are there "soil and oil" Democrats??

[welshTerrier2]

the article below paints a clear picture of US foreign policy over the last 50 years ... the policy and its heavy dependence on foreign oil is traced all the way back to FDR immediately following WWII ...

the US has a very ugly history in the Middle East ... we propped up the oppressive Saudi Royal family to assure a flow of oil to the US ... in 1953, we toppled the democratically elected Mossadeq in Iran ... we installed the tyrannical US puppet, the Shah of Iran ... we've all seen the pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with his ally, Saddam Hussein ... the article talks about how Saddam was tricked by the US into invading Kuwait giving bush I the justification he needed to bomb Iraq and destroy Saddam's military ... and it's all been about oil and soil ... the US has bases all over the world and especially in the Middle East ... the 3 US bases in Afghanistan draw a line right along the Unical pipeline from north to south ...

it's no secret that the US economy is heavily dependent on the importing of oil ... as OPEC has grown less and less stable politically and even hostile to the US, as peak oil approaches and as massive emerging economies like China and India compete for oil, the US is faced with a potentially devastating crisis ... to say the least, US energy policy has not been pro-active ... year after year, the decisions that have been made have not been in the country's best interests ...

the influence of big oil has suppressed calls for conservation, calls for the development of alternative energy sources, calls for mileage standards in autos and calls for reduced dependence on oil imports ... the policy has served big oil at the expense of the American people ... while the oil industry continues to realize record profits, far too many Americans have failed to realize the risks the American big oil corporatocracy has created ...

and now we are fighting in Iraq ... read the history from the article cited below ... it clearly shows that we are in Iraq to establish military bases and control over Iraqi oil ...

question 1: do you believe Democrats are intentionally supporting this grab for oil?

question 2: should we be suspicious of the motives of Democrats who support the building of "permanent" bases to house US troops while they're in Iraq EVEN IF they want assurances given to the Iraqi government that we will abandon these bases when US military objectives have been met?

question 3: if you believed the US economy would collapse (and it might) if it did not "steal" foreign oil by force, intimidation, assassination, political disruption, espionage and occupation, would you support such activities?

question 4: is it acceptable to you to call for continued occupation of Iraq because we really do have an obligation to the Iraqi people EVEN IF it enables bush and his neo-con friends to accomplish their greedy objectives?

question 5: if you believe Democrats are complicit in the grab for oil, EVEN IF you believe they are doing so for nationalistic rather than commercial purposes, do those Democrats still deserve your vote and your support?

source: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1010-26.htm

The mission was never about saving America from destruction by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, was never about bringing democracy to the Middle East, was never about winning "the war against terrorists" - it was about oil and empire. The coupling of our desire for empire and the need for oil beyond domestic sources became apparent only after the extraordinary military and industrial buildup during World War II. As the war was winding down, President Roosevelt pledged the Saudi family of Arabia our protection in return for a free flow of oil from the Middle East to America. <skip>

Even if we had had an idiot in the White House, he would have known that after 13 years of photo surveys and bombing of every inch of Iraq, no WMDs could possibly have survived as a threat to our country and our "freedom."

March 19, 2003, did not begin the mission of securing for the United States the Iraqi oil fields and the land for 14 permanent military bases needed for our strategic control of the Middle East. This mission was decades long in the planning and gradual implementation. No wonder that the new, "successful" administration wanted to celebrate on the USS Lincoln the accomplishment at last of the neocon's ultra right-wing goal. Fourteen bases mean that so long as this administration is in control American troops will be stationed in Iraq. <skip>

Cindy Sheehan asked President Bush: "What is your 'noble cause'?" Cindy, the ugly answer is, "Oil and bases."

Bush admitted as much when he said that he would not bring the troops home now because we must honor our dead "by completing the mission" (italics added). In blunt terms, "Mission Accomplished" means a continuous expenditure of blood for soil and oil.

[obxhead]

1. Our Federal government is directed

by large corporations. Repugs and Dems alike. There are a few (a very small few) that fight for what truly is right. The only good I see from the dems at the moment is that they show a slight bit of compassion for the people of the US.

do you believe Democrats are intentionally supporting this grab for oil?
IMO politicians support whatever will keep them in the money and in the club. Oil co's help them so they support the oil.

