JFK's Foreign Policy: The Reason for his Assassination?

[Tim Carroll]

As we in the UK have discovered, having troops in Iraq has only increased terrorist attacks in our country.... Unfortunately very few American politicians have understood this. That goes for George Bush as well. Is'nt it about time that America enters the post-imperialist world?

This would appear to indicate that you are of the opinion that most of the politicians in the United States are either ignorant and/or uneducated, along with George Bush.... Or, on the other hand, it just could be that persons who make such statements, are either extremely niave [sic] of the world as it truely [sic] is, or else just somewhat left out of what long-term goals governments attempt to establish.

Ignorant and/or uneducated are not the only choices. There are other choices, such as that the administration lied to further a hidden agenda (the majority of Americans now believe precisely this). There is the possibility that legislators who voted to support the administration were supporting the Commander In Chief, only to find they were lied to. Dismissing people who consider this possibility as "extremely naive of the world as it truly is" takes us back to that old presumption about who has a monopoly on grasping "reality." To describe John Simkin as naive is truly absurd, especially when that description comes from someone who can't even spell "naive" or "truly."

As regards the "imperalist" theory: 1. That I am aware of, we are neither attempting to make Iraq the 51st State of the United States, nor or we attempting to make it a "Territory" of the United States. 2. That I am aware of, we are neither attempting to make Iraq a "dominion" or a domain of the United States, nor are we attempting to force it to become a self-governing portion of some commonwealth. 3. That I am aware of, we were not attempting to extend our "power" base into the country of Iraq, and in fact would like to get out of there and come home as soon as possible and leave it up to the Iraqi people to self-govern themselves. Since that pretty well eliminates the idea of our motives as being those old (& slightly worn out) "imperalistic" claims, it would appear that someone needs to come up with some other concept for our reasons there.

That does not eliminate the possibility of imperialistic designs. These same claims were made about Vietnam and about Cuba, after the Bay of Pigs. The U.S. has a long history of concealing its hegemonic intentions by propping up strong man dictators, like Saddam Hussein. The history of Uncle Sam's interventions in Latin America is a litany of usurpation of the rights of men.

As we in the UK have discovered, having troops in Iraq has only increased terrorist attacks in our country.

Although I have no doubt that attacks in many countries have increased as a result of the support of their governments for the anti-Saddam efforts which are being carried out in Iraq, it is hardly the "cause" of your increased attacks. The "cause" is that several of the Arab nations (including Iraq; Syria; Lebanon; Afghanistan; etc; have fostered a climate of radical elements who are bound and determined to undermine all efforts at change within their societies.

Therefore, the cause is "Terrorists". That you have become more of a target which has been hit, just may be more so due to the "liberalism" which seems to expouse, which most certainly makes one somewhat of a "sitting duck".

The Arab world has its radical elements as does the United States. Christian fundamentalist thinking is far more naked in its aggression than the Islamic variety. Anyone who has an understanding of statistical analysis can see that prosecuting a Crusades-type action, violating the sovereignty of nations and cultures, has resulted in a dramatic increase in terrorism worldwide. When the will of the people is trampled upon, there will always be a terrorist backlash. This goes back to the Essenes' insurgency against the Romans in Israel, and includes Robin Hood's insurgency against the corruption of King John, which ultimately led to the adoption of the Magna Carta.

And here I have been all along, operating under the assumption that the Iraqi people would ultimately be the ones who benefit most from this episode in world history.

It's probably difficult to appreciate the benefits being bestowed by a benevolent occupation force that utilizes White Phosphorus and Napalm against civilian populations.

And, it would not matter if Iraq did not have a "drop" of oil.

Now that is naive.

Tim Carroll

Edited November 16, 2005 by Tim Carroll

[John Dolva]

John Simkin date='Nov 15 2005, 04:29 PM' post='45372']

Several researchers believe there was a connection between JFK’s foreign policy and his assassination. Some, like myself, take the view that it was connected to his attempts to develop a more left-wing policy. Others believe that JFK was not genuine about this change of policy and that he was assassinated by left-wing forces (Soviets/Castro).

referring to a selection of posts from the Ed. Forum:

John Simkin

"Conservative historians have attempted to portray the struggle against slavery and child labour as a moral issue. In truth, it was primarily an economic issue."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=45461

Tom Carroll

"...Cuba and Vietnam were only threatened changes at the time of the assassination.

I believe the change Kennedy represented was far deeper and cultural. He had a liberal's concern for human rights which historically translates into avid support in Latin America. In contrast with the riots directed at Vice President Nixon during his visit there in the Fifties, the Kennedys received a euphoric welcome just a few short years later. Hardliners could only be chagrined by such popularity. The same is true of Kennedy's support of human rights, domestically. Kennedy brought rapid change to the Civil Rights issue during his last year."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=45405

From a post quote by me:

"Although the practice of lynching had existed since before slavery, it gained momentum during Reconstruction, when viable black towns sprang up across the South and African Americans began to make political and economic inroads by registering to vote, establishing businesses and running for public office. Many whites -- landowners and poor whites -- felt threatened by this rise in black prominence."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=39605

________________________________

After a short time of the series of student questions on a range of issues I looked at what topics appeared to be the ones of greatest interest:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=42150

________________________________

I have often noted that so called 'hip pocket issues' can take precedence over some more cerebral ideological consideration. Often it seems that when 'larger' issues are addressed there is an element of selfinterest there as well.

