eastern Adventures than Teddy Roosevelt.

 

Bush Vs Bush

[Japedo]

In 2000 GWB Bush stated unequivocally that the US would no longer be the police of the world. in 2003 he's on more Middle Eastern Adventures than Teddy Roosevelt.

 

Bush Vs Bush

 

 

Awesome Post. Funny but extremely pitiful at the same time. Just goes to show what a different mindset this country had then.

[Vigile]

However, when there is a madman, recruiting any terrorists against the US and its allies... do we wait for them to get the nuclear bomb... then sit on our thumbs till we get the attack?

 

You are like a broken record. Do you wish to wear us down by repeating the same lies over and over? Everything you just stated has been addressed as untrue multiple times in this thread, yet you continue to hold to it. Why?

[Vigile]

Do you think that our efforts in Japan and Germany failed?

 

Not at all. Iraq is a different animal. It is a society that is not ready for the type of democratic constitutional government that the more advanced cultures in Germany and Japan were. Not the least of their problems are that they don't even identify themselves as a nation, but rather with various factions.

[Vigile]

For Amanda:

 

And for the record, when Brent Scowcroft wrote this, it was widely understood to be Bush's father warning his son GW off this ill-considered war. Amanda, this letter debunks completely your theory that everyone thought that there was a link between 911 and Iraq at the time of the invasion. When the HW Bush's own security advisor pleads with the sitting president, son of the former president, I would think this would hold more sway with you than the bullshit articles you have been posting here.

 

Make sure to note the date. Also make sure to note that this was an open letter posted on The Wall Street Journal, not some liberal rag, but the bastion of conservative thought.

 

Whether you will cede to this fact or not, the letter below is a slam dunk against your "evidence." This is not a matter of differing opinions, but rather the facts vs the misinformation you have chosen to believe. If you choose to press me for more evidence, I will decline as I am not interested in wasting time educating someone who obviously has already made up their mind based on emotional appeals and other jingoisms. I will let this letter below serve as the opus against your claims that there was even a good reason to link Saddam and 911 at the time of the invasion. This letter should put that thought to rest.

 

Don't Attack Saddam

by Brent Scowcroft, August 15, 2002

 

Originally Published in the Wall Street Journal

 

Our nation is presently engaged in a debate about whether to launch a war against Iraq. Leaks of various strategies for an attack on Iraq appear with regularity. The Bush administration vows regime change, but states that no decision has been made whether, much less when, to launch an invasion.

 

It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace. He terrorizes and brutalizes his own people. He has launched war on two of his neighbors. He devotes enormous effort to rebuilding his military forces and equipping them with weapons of mass destruction. We will all be better off when he is gone.

 

That said, we need to think through this issue very carefully. We need to analyze the relationship between Iraq and our other pressing priorities -- notably the war on terrorism -- as well as the best strategy and tactics available were we to move to change the regime in Baghdad.

 

Saddam's strategic objective appears to be to dominate the Persian Gulf, to control oil from the region, or both.

 

That clearly poses a real threat to key U.S. interests. But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them.

 

He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address. Threatening to use these weapons for blackmail -- much less their actual use -- would open him and his entire regime to a devastating response by the U.S. While Saddam is thoroughly evil, he is above all a power-hungry survivor.

 

Saddam is a familiar dictatorial aggressor, with traditional goals for his aggression. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. Rather, Saddam's problem with the U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from intervening to block his aggressive designs.

 

Given Saddam's aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to remove him from power. Whether and when that point should come ought to depend on overall U.S. national security priorities. Our pre-eminent security priority -- underscored repeatedly by the president -- is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken.

 

The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it undoubtedly would be very expensive -- with serious consequences for the U.S. and global economy -- and could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.

 

Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East. Finally, if we are to achieve our strategic objectives in Iraq, a military campaign very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.

 

But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.

 

Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict -- which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve -- in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest.

 

Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region, ironically facilitating one of Saddam's strategic objectives. At a minimum, it would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists. Conversely, the more progress we make in the war on terrorism, and the more we are seen to be committed to resolving the Israel-Palestinian issue, the greater will be the international support for going after Saddam.

 

If we are truly serious about the war on terrorism, it must remain our top priority. However, should Saddam Hussein be found to be clearly implicated in the events of Sept. 11, that could make him a key counter-terrorist target, rather than a competing priority, and significantly shift world opinion toward support for regime change.

 

In any event, we should be pressing the United Nations Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection regime for Iraq -- any time, anywhere, no permission required. On this point, senior administration officials have opined that Saddam Hussein would never agree to such an inspection regime. But if he did, inspections would serve to keep him off balance and under close observation, even if all his weapons of mass destruction capabilities were not uncovered. And if he refused, his rejection could provide the persuasive casus belli which many claim we do not now have. Compelling evidence that Saddam had acquired nuclear-weapons capability could have a similar effect.