[eridani]

2. Answering each in turn

question 1: do you believe Democrats are intentionally supporting this grab for oil?

Possibly, but mostly they are too wussy to come right out and say so.

question 2: should we be suspicious of the motives of Democrats who support the building of "permanent" bases to house US troops while they're in Iraq EVEN IF they want assurances given to the Iraqi government that we will abandon these bases when US military objectives have been met?

Absolutely! Reasonable people can disagree on the question of how long withdrawal will take and how it should be done, but the bottom line is NO PERMANENT BASES.

question 3: if you believed the US economy would collapse (and it might) if it did not "steal" foreign oil by force, intimidation, assassination, political disruption, espionage and occupation, would you support such activities?

Not at all. Oil is a diminishing resource that we will eventually have to learn to live without. We should be throwing every resource we have into inventing the post-oil economy instead of trying to conquer a diminishing resource base.

question 4: is it acceptable to you to call for continued occupation of Iraq because we really do have an obligation to the Iraqi people EVEN IF it enables bush and his neo-con friends to accomplish their greedy objectives?

Absolutely not. We are the main destabilizing force there. Our obligations can be adequately met with financial reparations.

question 5: if you believe Democrats are complicit in the grab for oil, EVEN IF you believe they are doing so for nationalistic rather than commercial purposes, do those Democrats still deserve your vote and your support?

NO!!

[welshTerrier2]

4. thank you !!

you saved me the trouble of writing my opinions ... you've expressed them perfectly !!

i hope some of our moderate Dems answer these questions ... i would like to believe we see things in a very similar way when we get past the labels and discuss the issues ... we'll see ...

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Answers:

1) Some, yes.
2) Yes
3) No. Honor has its price.
4) No. We can honor our obligations with money and aid, letting them sort out their own future. We broke it - we don't have to buy it, but we do owe them compensation.
5) Not necessarily, but I'll still vote for a misguided Dem before I'll vote for a well-meaning Repub.

[noahmijo]

5. "We" didn't install the Shah

The dulles brothers, two republicans spearheaded the whole movement and installed Kermit Roosevelt to head the CIA and the rest is history.

Secondly oil became a national security issue after WW II and you have to understand at that time Saudia Arabia wasn't considered the monster it is today and we didn't have bad blood with them at that time as well.

Plus given the time period alternative forms of energy were WAY off...

[TheFarseer]

6. You are hitting on something

that I was a bit afraid to bring up. A big reason we cannot leave Iraq is that oil would go crazy if we did. We might also be cut off from much of the Mid-East oil we depend on. The occupation of Iraq is like holding a wolf by the ears. You don't like it, but you don't dare let go? It's not fair to our people on the ground getting shot at but those guys in DC realize they can't let the economy tank. I wish we could have just pretended to get along with Saddam and kept the oil coming - oh and figure out something to replace it ASAP

[welshTerrier2]

7. i worry more will think as you do

i'm deeply troubled that others, maybe even a majority of Americans, may think as you do ... i really have no idea how Americans would feel if they knew the truth about what America's foreign policy has been and still is ...

i worry that we are not a nation of moral people ... i worry that many would put their own survival and the survival of the US ahead of our values and our sense of right and wrong ...

the only thing i would ask, if this is indeed the reason the Democrats are supporting Iraq, would be that the issue be put before the American people in an honest way ... i hate the thought that a policy like this with such extraordinary implications is being chosen without a national discussion ...

instead of all the lies bush tells about terrorism and WMD and building a democracy in Iraq, let's talk about America's desperate need for oil and listen to the American people ... we're supposed to be a democracy; let's stop treating our citizens like children ...

[BeFree]

11. You should be worried

Why do you think 90% of americans support more defense spending?

Face it: we peaceniks are a true minority -10%. But nearly 100% of us are in the democratic party. Instead of asking why dems are supporting Iraq invasion, why not ask why the reps are?