________________________________

With these considerations in mind I think it not unreasonable to say "domestic issues are more likely to have been a motivator for the assassination of Kennedy." And of these issues, that which presented the greatest change in circumstance for the greatest number of people in the part of USA where Kennedy was assassinated was Civil Rights. And of this broad spectrum; desegregation, voting rights, education and control over place of residence and employment were the prime destabilisers.

________________________________

The Oxford insurrection and the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission and the people involved have direct ties to persons of interest in the Cuba, Mob, FBI theatre.

Only in the last few years and even in the last few months, promising avenues for research are opening up. Old Civil Rights cases, files, testimonies etc are being focussed upon.

It would be remiss of the research community to not take advantage of these opportunities now presented. Therein, irrespective of personal theory favourites, may very well lie some pieces in the puzzle.

:::::::::::::::::::

It needs to be kept in mind that I consider the conspiracy as having multiple layers, primarily 1. Initiator/s, Banker/s 2. Leader and middle man. 3. The Lumpen or actual on the ground folk.

The above refers to that which provides the motivation for the second and third layer. The primary layer may have had some broader considerations and knew how to use the baser motivations of its 'group of patsies' (hte patsies are those that in a final analysis would be expendable in the drive to conceal the prime individual/s.

Edited November 17, 2005 by John Dolva

[Thomas H. Purvis]

As we in the UK have discovered, having troops in Iraq has only increased terrorist attacks in our country.... Unfortunately very few American politicians have understood this. That goes for George Bush as well. Is'nt it about time that America enters the post-imperialist world?

This would appear to indicate that you are of the opinion that most of the politicians in the United States are either ignorant and/or uneducated, along with George Bush.... Or, on the other hand, it just could be that persons who make such statements, are either extremely niave [sic] of the world as it truely [sic] is, or else just somewhat left out of what long-term goals governments attempt to establish.

Ignorant and/or uneducated are not the only choices. There are other choices, such as that the administration lied to further a hidden agenda (the majority of Americans now believe precisely this). There is the possibility that legislators who voted to support the administration were supporting the Commander In Chief, only to find they were lied to. Dismissing people who consider this possibility as "extremely naive of the world as it truly is" takes us back to that old presumption about who has a monopoly on grasping "reality." To describe John Simkin as naive is truly absurd, especially when that description comes from someone who can't even spell "naive" or "truly."

As regards the "imperalist" theory: 1. That I am aware of, we are neither attempting to make Iraq the 51st State of the United States, nor or we attempting to make it a "Territory" of the United States. 2. That I am aware of, we are neither attempting to make Iraq a "dominion" or a domain of the United States, nor are we attempting to force it to become a self-governing portion of some commonwealth. 3. That I am aware of, we were not attempting to extend our "power" base into the country of Iraq, and in fact would like to get out of there and come home as soon as possible and leave it up to the Iraqi people to self-govern themselves. Since that pretty well eliminates the idea of our motives as being those old (& slightly worn out) "imperalistic" claims, it would appear that someone needs to come up with some other concept for our reasons there.

That does not eliminate the possibility of imperialistic designs. These same claims were made about Vietnam and about Cuba, after the Bay of Pigs. The U.S. has a long history of concealing its hegemonic intentions by propping up strong man dictators, like Saddam Hussein. The history of Uncle Sam's interventions in Latin America is a litany of usurpation of the rights of men.

As we in the UK have discovered, having troops in Iraq has only increased terrorist attacks in our country.

Although I have no doubt that attacks in many countries have increased as a result of the support of their governments for the anti-Saddam efforts which are being carried out in Iraq, it is hardly the "cause" of your increased attacks. The "cause" is that several of the Arab nations (including Iraq; Syria; Lebanon; Afghanistan; etc; have fostered a climate of radical elements who are bound and determined to undermine all efforts at change within their societies.

Therefore, the cause is "Terrorists". That you have become more of a target which has been hit, just may be more so due to the "liberalism" which seems to expouse, which most certainly makes one somewhat of a "sitting duck".

The Arab world has its radical elements as does the United States. Christian fundamentalist thinking is far more naked in its aggression than the Islamic variety. Anyone who has an understanding of statistical analysis can see that prosecuting a Crusades-type action, violating the sovereignty of nations and cultures, has resulted in a dramatic increase in terrorism worldwide. When the will of the people is trampled upon, there will always be a terrorist backlash. This goes back to the Essenes' insurgency against the Romans in Israel, and includes Robin Hood's insurgency against the corruption of King John, which ultimately led to the adoption of the Magna Carta.

And here I have been all along, operating under the assumption that the Iraqi people would ultimately be the ones who benefit most from this episode in world history.