 

In sum, if we will act in full awareness of the intimate interrelationship of the key issues in the region, keeping counter-terrorism as our foremost priority, there is much potential for success across the entire range of our security interests -- including Iraq. If we reject a comprehensive perspective, however, we put at risk our campaign against terrorism as well as stability and security in a vital region of the world.

 

*Mr. Scowcroft, national security adviser under Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, is founder and president of the Forum for International Policy.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Why the War? The Kuwait Connection

by Murray N. Rothbard

This essay originally appeared in the May 1991 issue of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

 

Why, exactly, did we go to war in the Gulf? The answer remains murky, but perhaps we can find one explanation by examining the strong and ominous Kuwait Connection in our government. (I am indebted to an excellent article in an obscure New York tabloid, Downtown, by Bob Feldman, "The Kissinger Affair," March 27.) The Sabahklatura that runs the Kuwait government is immensely wealthy, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, derived from tax/"royalty" loot extracted from oil producers simply because the Sabah tribe claims "sovereignty" over that valuable chunk of desert real estate. The Sabah tribe has no legitimate claim to the oil revenue; it did nothing to homestead or mix its labor or any other resource with the crude oil.

 

It is reasonable to assume that the Sabah family stands ready to use a modest portion of that ill-gotten wealth to purchase defenders and advocates in the powerful United States. We now focus our attention on the sinister but almost universally Beloved figure of Dr. Henry Kissinger, a lifelong spokesman, counselor, and servitor of the Rockefeller World Empire. Kissinger is so Beloved, in fact, that whenever he appears on Nightline or Crossfire he appears alone, since it seems to be lese majesté (or even blasphemy) for anyone to contradict the Great One's banal and ponderous Teutonic pronouncements. Only a handful of grumblers and malcontents on the extreme right and extreme left disturb this cozy consensus.

 

In 1954, the 31-year-old Kissinger, a Harvard political scientist and admirer of Metternich, was plucked out of his academic obscurity to become lifelong foreign policy advisor to New York Governor Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller. Doctor K continued in that august role until he assumed the mastery of foreign policy throughout the Nixon and Ford administrations. In that role, Kissinger played a major part in prolonging and extending the Vietnam War, and in the mass murder of civilians entailed by the terror bombings of Vietnam, the secret bombing of Cambodia, and the invasion of Laos.

 

Since leaving office in 1977, Dr. Kissinger has continued to play a highly influential role in U.S. politics, in the U.S. media, and in the Rockefeller world empire. It was Kissinger, along with David Rockefeller, who was decisive in the disastrous decision of President Carter to admit the recently toppled Shah of Iran, old friend and ally of the Rockefellers, into the United States, a decision that led directly to the Iranian hostage crisis and to Carter's downfall. Today, Kissinger still continues to serve as a trustee of the powerful Rockefeller Brothers Fund, as a counselor to Rockefellers' Chase Manhattan Bank, and as a member of Chase's International Advisory Committee. Kissinger's media influence is evident from his having served on the board of CBS, Inc., and having been a paid consultant to both NBC News and ABC News. That takes care of all three networks.

 

But Kissinger's major, and most lucrative role, has come as head of Kissinger Associates in New York City, founded on a loan obtained in 1982 from the international banking firm of E.M. Warburg, Pincus and Company. Nominally, Kissinger Associates (KA) is an "international consulting firm" but "consultant" covers many sins, and in KA's case, this means international political influence-peddling for its two dozen or so important corporate clients. In the fullest report on KA, Leslie Gelb in the New York Times Magazine for April 20, 1986, reveals that, in that year, 25 to 30 corporations paid KA between $150,000 and $420,000 each per annum for political influence and access. As Gelb blandly puts it: "The superstar international consultants [at KA] were certainly people who would get their telephone calls returned from high American government officials and who would also be able to get executives in to see foreign leaders." I dare say a lot more than mere access could be gained thereby. KA's offices in New York and Washington are small, but they pack a powerful punch. (Is it mere coincidence that KA's Park Avenue headquarters is in the same building as the local office of Chase Manhattan Bank's subsidiary, the Commercial Bank of Kuwait?)

 

Who were these "superstar international consultants?" One of them, who in 1986 was the vice chairman of KA, is none other than General Brent Scowcroft, former national security advisor under President Ford, and, playing the exact same role under George Bush, serving as the chief architect of the Gulf War. One of the General's top clients was Kuwait's government-owned Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, who paid Scowcroft for his services at least from 1984 through 1986. In addition, Scowcroft became a director of Santa Fe International (SFI) in the early 1980s, not long after SFI was purchased by the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation in 1981. Joining Scowcroft on the SFI board was Scowcroft's old boss, Gerald Ford. One of SFI's activities is drilling oil wells in Kuwait, an operation which, of course, had to be suspended after the Iraq invasion.

