Keep Counting…..

homer donut

‘I vaguely remember hearing psychologists say that there was a preponderance of psychopaths at the top of the corporate and political worlds, could that really be true?’

  • Jon Ronson ‘The Psychopath test’

Question: How many wars has America engaged in during the twentieth century and the twenty-first century and why is this relevant to the current situation in Syria? It isn’t, but lets list the number of militarised punch ups they’ve been engaged in anyway.

  1. The Occupation of Nicaragua.
    (1912–1933)
  2. Occupation of Haiti.
    (1915–1934)
  3. Occupation of the Dominican Republic
    (1916–1924)
  4. World War I
    (1917–1918)
  5. Russian Civil War
    (1918–1920)
  6. World War II
    (1941–1945)
  7. Korean War
    (1950–1953)
  8. Lebanon Crisis
    (1958)
  9. Bay of Pigs Invasion
    (1961)
  10. Simba Rebellion
  11. (1964)
  12. Dominican Civil War
    (1965–1966)
  13. Vietnam War
    (1965–1973[a], 1975[b])
  14. Multinational Force in Lebanon
    (1982-1984)
  15. Invasion of Grenada
    (1983)
  16. Tanker War
    (1987–1988)
  17. Invasion of Panama
    (1989–1990)
  18. Gulf War
    (1990–1991)
  19. Iraqi No-Fly Zones
    (1991–2003)
  20. Somali Civil War
    (1992–1995)
  21. Intervention in Haiti
    (1994–1995)
  22. Bosnian War
    (1994–1995)
  23. Kosovo War
    (1998–1999)
  24. War in Afghanistan
    (2001–2014)
  25. War in Afghanistan
    (2015–present)

The list is as impressive and as notable as the many accolades psychopathic gang leaders award themselves. Because lets face it, when human beings within an ordered society pick fights, the way America as a military power picks its fights, our reaction as law abiding citizens is to call the police. We only look on in awe if we aspire to be like the psychopathic thug who prefers to beat his victims to a pulp, rather than choosing to engage in some intelligent peaceful discourse.

black-mass-depp-1280jpg-32cad0_1280w

Folks who consider self-control to be an indication of character, intelligence and moral integrity don’t get excited at the notion of engaging in any social interaction with folks who don’t. The bottom line? I choose like most folks not to court the association of the blood thirsty, the amoral and the plain psychopathic. Would that the government I did not vote for would choose the same.

Goodfellas_Ecigarettes_Took_Care_of_That_Thing

Granted Americans are an intelligent people and an intelligent nation, but other equally intelligent nations like Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan have been left literally in pieces after America has finished waging their wars in them. As for the morality of extensive capitalising on the destruction of other nation states, by bringing in American companies to rebuild the infrastructure, if this was happening in Africa we would cry Kalebule (corruption) very loudly.

quote-you-re-not-supposed-to-be-so-blind-with-patriotism-that-you-can-t-face-reality-wrong-is-wrong-no-malcolm-x-202667

But the whole point of these wars some would say, is to keep America safe. Well then, have all these conflicts created this result? Will the conflict in Syria create this result? The French are finding that there’s a personal cost associated with their involvement in the war in Syria that neither they nor anyone else could have anticipated. Will the Americans who inadvertently created ISIS and the British Prime Minister who wishes to partake of the ‘fun’ find any different?

Advertisements

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

community_image_1428836159

Plans to exploit Iraq’s oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world’s largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

The papers raise new questions over Britain’s involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair’s cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK’s involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as “highly inaccurate”. BP denied that it had any “strategic interest” in Iraq, while Tony Blair described “the oil conspiracy theory” as “the most absurd”.

But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.

community_image_1428836159

Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq’s enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair’s military commitment to US plans for regime change.

The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP’s behalf because the oil giant feared it was being “locked out” of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: “Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis.”

The minister then promised to “report back to the companies before Christmas” on her lobbying efforts.

The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq “post regime change”. Its minutes state: “Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity.”

After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office’s Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: “Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future… We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq.”

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had “no strategic interest” in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was “more important than anything we’ve seen for a long time”.

community_image_1428836159

BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf’s existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world’s leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take “big risks” to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.

Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq’s reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.

Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington’s main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil.

community_image_1428836159

Mr Muttitt, whose book Fuel on the Fire is published,said: “Before the war, the Government went to great lengths to insist it had no interest in Iraq’s oil. These documents provide the evidence that give the lie to those claims.

“We see that oil was in fact one of the Government’s most important strategic considerations, and it secretly colluded with oil companies to give them access to that huge prize.”

Lady Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Recently she severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya’s National Economic Development Board. Last night, BP and Shell declined to comment.

community_image_1428836159

www.fuelonthefire.com

Not about oil? what they said before the invasion

* Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP: “Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous…”

* Tony Blair, 6 February 2003: “Let me just deal with the oil thing because… the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It’s not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons…”

* BP, 12 March 2003: “We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement.”

* Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003: “It is not in my or BP’s opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil.”

* Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were ‘highly inaccurate’, adding: “We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials… We have never asked for ‘contracts’.”

blair_je_suis_460