It's probably difficult to appreciate the benefits being bestowed by a benevolent occupation force that utilizes White Phosphorus and Napalm against civilian populations.

And, it would not matter if Iraq did not have a "drop" of oil.

Now that is naive.

Tim Carroll

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

It's probably difficult to appreciate the benefits being bestowed by a benevolent occupation force that utilizes White Phosphorus and Napalm against civilian populations.

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

No more so than Germany which was on the receiving end of massive air bombing campaigns, and especially no more so than the small island country of Japan which basically lost entire cities and thousands killed to a single bomb.

Just perhaps there are those out there who can see beyond "today & tomorrow" and therefore recognize; understrand; and appreciate, that US Strategic goals in regards to foreign countries are, not unlike the fights against racism & attempts to improve education in the US, long term goals.

Tom

P.S. Still better than aerial application of nerve agents in "ethnic cleansing" roles against one's own population.

But it is supposed that the US and everyone else should have just stayed home and taken Saddam's word that he was not going to allow terrorist cells to get their hands on any of these weapons, as well as accept his word that he was not going to attempt to utilize any of it against a neighboring country.

[Dawn Meredith]

Great posts Tim. I think Mr. "my- country- love- it or- leave- it" Purvis is in way over his head debating you.

Rock on!

Dawn

[Gerry Hemming]

As we in the UK have discovered, having troops in Iraq has only increased terrorist attacks in our country.... Unfortunately very few American politicians have understood this. That goes for George Bush as well. Is'nt it about time that America enters the post-imperialist world?

This would appear to indicate that you are of the opinion that most of the politicians in the United States are either ignorant and/or uneducated, along with George Bush.... Or, on the other hand, it just could be that persons who make such statements, are either extremely niave [sic] of the world as it truely [sic] is, or else just somewhat left out of what long-term goals governments attempt to establish.

Ignorant and/or uneducated are not the only choices. There are other choices, such as that the administration lied to further a hidden agenda (the majority of Americans now believe precisely this). There is the possibility that legislators who voted to support the administration were supporting the Commander In Chief, only to find they were lied to. Dismissing people who consider this possibility as "extremely naive of the world as it truly is" takes us back to that old presumption about who has a monopoly on grasping "reality." To describe John Simkin as naive is truly absurd, especially when that description comes from someone who can't even spell "naive" or "truly."

As regards the "imperalist" theory: 1. That I am aware of, we are neither attempting to make Iraq the 51st State of the United States, nor or we attempting to make it a "Territory" of the United States. 2. That I am aware of, we are neither attempting to make Iraq a "dominion" or a domain of the United States, nor are we attempting to force it to become a self-governing portion of some commonwealth. 3. That I am aware of, we were not attempting to extend our "power" base into the country of Iraq, and in fact would like to get out of there and come home as soon as possible and leave it up to the Iraqi people to self-govern themselves. Since that pretty well eliminates the idea of our motives as being those old (& slightly worn out) "imperalistic" claims, it would appear that someone needs to come up with some other concept for our reasons there.

That does not eliminate the possibility of imperialistic designs. These same claims were made about Vietnam and about Cuba, after the Bay of Pigs. The U.S. has a long history of concealing its hegemonic intentions by propping up strong man dictators, like Saddam Hussein. The history of Uncle Sam's interventions in Latin America is a litany of usurpation of the rights of men.

As we in the UK have discovered, having troops in Iraq has only increased terrorist attacks in our country.

Although I have no doubt that attacks in many countries have increased as a result of the support of their governments for the anti-Saddam efforts which are being carried out in Iraq, it is hardly the "cause" of your increased attacks. The "cause" is that several of the Arab nations (including Iraq; Syria; Lebanon; Afghanistan; etc; have fostered a climate of radical elements who are bound and determined to undermine all efforts at change within their societies.

Therefore, the cause is "Terrorists". That you have become more of a target which has been hit, just may be more so due to the "liberalism" which seems to expouse, which most certainly makes one somewhat of a "sitting duck".

The Arab world has its radical elements as does the United States. Christian fundamentalist thinking is far more naked in its aggression than the Islamic variety. Anyone who has an understanding of statistical analysis can see that prosecuting a Crusades-type action, violating the sovereignty of nations and cultures, has resulted in a dramatic increase in terrorism worldwide. When the will of the people is trampled upon, there will always be a terrorist backlash. This goes back to the Essenes' insurgency against the Romans in Israel, and includes Robin Hood's insurgency against the corruption of King John, which ultimately led to the adoption of the Magna Carta.

And here I have been all along, operating under the assumption that the Iraqi people would ultimately be the ones who benefit most from this episode in world history.

It's probably difficult to appreciate the benefits being bestowed by a benevolent occupation force that utilizes White Phosphorus and Napalm against civilian populations.

And, it would not matter if Iraq did not have a "drop" of oil.

Now that is naive.

Tim Carroll

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

I wouldn't hesitate to say: "Two Great Posts by Tom and Tim" !!