 

Brent Scowcroft, it is clear, has enjoyed a long-standing and lucrative Kuwait connection. Is it a coincidence that it was Scowcroft's National Security Council presentation on August 3, 1990, which according to the New York Times (February 21) "crystallized people's thinking and galvanized support" for a "strong response" to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait?

 

Scowcroft, by the way, does not exhaust the Republican administrations' revolving door among Kissinger Associates. Another top KA official, Lawrence Eagleburger, undersecretary of state under Reagan, has returned to high office after a stint at KA as deputy secretary of state under George Bush.

 

Also vitally important at KA are the members of its board of directors. One director is T. Jefferson Cunningham III, who is also a director of the Midland Bank of Britain, which has also been a KA client. The fascinating point here is that 10.5 percent of this $4 billion bank is owned by the Kuwait government. And Kissinger, as head of KA, is of course concerned to advance the interests of his clients – which include the Midland Bank and therefore the government of Kuwait. Does this connection have anything to do with Kissinger's ultra-hawkish views on the Gulf War? In the meantime, Kissinger continues to serve on President Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which gives Kissinger not only a channel for giving advice but also gives him access to national security information which could prove useful to KA's corporate clients.

 

Another KA client is the Fluor Corporation, which has a special interest in Saudi Arabia. Shortly before the August 2 invasion, Saudi Arabia decided to launch a $30 to $40 billion project to expand oil production, and granted two huge oil contracts to the Parson and Fluor corporations. (New York Times, August 21)

 

One member of KA's board of directors is ARCO Chairman Robert O. Anderson; ARCO, also one of KA's clients, is engaged in joint oil-exploration and oil-drilling in offshore China with Santa Fe International, the subsidiary of the Kuwait government.

 

Other KA board members are William D. Rogers, undersecretary of state in the Eisenhower administration, and long-time leading Dewey-Rockefeller Republican in New York; former Citibank (Rockefeller) Chairman Edward Palmer; and Eric Lord Roll, economist and chairman of the board of the London international banking house of S.F. Warburg.

 

Perhaps the most interesting KA board member is one of the most Beloved figures in the conservative movement, William E. Simon, secretary of treasury in the Nixon and Ford administrations. When Simon left office in 1977, he became a consultant to the Bechtel Corporation, which has had the major massive construction contracts to build oil refineries and cities in Saudi Arabia. In addition, Simon became a consultant to Suliman Olayan, one of the wealthiest and most powerful businessmen in Saudi Arabia. Long a close associate of the oil-rich Saudi royal family, Olayan had served Bechtel well by getting it the multi-billion contract to build the oil city of Jubail. In 1980, furthermore, Olayan hired William Simon to be chairman of two investment firms owned jointly by himself and the influential Saudi Prince Khaled al Saud.

 

Bechtel, the Rockefellers, and the Saudi royal family have long had an intimate connection. After the Saudis granted the Rockefeller-dominated Aramco oil consortium the monopoly of oil in Saudi Arabia, the Rockefellers brought their pals at Bechtel in on the construction contracts. The Bechtel Corporation, of course, has also contributed George Shultz and Cap Weinberger to high office in Republican administrations. To complete the circle, KA director Simon's former boss Suliman Olayan was, in 1988, the largest shareholder in the Chase Manhattan Bank after David Rockefeller himself.

 

The pattern is clear. An old New Left slogan held that "you don't need a weatherman to tell you how the wind is blowing." In the same way, you don't need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to see what's going on here. All you have to do is be willing to use your eyes.

 

 

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles/www.mises.org/mnrbib.asp>. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

 

 

Copyright © 2007 Ludwig von Mises Institute

All rights reserved.

 

Murray Rothbard Archives

 

 

 

 

 

Links referenced within this article

 

Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-lib.html

DIGG THIS

http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=htt...l&title=Why the War? The Kuwait Connection&topic=political_opinion

The Rothbard-Rockwell Report

http://www.mises.org/store/Irrepressible-R...1?AFID=1?AFID=1

Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon11.html

Man, Economy, and State

http://www.mises.org/store/Man-Economy-and...1?AFID=1?AFID=1

Conceived in Liberty

http://www.mises.org/store/Conceived-in-Li...1?AFID=1?AFID=1

What Has Government Done to Our Money

http://www.mises.org/store/What-Has-Govern...1?AFID=1?AFID=1

For a New Liberty

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

The Case Against the Fed

http://www.mises.org/store/Case-Against-th...1?AFID=1?AFID=1

many other books and articles

http://www.mises.org/mnrbib.asp

The Rothbard-Rockwell Report

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/murray2.html

Murray Rothbard Archives

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-arch.html

 

Find this article at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard151.html

[Amanda]

I'm astounded by your ignorance and lack of education on a war you so strongly seem to support on selected/omitted/ cherry picked facts on basic knowledge of Saddam.

