Neoconservative Agenda in the Pentagon

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » February 27, 2004, 1:01 pm

Courtesy of Mokaboo on our guild messageboards, I thought I would cross post this article for discussion over here.

The article: here

Enjoy.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 27, 2004, 1:14 pm

She should be shot in the head.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » February 27, 2004, 1:38 pm

She should be shot in the head

Yes. Same goes for all those scumbags who have principles and act on them. Especially when it concerns the actions of government.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » February 27, 2004, 1:39 pm

That's irony by the way

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 27, 2004, 1:43 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:
She should be shot in the head
Yes. Same goes for all those scumbags who have principles and act on them. Especially when it concerns the actions of government.

Nah. Just people who betray the job they took. That is a job of secrecy. She is a blabbering cunt.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » February 27, 2004, 1:49 pm

I have a pretty liberal uncle that works in the Pentagon right now. I called him to ask about her and his reply, before I was even done asking the question was "she's full of shit."

He's not one to take the "party line," and he certainly wouldn't lie to me to cover up some government conspiracy. He'd tell me if he couldn't say, or as much as he could. The fact that he was so adamant about her leads me to take this with a giant grain of salt.

I don't expect that this will convince anyone else, either way, but it's enough for me to basically discredit everything she's saying.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » February 27, 2004, 1:51 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:She should be shot in the head.

you should be shot in the head.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » February 27, 2004, 2:03 pm

Pahreyia wrote:I have a pretty liberal uncle that works in the Pentagon right now. I called him to ask about her and his reply, before I was even done asking the question was "she's full of shit."

He's not one to take the "party line," and he certainly wouldn't lie to me to cover up some government conspiracy. He'd tell me if he couldn't say, or as much as he could. The fact that he was so adamant about her leads me to take this with a giant grain of salt.

I don't expect that this will convince anyone else, either way, but it's enough for me to basically discredit everything she's saying.

I suspect that her conspiracy theory line is as far from the truth as the public agenda described by Bush prior to going to war. The truth is probably some happy medium in between.

There are some interesting tidbits in the article:

The neoconservatives pride themselves on having a global vision, a long-term strategic perspective. And there were three reasons why they felt the U.S. needed to topple Saddam, put in a friendly government and occupy Iraq.

One of those reasons is that sanctions and containment were working and everybody pretty much knew it. Many companies around the world were preparing to do business with Iraq in anticipation of a lifting of sanctions. But the U.S. and the U.K. had been bombing northern and southern Iraq since 1991. So it was very unlikely that we would be in any kind of position to gain significant contracts in any post-sanctions Iraq. And those sanctions were going to be lifted soon, Saddam would still be in place, and we would get no financial benefit.

The second reason has to do with our military-basing posture in the region. We had been very dissatisfied with our relations with Saudi Arabia, particularly the restrictions on our basing. And also there was dissatisfaction from the people of Saudi Arabia. So we were looking for alternate strategic locations beyond Kuwait, beyond Qatar, to secure something we had been searching for since the days of Carter — to secure the energy lines of communication in the region. Bases in Iraq, then, were very important — that is, if you hold that is America’s role in the world. Saddam Hussein was not about to invite us in.

The last reason is the conversion, the switch Saddam Hussein made in the Food for Oil program, from the dollar to the euro. He did this, by the way, long before 9/11, in November 2000 — selling his oil for euros. The oil sales permitted in that program aren’t very much. But when the sanctions would be lifted, the sales from the country with the second largest oil reserves on the planet would have been moving to the euro.

The U.S. dollar is in a sensitive period because we are a debtor nation now. Our currency is still popular, but it’s not backed up like it used to be. If oil, a very solid commodity, is traded on the euro, that could cause massive, almost glacial, shifts in confidence in trading on the dollar. So one of the first executive orders that Bush signed in May [2003] switched trading on Iraq’s oil back to the dollar.

I suspect that buried within this is some grain of truth.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » February 27, 2004, 2:07 pm

You've got a point. That seemed like the most factual section of the whole report. I'm no economist, so I really couldn't say beyond my couple of college classes in economics what it really means for the US, but to me, that sounds like a logical conclusion.

It also sounds almost textbook, like she was reading up to help enforce her other points with a few poignant facts.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » February 27, 2004, 2:20 pm

Well as long as you're all happy to send your soldiers to die for dollars rather than to defend your nation against aggression and the threat to freedomblahblahfuckingblah then I guess there's nothing to worry about.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » February 27, 2004, 2:32 pm

Last I checked, the UK was the US' strongest supporter.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » February 27, 2004, 3:43 pm

Pahreyia wrote:Last I checked, the UK was the US' strongest supporter.

Tony Blair has done an admirable job of balancing the UK's interests in Europe with the UK's interests in the US. By siding with the US and then making friendly recommendations, he was able to have substantially more influence over what transpired then he would have by adopting the French or German approach. It did not win him many friends in the UK at the time, but it was the work of a truly masterful politician.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » February 27, 2004, 3:46 pm

Pahreyia wrote:You've got a point. That seemed like the most factual section of the whole report. I'm no economist, so I really couldn't say beyond my couple of college classes in economics what it really means for the US, but to me, that sounds like a logical conclusion.