However, I would take umbrage in that a "book-reader" is seen to be making allegations of naivete' against a bona fide "Operator". Apparently this is the norm, and is welcomed by those large numbers of scriveners who have, for whatever reason -- failed to educate themselves as to "things" both military and historical.

Oftentimes I detect a hardline resentment and bias against those of us who might have "dabbled" on the peripheries of military and intelligence operations. That is: excepting Messrs. Jack Stockwell, Agee, Marchetti, Marks, et al, -- but then again, when even one of them strays from the party line of the "pack"; the jackals stalking their tracks are found to be most readily able and willing to pounce and go in for the kill -- and sometime the target might direct the "beastie" to a body part further south than the jugular !!

Naive ??!! No Tim, I wouldn't recklessly charge Captain Tom Purvis as being naive. But I would say that:

Both your historical and political perspectives reflect an abominable ignorance of both, especially when measured along with your ignorance of law, and its application congruent with past and current events.

We, who were "genuine" revolutionaries at a young age, were more than just chagrined at the U.S. government's apparent failures to make "Regime-Changes" which might well have eliminated a cabal of "alleged" right-wing oligarchs here in the Western Hemisphere. Just what was the political/industrial credentials and motives of these dastardly "serial-Chamberlains" of the 20th Century ??

The Democrat Party controlled the almost sequitered administrations of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, continued by Harry S. Truman, and while absolutely uninterrupted by Eisenhower; continued into JFK's and LBJ's "Liberal??" monarchial reigns.

While FDR is credited with staving off the "Red Hordes" by his introduction of "Communism/Socialism/ Progressive-ism Lite" -- some of the "Latino" revolutionaries would remind you that:

[1] The repeated "interventions", though quite legal under extant "International Laws & Norms", contributed to the murder of Caesar Augusto Sandino at the hands of Anastasio Somoza, Sr.

[i served under a couple of Marine General officers who had fought the original & only genuine Sandinistas;

but of course that didn't include the late Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC (Ret.)];

[2] The rise and continued "Democrat" support for these "Caudillos" was nothing less than aiding & abetting serial mass murderers;

[3] "Mamita Yunai" [then styled as The United Fruit Company] rose to power and dominance through financial "interventions" made by FDR bankers and other lackeys who -- excused their activities with the semi-coherent logic that: "...We are giving the masses of disease stricken and impoverished 'Indians' a new chance at grasping a modern lifestyle...and while it is disturbing that we are forced to ally ourselves with the several ruling oligarchs (and their cronies) in order to accomplish this....International Law and our own Treaties mandate our severe restrictions in these matters....!!"; and,

[4] The seemingly endless litany of "abuses" by "Democratic" administration from 1933 thru 1969 are legion !!

Once again the "feckles-focus" on "typos" ["naive & truly"] -- especially where Tim finds that his logic and "expertise" are "a'failing him" !! That some folks post while "live" and online, rather than by copy & pasting from an initial e-mail draft, which might be "spell-checked" -- this smacks of someone whose panties are knotted or has adjusted his trouser-suspenders so short as to give himself a "Wedgy" !!

"Get thee to a Law Dean" Lad -- and inquire as to the legal parameters of past, recent, and current events.

You might discover that:

The U.S. Congress ["Jointly"] has opted against the use of that section of Article 8 which "delegates" the sole authority to that body [from the several State having surrendered same "partially"] to "..Declare War and Issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal..." !! The primary reason for the Congressional resort to "Joint Resolutions" or deferring to the Presidential "Emergency War Powers Act" [which expired for Nixon during April 1973] is that: Declarations of War have severe economic negative impact against both domestic and world-wide commerce -- and can cause world-wide recessions and even depressions !!

In accord with the repeated rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court [sCOTUS] on these issue; belligerent acts, either pre-emptive, retaliatory, or defensive -- are supported by the U.N. Charter and/or our Treaties, which are termed "The Law of The Land" [regardless of whether found in the statute books of the several States]

and said paraphrased description is found generally indexed under "The Supremacy Clause" !!

Even without the U.N. Resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, or the joint resolutions by the Congress supporting "belligerent status" -- SCOTUS has held repeatedly that JUST the "funding" of said "acts of belligerency" -- has equal standing to now avoided "formal" declarations of war. Ergo, the "Boland Amendment's" use of the SCOTUS remedy for abuses; implementation of the limiting "Power of the Purse" !!

Therefore, a "State of War" has existed between the United States [and its several allies] since the unlawful invasion and occupation of the [City-State] of Kuwait. Moreover, and even despite that: several allied nations failed to involve themselves directly in the "post-armistice" belligerent operations against Iraq [and which even to this day, are in accord with the U.N. Resolutions and signed conditions of said armistice] !! The years of "No-Fly Zone" attacks/defensive measures -- and the protection of the Kurds in the north and the "Shia" in the south -- were repeatedly held to be within the norms of both U.S. and International Law.

The resumption of belligerent military operations [viz: "The now snivel & whined illegal invasion"] was well within the strictures agreed to by ALL belligerent parties who sat inside that tent, the coalition of allies and the representatives of a cowardly Saddam who opted to hide instead in one of his Baghdad palaces !!