Why is it no republican will face the facts about America's dependence on foreign oil? At least 50% of the democrats are facing that fact, but I hear of not a single republican who will. It is not the dems who are leading us into the pit, it is the republicans that will not face the truth.

[welshTerrier2]

12. i'll tell you why ...

i accept as a given that the republicans are totally in bed with big oil ... and i don't think that's likely to change anytime soon ... we can level all the accusations against the republican party and their connection to this un-American corporatist policy we want to but it will have no effect ...

the source of power we might be able to impact is our own party ... the people we need to be talking to are Democrats ... IF some in the Democratic Party are supporting this exploitationist garbage, they need to be identified and removed from office ... and no, of course they should not be replaced by republicans ... they should be replaced by Democrats who will not support this crap ...

[BeFree]

13. No effect?

That's pretty defeatist. Downright defeatist.

The pukes are not some unknown entity. There are 50% of our neighbors and fellow countrymen. If we can't convince them of the error of their ways then all is lost.

We have impacted our party. 10% of us have leveraged that into fifty percent to our side. (Iraq invasion being one example)

All we need to do is peel of just 10% of the pukes onto our side and we have a majority.

Dems are at least willing to see the reality, it is that reality which we must inform the pukes about.

The crux of it is that the pukes are a united party. We can destroy that unity, hell we've done it to the dems, we can sure do it to the pukes, eh?

[welshTerrier2]

14. my last comment on the politics

i'd be interested to hear your responses to the questions raised in the OP if you'd care to share your thoughts ...

as for the politics, i think we have to clean-up our own house before we go talking to and changing the views of republicans ... i'm trying to build an understanding on where the Democratic Party stands on procuring oil from foreign countries by force ... if you assume all Democrats oppose this policy even if the US was in a desperate situation, i hope you're right ...

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say "Dems are at least willing to see the reality" ... are you saying that Dems understand that our foreign policy is almost exclusively built around the protection and procurement of oil sources by whatever means are necessary?

[BeFree]

15. Yes. Dems are willing

I talk to a lot of different people. Nearly all the dems at least entertain the idea that oil is the reason. Pukes, almost all, are in total denial of either peak oil, or that our military might is being used to secure our economic future.

I'll put it this way: I agree that * is working to protect America. It's just that he is going about it in the absolute wrong way. America's economy is based on cheap and abundant oil. Without it, it's history. Now, I'm not going to go into the value judgement of whether it should, or should not become history, but the fact is what America is what it is, economically, because of the way we use oil.

So yes, the leaders recognize the dependence on oil. Dems would wean us away from it. Pukes want to suck on that teat to the bitter end. The voting population does not want to be weaned.




I will reread the OP and respond.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. America is a nearly infinitely progressive and resourceful country.

I have no doubt that if all oil coming in was stopped tomorrow we would find a way to make do with our local production, and within two years would have alternate energy sources that would relieve us of the need for oil forever.

And if we could do that under duress, then why don't we go ahead a do it while we have a window of opportunity to make the transition painless?

Because we are in thrall to the oil companies, who care nothing for us, for the nation or for democracy and reason - only for their own profits. We, as a nation, can let go of the wolf's ears. It's the oil corporations that won't let go, to the detriment of us all.

[eridani]

10. True, but this would take time--

--which is why we should be working on this stuff, like, yesterday.

[paineinthearse]

8. Fantastic background and provocative questions......

nominated

[BeFree]

16. 1 thru 5

1: Some dems are, some are not. But nearly all pukes support taking the oil by force. Clinton, imo, wanted to do a deal fair and square (mostly) while * wants to steal it.

2: Should we be suspicious? Of course. But not all dems are supportive of the * policy. All pukes are.

3: would I support stealing? NO. Making a fair deal with the people who live above it? Yes.

4: continued occupation? Bring our troops home. Now. And hope the fear and hatred of us subsides.

5: should we support dems? Those dems who are caught in the catch-22 of delivering the oil to their constituents while balancing on the political parallel bars of truth and consequence deserve our understanding. Those that are pukes deserve our utmost efforts to see they are removed from leadership positions.

Our enemies are the pukes who would rather steal than deal.