 

You are like a broken record. Do you wish to wear us down by repeating the same lies over and over? Everything you just stated has been addressed as untrue multiple times in this thread, yet you continue to hold to it. Why?

 

Doesn't it seem some care to persist in operating out of a position of disrespect for others just because they disagree with them? Why should I resort to such similar demeanor too, or allow even them the courtesy of responding to such continual abusive tactics? Such styles I see as consistently uncivil communication deserves to be ignored at some point, IMO. Why bother with those who perpetually refuse to allow someone the right to their own opinions? Although, I recognize that is only a character trait they have a right to have for themselves. Fortunately I have the right to disregard further exchange of ideas given those steadfast circumstances of impertinent offensive comments. I’ve never found persecution and ridicule of a person productive in changing someone’s mind on a position they may have.

 

Anyone who is sincerely interested in interacting in a considerate manner with mutual respect instead of reacting with insults and degradation, then I will be happy to participate open mindedly in sharing ideas and perspectives. It seems to me, those engaging in tolerant civil tactics in a discussion create the ability for it to evolve in such a manner to produce new meanings and deeper insights. If people want to ostracize me just because I have a different OPINION, there is nothing more for me to say. It seems to me what attitudes comes out of a person is an indication of who that person is, and I will allow that to speak for itself.

[Vigile]

Save the school marm speech. We're all adults here. And save the wounded ego rant. We are having a discussion about facts. I am simply calling you on ignoring the facts. If you feel we are angry with your position, then by god, you are correct. We are very angry with the fact that so many have chosen to not think but believe lies that have led to the deaths and ruined lives of so many. Had the American public stood up and refused to go along from the begining, we wouldn't be in this mess and a lot of dead people would still be alive to enjoy their lives. Your pesistance in repeating the lies that led us down this road from the begining is not endearing to me.

 

You appeal for decorum in an online debate. All the while you support a war that ruins lives and you parrot the admin's lies to justify it. This seems a little unbalanced to me. It reminds me of the old British colonialists who maintained their 5 p.m. tea rituals while directing the slaughter of the Zulus.

 

Feel free to ignore me. You already ignore the facts I presented so what's the difference?

[Grandpa Harley]

I'm astounded by your ignorance and lack of education on a war you so strongly seem to support on selected/omitted/ cherry picked facts on basic knowledge of Saddam.

 

You are like a broken record. Do you wish to wear us down by repeating the same lies over and over? Everything you just stated has been addressed as untrue multiple times in this thread, yet you continue to hold to it. Why?

 

Doesn't it seem some care to persist in operating out of a position of disrespect for others just because they disagree with them? Why should I resort to such similar demeanor too, or allow even them the courtesy of responding to such continual abusive tactics? Such styles I see as consistently uncivil communication deserves to be ignored at some point, IMO. Why bother with those who perpetually refuse to allow someone the right to their own opinions? Although, I recognize that is only a character trait they have a right to have for themselves. Fortunately I have the right to disregard further exchange of ideas given those steadfast circumstances of impertinent offensive comments. I’ve never found persecution and ridicule of a person productive in changing someone’s mind on a position they may have.

 

Anyone who is sincerely interested in interacting in a considerate manner with mutual respect instead of reacting with insults and degradation, then I will be happy to participate open mindedly in sharing ideas and perspectives. It seems to me, those engaging in tolerant civil tactics in a discussion create the ability for it to evolve in such a manner to produce new meanings and deeper insights. If people want to ostracize me just because I have a different OPINION, there is nothing more for me to say. It seems to me what attitudes comes out of a person is an indication of who that person is, and I will allow that to speak for itself.

 

Playing Jesuit once more... Repeating discredited and disproved 'facts' does one's position very little good. To then cry 'but that's my opinion' doesn't make the 'facts' any more true. You are entitled to your own opinions. However, you are not entitled to your own facts, and you don't appear to know the difference.

[Legion]

If you feel we are angry with your position, then by god, you are correct.

Strangely enough, I've recenty been looking into the nature of anger. Several sources have stated that anger is a secondary emotion. What usually precedes it is frustration, fear, or hurt. I wonder which of these might have given rise to your anger.