As for the 20th Century. Do we today hear from the Japanese or German peoples that they were conquered and thereafter enslaved and exploited !! NO !! And this, even after the deaths of a half million American men and women, not to mention the losses of the other allied combatants. But then again, I am wont to hear from "the usual progressives' (read Dzerzinski influenced Trotskiyists) that: "..Oh them...they must be either massively brainwashed or closet Shintoist followers of the "Code of Bushido" -- or worse, progeny of the 3rd Reich NAZI ["National SOCIALIST"] remnants speaking from a "Op Paperclip" or "Vatican assisted Rat-line" resort in the mountains far and away ??!!

'Nuff said for now, "L.S.M.F.T." [a potty-mouth rendition of WWII green-packaged Lucky Strike cigarettes].

In simper terms -- my finger is tired !!

GPH

______________________

[Tim Carroll]

And, it would not matter if Iraq did not have a "drop" of oil.

Now that is naive.

However, I would take umbrage in that a "book-reader" is seen to be making allegations of naivete' against a bona fide "Operator".

Tom Purvis raised the issue of naivete, directing his comment to John Simkin. I did and do find the following statement to be naive, regardless of who claims some "Operator" status: "And, it would not matter if Iraq did not have a "drop" of oil." If Gerry disagrees, let him stop bloviating long enough to articulate why the U.S. involvement "would not matter if Iraq did not have a 'drop' of oil."

Tim Carroll

[Gerry Hemming]

And, it would not matter if Iraq did not have a "drop" of oil.

Now that is naive.

However, I would take umbrage in that a "book-reader" is seen to be making allegations of naivete' against a bona fide "Operator".

Tom Purvis raised the issue of naivete, directing his comment to John Simkin. I did and do find the following statement to be naive, regardless of who claims some "Operator" status: "And, it would not matter if Iraq did not have a "drop" of oil." If Gerry disagrees, let him stop bloviating long enough to articulate why the U.S. involvement "would not matter if Iraq did not have a 'drop' of oil."

Tim Carroll

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

Kuwait had and still has "many" drops of oil, and yet today can you show me where either the MIC or the U.S. "Gummint" gained advantage by our investment of blood there ??!!

Iraq's reserves are estimated to be several times larger than the Suadi's, yet we have invested billions -- but no returns as these buck$ were donations and NOT loans. Can you know the MIC or Petro-Cartel which has "Dibs" on any future Iraq oil ??!! However, one thing is being assure [again by blood & treasure] that said reserves will NOT fall under the control of the "Islama-Kazes" and their 600+ year continous crusade for a worldwide "Caliphate [as continued by Saladin -- real name Salah el-Dhin"] ??!!

How much oild did Somalia have when we went there to feed the starving "Skinnies" [Thanks Ted Koppel and ABC/TV] -- more blood & treasure. Please tell me you actually read or saw the movie "Blackhawk Down" ??!!

How much oil in Liberia, Haiti, the Tsunami devastated areas, Kashmir, Nicaragua [earthquake], Guatemala [earthquake], Honduras [1974 Hurricane Fifi], The Levant [1958 - 1980s], Peru [1970 earthquake], support for the Ibos of Biafra - 1969], and on and ON ??!!

GPH

___________________________

[Tim Carroll]

Kuwait had and still has "many" drops of oil, and yet today can you show me where either the MIC or the U.S. "Gummint" gained advantage by our investment of blood there ??!! Iraq's reserves are estimated to be several times larger than the Suadi's, yet we have invested billions -- but no returns as these buck$ were donations and NOT loans. Can you know the MIC or Petro-Cartel which has "Dibs" on any future Iraq oil ??!! However, one thing is being assure [again by blood & treasure] that said reserves will NOT fall under the control of the "Islama-Kazes" and their 600+ year continous crusade for a worldwide "Caliphate [as continued by Saladin -- real name Salah el-Dhin"] ??!!

So is the above arguing that the war is about oil or not? Even if one gives the benefit of the doubt that the U.S. has no proprietary interest in the oil, which would be like saying the U.S. didn't represent United Fruit's farming interests in Latin America, there is still Gerry's admission that the war is intended to "assure that said reserves will not fall under the control" of Islamic radicals. But now, given that we were played by Chalabi and Iran to do their bidding and that we now represent the very same pro-Iranian Shiite faction in Iraq which we are seeking to keep from control, the law of unintended consequences has taken effect.

Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil. President Bush's Cabinet agreed that Iraq was a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East and because this is was an unacceptable risk to the U.S., military intervention was necessary. The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the U.N. weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the U.S. government claims to be the true motives for war. The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have now reached record levels with no windfall profits taxes, no investigation of wartime profiteering and no review of the no-bid Halliburton contracts.

How much oil did Somalia have when we went there to feed the starving "Skinnies" [Thanks Ted Koppel and ABC/TV] -- more blood & treasure. Please tell me you actually read or saw the movie "Blackhawk Down" ??!! How much oil in Liberia, Haiti, the Tsunami devastated areas, Kashmir, Nicaragua [earthquake], Guatemala [earthquake], Honduras [1974 Hurricane Fifi], The Levant [1958 - 1980s], Peru [1970 earthquake], support for the Ibos of Biafra - 1969], and on and ON ??!!??!!