It also sounds almost textbook, like she was reading up to help enforce her other points with a few poignant facts.

The rest of the article was essentially reverse-spin, hearsay, and "anti-neoconservative" propaganda. While there is always legitimate concern when a career analyst becomes so disillusioned with her government that she quits her job, one needs to take her personal commentary with a pinch of salt.

So, in the most long-winded way possible, I agree with you Payreia.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » February 27, 2004, 4:22 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
vn_Tanc wrote:
She should be shot in the head
Yes. Same goes for all those scumbags who have principles and act on them. Especially when it concerns the actions of government.
Nah. Just people who betray the job they took. That is a job of secrecy. She is a blabbering cunt.

So if you were working for the police, and saw other officers in an on-going investigation planting and making up evidence, in your opinion you'd just keep your trap shut? If you say yes, you're a fucking idiot.

Actually scratch that, I have to go with that option either way.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 27, 2004, 5:14 pm

Siji wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
vn_Tanc wrote:
She should be shot in the head
Yes. Same goes for all those scumbags who have principles and act on them. Especially when it concerns the actions of government.
Nah. Just people who betray the job they took. That is a job of secrecy. She is a blabbering cunt.
So if you were working for the police, and saw other officers in an on-going investigation planting and making up evidence, in your opinion you'd just keep your trap shut? If you say yes, you're a fucking idiot.

Actually scratch that, I have to go with that option either way.

If that was the case I would use the proper channels.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 27, 2004, 5:51 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:If that was the case I would use the proper channels.

What proper channel should this person have used?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » February 27, 2004, 5:59 pm

she should have lodged a complaint with her boss because that really would have gotten shit done.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 27, 2004, 6:06 pm

I was answering the question asked by Siji.

The cunt this thread is about should have quit if she can't handle it and shut the fuck up.

Example: Being a huge "A Few Good Men" fan, while I love the whole Jaffey gets the bad Lt. Colonel Nathan Jessup....He probably didn't weaken a country that day. If you don't know what I am talking about, I highly recommened you get that movie.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » February 27, 2004, 11:36 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I was answering the question asked by Siji.

The cunt this thread is about should have quit if she can't handle it and shut the fuck up.

Example: Being a huge "A Few Good Men" fan, while I love the whole Jaffey gets the bad Lt. Colonel Nathan Jessup....He probably didn't weaken a country that day. If you don't know what I am talking about, I highly recommened you get that movie.

You seem to be drifting further and further to the right with every passing day, my friend.

As a citizen of the US, the woman has a right and a solemn duty to voice her opinions and specifically to offer criticism of the people the we entrust to safeguard our freedom. Whether or not we agree with her, we should accept show her the same respect that it shown to you (not on these boards, but whatever

) when you voice yours. The fact that her opinions are less pallatable to you then someone else's is irrelevant; you just honestly strive to give them all equal weight and consideration when you listen to them.

Keep an open mind.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 28, 2004, 2:22 am

archeiron wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I was answering the question asked by Siji.

The cunt this thread is about should have quit if she can't handle it and shut the fuck up.

Example: Being a huge "A Few Good Men" fan, while I love the whole Jaffey gets the bad Lt. Colonel Nathan Jessup....He probably didn't weaken a country that day. If you don't know what I am talking about, I highly recommened you get that movie.
You seem to be drifting further and further to the right with every passing day, my friend.

As a citizen of the US, the woman has a right and a solemn duty to voice her opinions and specifically to offer criticism of the people the we entrust to safeguard our freedom. Whether or not we agree with her, we should accept show her the same respect that it shown to you (not on these boards, but whatever ) when you voice yours. The fact that her opinions are less pallatable to you then someone else's is irrelevant; you just honestly strive to give them all equal weight and consideration when you listen to them.

Keep an open mind.

Mind is open Farmer Arch. But, I also believe in structure. If you tear down all the structure you will have anarchy.

Krurk · Post by **Krurk** » February 28, 2004, 12:20 pm

Should we get some rope and run Daniel Ellsberg up the closest flagpole as well?

It's not like there is no precedent for people having to do treasonous behavior to accomplish goals because of extreme corruption.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » February 28, 2004, 1:21 pm

Who is Daniel Ellsburg?

Acies · Post by **Acies** » February 28, 2004, 3:48 pm

Daniel Ellsburg is the man who leaked info about the Pentagon Papers, which exposed the United States lies concerning the Vietnam war.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 28, 2004, 4:14 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:She should be shot in the head.

Didn't you characterize this sort of opinion as un american on another thread?...

If the administration had reason to suspect she was in violation of extant laws against treason, I'm sure she would already be "detained" somewhere....

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » February 28, 2004, 4:44 pm

Arborealus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:She should be shot in the head.
Didn't you characterize this sort of opinion as un american on another thread?...

If the administration had reason to suspect she was in violation of extant laws against treason, I'm sure she would already be "detained" somewhere....

It's only un-American if you disagree with him.

Krurk · Post by **Krurk** » March 1, 2004, 5:49 pm

A link to a recent article with Ellsberg comparing Iraq to Vietnam.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 50LHE5.DTL