Why are we invoking international aid situations in the context of the War in Iraq? In those circumstances, it is a matter of record that the U.S. contributes less per capita than any other industrialized nation. Bush did not invade Iraq because of any human tragedy. It's amazing to see Nicaragua listed, even with the "earthquake" qualifier. It's a good example of the U.S.' legacy of intervention in countries that do not conform to U.S. dictates. Perhaps I'm being overly skeptical in not believing that our interventions are generated by benevolence, but I've been to Nicaragua, and know that on balance, our contribution to that country was an atrocity.

Finally, not that it matters, but I have not read or seen the movie "Blackhawk Down." I have seen, and continue to enjoy Three Days Of The Condor, which involved war plans in the Middle East to secure the oil, the main character of which was a "book-reader" (like most members of this forum).

Tim Carroll

Edited November 21, 2005 by Tim Carroll

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Kuwait had and still has "many" drops of oil, and yet today can you show me where either the MIC or the U.S. "Gummint" gained advantage by our investment of blood there ??!! Iraq's reserves are estimated to be several times larger than the Suadi's, yet we have invested billions -- but no returns as these buck$ were donations and NOT loans. Can you know the MIC or Petro-Cartel which has "Dibs" on any future Iraq oil ??!! However, one thing is being assure [again by blood & treasure] that said reserves will NOT fall under the control of the "Islama-Kazes" and their 600+ year continous crusade for a worldwide "Caliphate [as continued by Saladin -- real name Salah el-Dhin"] ??!!

So is the above arguing that the war is about oil or not? Even if one gives the benefit of the doubt that the U.S. has no proprietary interest in the oil, which would be like saying the U.S. didn't represent United Fruit's farming interests in Latin America, there is still Gerry's admission that the war is intended to "assure that said reserves will not fall under the control" of Islamic radicals. But now, given that we were played by Chalabi and Iran to do their bidding and that we now represent the very same pro-Iranian Shiite faction in Iraq which we are seeking to keep from control, the law of unintended consequences has taken effect.

Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil. President Bush's Cabinet agreed that Iraq was a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East and because this is was an unacceptable risk to the U.S., military intervention was necessary. The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the U.N. weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the U.S. government claims to be the true motives for war. The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have now reached record levels with no windfall profits taxes, no investigation of wartime profiteering and no review of the no-bid Halliburton contracts.

How much oil did Somalia have when we went there to feed the starving "Skinnies" [Thanks Ted Koppel and ABC/TV] -- more blood & treasure. Please tell me you actually read or saw the movie "Blackhawk Down" ??!! How much oil in Liberia, Haiti, the Tsunami devastated areas, Kashmir, Nicaragua [earthquake], Guatemala [earthquake], Honduras [1974 Hurricane Fifi], The Levant [1958 - 1980s], Peru [1970 earthquake], support for the Ibos of Biafra - 1969], and on and ON ??!!??!!

Why are we invoking international aid situations in the context of the War in Iraq? In those circumstances, it is a matter of record that the U.S. contributes less per capita than any other industrialized nation. Bush did not invade Iraq because of any human tragedy. It's amazing to see Nicaragua listed, even with the "earthquake" qualifier. It's a good example of the U.S.' legacy of intervention in countries that do not conform to U.S. dictates. Perhaps I'm being overly skeptical in not believing that our interventions are generated by benevolence, but I've been to Nicaragua, and know that on balance, our contribution to that country was an atrocity.

Finally, not that it matters, but I have not read or seen the movie "Blackhawk Down." I have seen, and continue to enjoy Three Days Of The Condor, which involved war plans in the Middle East to secure the oil, the main character of which was a "book-reader" (like most members of this forum).

Tim Carroll

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

President Bush's Cabinet agreed that Iraq was a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets

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

And therefore, it was and is quite irrelevant as to whether Iraq had a "drop" of oil or not.

In event any foreign power demonstrated a history of continued actions which could disrupt the world supply of oil, thereby disrupting world economies, then rest assured the US as well as the remainder of the industrialized nations of the world would act accordingly.

Irrelevant as to whether the aggressor nation actually was an oil producing country or not.

Anyone who fails to grasp this aspect of world economics, certainly should remain in the "para-legal" &/or "legal" field and avoid any discussins which border on the effects of aggressor nations upon the world economy as well as the individual national economy of the other nations of the industrialized world.

Tom

P.S. For Gerry! As you no doubt recall, reading, and reading comprehension are two entirely different aspects of the learning process.

One could, if they so desired (& could read), obviously establish the "Guiness Record" for number of books read.

However, since there is little doubt that you, as well as I, have at times been "led" by some of the "educated idiots", perhaps we have a somewhat firmer grasp on the fact that "learning" and "application of learning" are two completely separate aspects of the education process.

Anyone out there who desires a Surgeon who has never completed a surgical residency?

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

My old view of kennedy (before reading Deep Politics, Man who knew too much, and new Mellen book: I thought he was just as cold war as any other president if not more so (Missile gap, 1960) so I rejected as naive the "Oliver Stone type" argument that Kennedy would have ended Vietnma war.

I mention the above only because I THINK IT IS TYPICAL OF U.S. 'STRUCTURALIST' LEFT of today e.g. Chomsky.

By the way John, I think this might tie in somewhat with an earlier thread you started on the question WHY HAVE ACADEMIC HISTORIANS NEGLECTED THE ASSASINATION SO RELIGIOUSLY. In other words, Chomsky, Cockburn, et al. can simply say "those naive conspiracy theorists think that a change of just one man can change history, dont they know about classes etc. etc."

Hence leftists reject what they see as a false dichotomy between the Dr. StrangeLeMays in the Joint Chiefs

of Staff on the one hand and Kennedy the peace option on the other.

Perhaps the Left rejects this dichotomy all the more, as I did until recently, because of the way history has cast Kennedy as the "father of special forces" approach, (as opposed to a purely militrary ground war strategy). Where were the first two test cases of the speical forces--by which I mean political-military approach, as opposed to just military)? El Salvadore, and Guatemala. Many who traced the roots

of the Death Squads in central america, traced them back to Kennedy's creation of the Special Forces. (See David McMichael Zed books on this topic) THINKING OF KENNEDY AS THE SOWER OF DEATH SQUAD SEEDS MAY BE UNFAIR AND MAY HAVE LEAD MANY IN THE ACADEMIC LEFT TO THEIR OWN FALSE DICHOTOMY:

Kennedy as the opposite of detante.

MY NEW VIEW: Based on new reading about Vietnam, I think that possible mini-detantes with Vietnam and Cuba were quite a possibility. The very essence of Kennedys Special Forces was seeing a confilict as at least as much political as military. Already By 1963, Kennedy could see that politically the U.S. was losing popular support very rapidly in the South. Kennedy the cold war political pragmatist could well have judged

'these groundwars wont work becaseu even a tank cant maneuver in political quicksand. ' Hence the very

special-forces orientation that so alienated todays left may have made peace in Vietnam an Cuba seem an utterly pragmatic choice in 1963.

Now throw in Bobby Kennedys New Orleans Scheming with the Special Group. How easy it is for the left to

reject the idea that Kennedy may have been persuing detante by screaming"SEE HIS OWN BROTHER WAS scheming to kill Castro"

But think about it. I963. The whole world had recently faced the ultimate fear. The political spectrum a recently as 1960 allowed for right and further right in foreign policy. Given this context, IF YOU WERE A PRESIDENT ATTEMPTING A MAJOR TURN IN FOREIGN POLICY, or for that one even a smaller turn on pragmatic grounds, wouldn't you want to protect your right flank, given how powerfull the right was in the military and the media. I think Joan Mellen describes this two track policy toward Cuba quite sucintly and plausibly.

Sorry if a bit wordy here. I was really trying to answer two questions: my own view-- YES HE WAS HEADED FOR SOME SORT OF DETANTE-- and also why so many think that he was not. I think that in some ways this is related to ways in which the assasination is framed as 'conspiracy theory--low-status-knowledge'.

This- anti-ground war -thats- already- politically- too late- approach of Kennedys may have SEEMED IN 1963 to be communism itself to the Lemays school of birthing wars.

1950, 1962, 2002. Years in which the U.S media had created such an intense climate of fear that there was almost no discernable difference in foreign policy rhetoric emanating between the two "(false)opposite" parties. Effect: If your going to try something new youd better cover your arse.

[Tim Carroll]

President Bush's Cabinet agreed that Iraq was a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets. And therefore, it was and is quite irrelevant as to whether Iraq had a "drop" of oil or not.... Irrelevant as to whether the aggressor nation actually was an oil producing country or not. Anyone who fails to grasp this aspect of world economics, certainly should remain in the "para-legal" &/or "legal" field and avoid any discussins which border on the effects of aggressor nations upon the world economy as well as the individual national economy of the other nations of the industrialized world.... Anyone out there who desires a Surgeon who has never completed a surgical residency?

Could Iraq be a destabilizing influence in the region without being a significant oil-producing nation? I take exception to Purvis' declaration that I "should remain in the 'para-legal' &/or 'legal' field and avoid any discussins [sic] which border on the effects of aggressor nations...." I notice that Purvis excluded my Masters Degree in International Relations, not that it is relevant to participation here. I don't question his right to post here, but I certainly don't agree that being a soldier qualifies one, metaphorically, as a surgeon in the operations of history and political science. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers understood these human attitudes and implemented a civilian-controlled military.

Tim

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Tim Carroll' date='Nov 18 2005, 03:22 AM' post='45592']

President Bush's Cabinet agreed that Iraq was a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets. And therefore, it was and is quite irrelevant as to whether Iraq had a "drop" of oil or not.... Irrelevant as to whether the aggressor nation actually was an oil producing country or not. Anyone who fails to grasp this aspect of world economics, certainly should remain in the "para-legal" &/or "legal" field and avoid any discussins which border on the effects of aggressor nations upon the world economy as well as the individual national economy of the other nations of the industrialized world.... Anyone out there who desires a Surgeon who has never completed a surgical residency?

Could Iraq be a destabilizing influence in the region without being a significant oil-producing nation? I take exception to Purvis' declaration that I "should remain in the 'para-legal' &/or 'legal' field and avoid any discussins [sic] which border on the effects of aggressor nations...." I notice that Purvis excluded my Masters Degree in International Relations, not that it is relevant to participation here. I don't question his right to post here, but I certainly don't agree that being a soldier qualifies one, metaphorically, as a surgeon in the operations of history and political science. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers understood these human attitudes and implemented a civilian-controlled military.

Tim

Problem is when seeking to debate a lone nutter, all you are ever going to encounter is an attack on your "credentials". These nuts ignore and distort the evidence, so a balanced debate is virtually impossible. The Purv will ignore your Masters degree and your serious study into this case, while Hemming will attempt to dismiss you as merely a "book reader", as if that somehow makes your studied opinions any less valuable.

I give you credit for trying to debate in such a vacuum of logic.

Dawn

[Thomas H. Purvis]

[quote name='Tim Carroll' date='Nov 18 2005, 03:22 AM' post='45592']

President Bush's Cabinet agreed that Iraq was a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets. And therefore, it was and is quite irrelevant as to whether Iraq had a "drop" of oil or not.... Irrelevant as to whether the aggressor nation actually was an oil producing country or not. Anyone who fails to grasp this aspect of world economics, certainly should remain in the "para-legal" &/or "legal" field and avoid any discussins which border on the effects of aggressor nations upon the world economy as well as the individual national economy of the other nations of the industrialized world.... Anyone out there who desires a Surgeon who has never completed a surgical residency?

Could Iraq be a destabilizing influence in the region without being a significant oil-producing nation? I take exception to Purvis' declaration that I "should remain in the 'para-legal' &/or 'legal' field and avoid any discussins [sic] which border on the effects of aggressor nations...." I notice that Purvis excluded my Masters Degree in International Relations, not that it is relevant to participation here. I don't question his right to post here, but I certainly don't agree that being a soldier qualifies one, metaphorically, as a surgeon in the operations of history and political science. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers understood these human attitudes and implemented a civilian-controlled military.

Tim

Problem is when seeking to debate a lone nutter, all you are ever going to encounter is an attack on your "credentials". These nuts ignore and distort the evidence, so a balanced debate is virtually impossible. The Purv will ignore your Masters degree and your serious study into this case, while Hemming will attempt to dismiss you as merely a "book reader", as if that somehow makes your studied opinions any less valuable.

I give you credit for trying to debate in such a vacuum of logic.

Dawn

One would of course expect such a response from someone who has apparantly fully fallen for and accepted the gospel according to "Jim Garrison".

When those with "poli-science/international relations" and/or Law degrees began to tell me how covert opns are structured and executed, by nature, I frequently get a good laugh.

And rest asured, any "serious study" would ultimately reveal that there was only a single "Lone Assassin".

Of course, I, as well as no doubt many more, thoroughly enjoy sitting back and observing those of you with all of this "education" in covert opns, chase your own tale.

It is even more enjoyable when one potentially has some insight into how you began to chase that tail to begin with.

Rest assured, it does nothing to enhance my faith in the ultimate capabilities of the human species.

[Tim Carroll]

When those with "poli-science/international relations" and/or Law degrees began to tell me how covert opns are structured and executed, by nature, I frequently get a good laugh. And rest asured, any "serious study" would ultimately reveal that there was only a single "Lone Assassin".

Since Purvis has made my credentials an issue, perhaps he should get his facts straight before he laughs too quickly or smugly. Any reading of this thread will show that I have not presumed to tell him anything about "how covert opns are structured and executed." I do presume to discuss policymaking and history.

Tim Carroll

[Mark Knight]

WAR!

[Good-gawd, Y'all]

WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

Evidently, waging war is the only method for waging peace, if I understand the arguments being put forth on this thread. The only way to ensure that our officers can keep their troops alive is to take troops to a combat zone and kill a few of 'em, if I follow the Orwellian logic, i.e., "war is peace." And despite all the combat exercises we've spent billions of dollars on, it's all money down a rathole compared with having actual American sons and daughters sent home in a flag-draped box.

Do I understand you correctly?

So...what's the rate of return on every life lost? One good lieutenant made? Two lives for a set of Captain's bars? How many for a "full-bird" Colonel? Maybe I'm too close to things, having my 25-year-old only son in the Army Reserve and living just a few miles as the crow flies from Ft. Knox. I never realized that all those millions and millions of dollars we've spent training troops at Knox is ultimately worthless, that only TRUE combat can prepare our officers. If that's really the case, then as a taxpayer I'VE BEEN SCREWED, AND I WANT MY MONEY BACK!

Or did I misunderstand you?

Edited November 18, 2005 by Mark Knight